White Nationalism

[Hadoblado]

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/

I just randomly ended up on this site after an awry google search. Is there any good side to White Nationalism? I don't really understand how someone could be so venomously ignorant. Am I missing something? Is there some redeeming quality to these views that make them worth holding?

On a side note, this shit is ripe for a troll stroll.

 

[Cognisant]

I don't really understand how someone could be so venomously ignorant.

There's a word for it:

Spoiler

Human

 

[walfin]

I just randomly ended up on this site after an awry google search.

What were the keywords?

 

[GodOfOrder]

Is there any good side to any race based nationalism, or nationalism in general?

No absolutely not. They are a bunch of collectivist morons operating on the most arbitrary forms of distinction, such that they make their collective judgements based on nothing. They are idiots.

 

[Chad]

Any rationality based off hate for some other group or all other groups is bound to carry a great deal of Ideological lunacy. There is not dominate race, color, Theology, or gender therefore to proclaim yourself above all others is lunacy. To declare self different is the best you can do.

I try the stay away for hater as they generally upset me and I don't care for the unneeded emotional state. I can't change them so I just ignore them.

 

[Starswirl]

"Storm Front"?

Wait, did they name themselves after the equally racist, nationalist, anti-government guys from Skyrim?

 

[Duxwing]

"Storm Front"?

Wait, did they name themselves after the equally racist, nationalist, anti-government guys from Skyrim?

They're older than Skyrim; ergo, the fictional faction might be named after the real one.

-Duxwing

 

[joal0503]

this video is a goodie.

Hitchens (a youthful version) Vs. White Nationalist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7R-X1CXiI8

 

[Hadoblado]

I'll watch it later, I got me some stuff to do

 

[h0bby1]

those stuff of nationalism or racism never come from a pure rational standpoint, at best it can be based on some form of metaphysics, but even metaphystic is mostly a branch of empiricism, and do not take origin in pure rational reasoning

mostly it take root in crowd psychology, who more tend to erase individuality, and restricti intellectual thinking, in sort that people come back to a more basic or unconscious part of their psyche, even if there can be a drastic difference between a mathematician and ordinary person on intellectual stand point, regarding character there is often very few difference, and nationalism tend to take root more in this crowd psychology who bring people back to their more basic level of psyche in which they find some sort of commonality , from which often stem all the question of origin, racism, and nationalism

in freudian term, the engine of the intelectualisation is not purely rational, but more rationalisation of some unconscious or subconscious dynamic , that can be equated with instinctive, as opposed to aquired by the mean of education, and closer to what jung would call the 'collective unconscious' , and is more some form of intellectual justification for some behavior rooted in subconscious dynamic

it's why you often find this kind of ideology close to some form of naturalism, paganism, about 'human nature', often with a big root into esoterism and mystical stuff that they sometime want to show as religious or christian to give some kind of leigimity to something that is not much more than neurosis

 

[h0bby1]

if you look at the thread in the philosophy-ideology thing, you can see it's always more on the form to 'justify' the premise about anti semitism, rather than the premise being really funded by rational reasoning, it's completly the opposite of any kind of sane theory making, the very basis of the ideology is not questionned, just trying to find argument to justify the base idea, it's hypocrit as hell, the origin of this kind of idea are never rational =)

but yeah it's concerning how people can be so intelectuall dishonnest with their method of reasoning, and seem to have hard time to pull out of the most basic layer of their psyche in crowd dynamic, if you take each one of the them independantly, you can reason them more easily, the intelectual part is not really what motivate them to join such kind of motion, if they would just take a step back from group thinking and really analysis the whole thing really rationally with true ciritical thinking, it's easy to see how it doesn't stand, and it's more they find the intelectual thing to find a sort of justificatiion for their behavior, rather than determining their behavior from independant critical thinking

the whole psychological dynamic of fascist group can be interesting in itself, they used that a massively during the 30's , to make people join some kind of group and becoming active in a controlled manner , using psychological trigger and subconscious dynamic , it's more on the line of manipulating people insecurities and lower layer of psychology rather than really argument that are on line of dialectic and true education as to form people critical thinking =)

 

[Vrecknidj]

Is there some redeeming quality to these views that make them worth holding?

Nope. However, like the Westboro Baptist freaks, they provide reasonable people with a sense of humor an endless stream of material.

 

[Hadoblado]

The crazy thing is that they attempt to appear reasonable. Normally race hate individual come off as very crude. They have language rules for the site and everything.

I actually found some of the more witty slurs funny. "Nigress" XD

 

[walfin]

The crazy thing is that they attempt to appear reasonable. Normally race hate individual come off as very crude. They have language rules for the site and everything.

I actually found some of the more witty slurs funny. "Nigress" XD

Crudity aside, I suggest that if you are white, think about whether a black/Asian nationalist site which calls whites the scum of the earth would have any redeeming qualities. I also don't see how some word like "Nigress" (which I suppose was a bastardisation of "Negress") is any wittier than Whitress, or say, calling whites Bird Droppings because those are white.

 

[ApostateAbe]

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/

I just randomly ended up on this site after an awry google search. Is there any good side to White Nationalism? I don't really understand how someone could be so venomously ignorant. Am I missing something? Is there some redeeming quality to these views that make them worth holding?

On a side note, this shit is ripe for a troll stroll.

I think it is natural to be prejudiced against those of a different clan, and obviously someone of an entirely different skin color would not be in the same clan. It doesn't take much effort to give in to the psychological pressures of that innate tendency toward prejudice, but it takes a lot of work to resist it. That isn't to say they are taking the easy way, because they are swimming against a very heavy current. The late twentieth century and onward represents an exceptional era of human history where the ideology of egalitarianism has won. So, the political racists represent the rare resistance to that popular ideology and the yielding to the innate psychological tendency toward prejudice. They are neither especially stupid nor ignorant. They are instead ideologues of a much different sort from what we are used to.

Do they have some redeeming quality? Well, I think they anchor their ideology in what is apparently true. They are among the few who realize that not all races are of equal intelligence or equal potential for economic productivity. It should be an obvious thing except for the popular ideology, so they are grounded in an unusual realization of a truth, which brings a pride of a delusion that they are the only rational people in society, and it is used as a springboard for all of their related political beliefs that may or may not be reasonable.

They are not the people I would belong with, but I don't hold any special contempt for them, either. That may change if I knew their way of thinking was at risk of becoming popular, because their ideology is more violent than the competing ideology, but I don't anticipate a significant rise of white supremacism any time soon.

 

[Hadoblado]

The wit is in the use portmanteau to make a context appropriate word that fits. I actually find whitress to be mildly funny, but not the bird dropping call.

Are you a Fi user?

 

[walfin]

Dominant Fi I guess since I've been INFP for a while now.

Note that I'm not saying that they have no value, though. I'm just saying that ceteris paribus, a White Nationalist site would have (at most) as much value as a Black or Asian Nationalist site (since after all it is the same spiel, just fill in the blank for the appropriate race; although an Asian/Black site in, say, the US, might have some additional value since it caters to a minority community). If you find that it's funny even when it's your own race getting bashed, I suppose you can't be faulted for finding racist sites in general amusing.

In fact, there is nothing wrong per se with racist jokes from time to time if they are fair (i.e. everybody gets made fun of). The problem with the white nationalist sites is that they are not intended to be jokes, even if they happen to be funny.

 

[Hadoblado]

Some of the people there are almost certainly trolls in deep cover, I considered going in myself.

There are adverse consequences to even satirical racism. It strengthens the neural pathways, associating the victim with negative attribute subconsciously. For me this is of little consequence, as I don't make decisions or form opinions based on my gut. For others, this can be bad, as you are poisoning your mode of perception and judgement.

It's funny when I go to my D&D group, where many of the people there are racist in a funny way, but their logic is not so well defined and you can see it colour their perceptions adversely. It even gets awkward when they start sentences with "I'm not racist, but...". I do enjoy a little shock jockery, but every now and then you're staring blind ignorance in the face, and it makes me sad.

For me it is only the humour that counts. Nothing is sacred, but that doesn't stop me feeling uncomfortable when someone has dangerously ignorant beliefs.

 

[walfin]

Actually it sounds like a fun plan to go into all the racist sites and post racist jokes which make fun of the forumers' race.

 

[Hadoblado]

You'll get kicked immediately. They are like little totalitarian kingdoms of ignorance.

 

[h0bby1]

The crazy thing is that they attempt to appear reasonable. Normally race hate individual come off as very crude. They have language rules for the site and everything.

I actually found some of the more witty slurs funny. "Nigress" XD

yes, it's how the new school fascist operate nowday, they know that if they would go point blank being all hatefull and unreasonable, they would be called on it and their communication is much more efficient nowday

last day i watched an analysis of how anti gay motion organize their com in france, because in the bottom this kind of motion and protest always gather the same lot of crazy extremist idiots, but they have made in sort to incite them not to speak to the media, or to organize the line of speech with pre made sentence and ideas, to masquerade the whole uglyness of the bottom of the motion to the public media, it's all communication =)

 

[Wolf18]

My mother and brother subscribe to the SPLC, an American organisation whose mission is to educate people about racism in the USA.

The people at SPLC are amazing, and are trying to change the racist aspect of American culture by educating people. In their publications, they have interviews with former members of the Ku Klux Klan and other racist organisations, as well as articles by lawyers who have defended victims of racism, and the victims themselves.

http://www.splcenter.org

SW

 

[ApostateAbe]

I wrote a long post, it was delayed for moderator review for some reason, and then it appeared in the middle of the thread where it remained unseen by the multitudes. I will see if the same thing happens to this post.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Nope.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Isn't Stormfront a reactionary group which formed in the face of affirmative action?

 

[walfin]

Stormfront began in 1990 as an online bulletin board for white nationalist activist David Duke's campaign for United States Senator of Louisiana.[5] The name "Stormfront" was chosen for its connotations of a political or military front and an analogy with weather fronts that invokes the idea of a tumultuous storm ending in cleansing.[5] It was opened to the public in 1994, and the Stormfront.org website was founded in 1995, becoming the first website associated with white supremacy.[6]

I believe it is not only affirmative action they oppose.

My mother and brother subscribe to the SPLC, an American organisation whose mission is to educate people about racism in the USA.

The people at SPLC are amazing, and are trying to change the racist aspect of American culture by educating people. In their publications, they have interviews with former members of the Ku Klux Klan and other racist organisations, as well as articles by lawyers who have defended victims of racism, and the victims themselves.

http://www.splcenter.org

SW

Wow. This is quite something.

They are among the few who realize that not all races are of equal intelligence or equal potential for economic productivity. It should be an obvious thing except for the popular ideology, so they are grounded in an unusual realization of a truth, which brings a pride of a delusion that they are the only rational people in society, and it is used as a springboard for all of their related political beliefs that may or may not be reasonable.

I just realised this.

This is racism.

- Not all races are, at present, at the same stage of economic development and/or productivity - truth.

- Inferring from the previous premise that some races do not have the potential to improve (i.e. are never capable of improving) their present state - racism.

- Inferring from the previous premise that those races deserve to be ill treated - fucked up.

Not all races are of equal intelligence - meaningless bunkum.
Does a race have intelligence? Intelligence is an attribute of individuals.

- Not all races at present have the same average intelligence - truth.

- Inferring that a particular person is more likely to be stupider because they are of a particular race - racism, and more importantly, stupid, because IQ is not proven to be completely hereditary and this neglects the importance of environmental factors and even genetic factors (because there can be natural selection within a race).

 

[Hadoblado]

I think it is natural to be prejudiced against those of a different clan, and obviously someone of an entirely different skin color would not be in the same clan. It doesn't take much effort to give in to the psychological pressures of that innate tendency toward prejudice, but it takes a lot of work to resist it. That isn't to say they are taking the easy way, because they are swimming against a very heavy current. The late twentieth century and onward represents an exceptional era of human history where the ideology of egalitarianism has won. So, the political racists represent the rare resistance to that popular ideology and the yielding to the innate psychological tendency toward prejudice. They are neither especially stupid nor ignorant. They are instead ideologues of a much different sort from what we are used to.

Do they have some redeeming quality? Well, I think they anchor their ideology in what is apparently true. They are among the few who realize that not all races are of equal intelligence or equal potential for economic productivity. It should be an obvious thing except for the popular ideology, so they are grounded in an unusual realization of a truth, which brings a pride of a delusion that they are the only rational people in society, and it is used as a springboard for all of their related political beliefs that may or may not be reasonable.

They are not the people I would belong with, but I don't hold any special contempt for them, either. That may change if I knew their way of thinking was at risk of becoming popular, because their ideology is more violent than the competing ideology, but I don't anticipate a significant rise of white supremacism any time soon.

I'd give them points for the questioning of social ideological 'truths', but I think their beliefs are largely based on proximity.That is, they take the beliefs of their family/friends to the exclusion of the beliefs of the rest of the world. It's not piercing logic, but motivated vitriol. They do this to preserve their beliefs, not to arrive at a higher truth.

I don't agree that racial superiority is obvious, there are a LOT of confounds, but I do like that you even ask the question. Too many people are scared to even contemplate it for fear of being a bigot.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I believe it is not only affirmative action they oppose.



Wow. This is quite something.



I just realised this.

This is racism.

- Not all races are, at present, at the same stage of economic development and/or productivity - truth.

- Inferring from the previous premise that some races do not have the potential to improve (i.e. are never capable of improving) their present state - racism.

- Inferring from the previous premise that those races deserve to be ill treated - fucked up.

Not all races are of equal intelligence - meaningless bunkum.
Does a race have intelligence? Intelligence is an attribute of individuals.

- Not all races at present have the same average intelligence - truth.

- Inferring that a particular person is more likely to be stupider because they are of a particular race - racism, and more importantly, stupid, because IQ is not proven to be completely hereditary and this neglects the importance of environmental factors and even genetic factors (because there can be natural selection within a race).

I am a racist but of a different sort than of either the white supremacists or whatever you seem to have in mind. I am a scientific racist, which means I accept that the inequality among races is attributable to innate biological inequalities, and I believe so following merely from the soundest scientific inferences.

Scientific racism comes in conflict with political racism for two reasons:

1. Whites are not the most intelligent race, but are only in the middle, bested by both East Asians and Ashkanazi Jews, to the chagrin of any white supremacist who pays attention to the science.
2. The intelligence of races is represented by normal distributions (bell curves) that overlap heavily. The intelligence of a race is represented only by the average intelligence (the top of the curve). This means individuals cannot be effectively judged by their races. An Asian student is only a little more likely to be better at math than a white student. A black student is only somewhat more likely to be worse.

Intelligence is measured by IQ tests. IQ represents a limited scale of intelligence, limited to the skills of pattern recognition and logic, but those are the skills most closely related to the economic productivity of a population, central skills to engineers, scientists, doctors, teachers and industrial entrepreneurs. By conducting IQ tests on identical twins reared apart and comparing them to other sibling combinations, we can estimate the portion of IQ variation from the mean attributable to merely genetics. The answer is 70%.

It is actually a horrible thing to believe, and I wish it wasn't true. I wish all populations would have equal potential. I don't suggest that anyone else believe what I believe. The world is in fact better off believing the delusion of equality.

 

[EditorOne]

Many of you, and Storm Front itself, gives them too much credit for thinking things out. Whoever mentioned "proximity" was close.

Here's what it boils down to: If you could corner one of these guys you'd eventually discover a scared little person sure he can't make it in society. All this "philosophy" is just his fig leaf over his own insecurity: "I can't make it because other people, less deserving, get all the breaks." They are born losers looking for an excuse for themselves. I grew up with people like this in my little town. They are even less fun in person than they are in cyber space; the violence is usually just below the surface.

 

[RaBind]

I thought the movies American history x and This is England depicted the phenomenon and philosophy of white nationalism quite well. American history x illustrates how attempting to actively detach yourself/a group from another group fails, because the reality is that all behaviors are found in every culture. The main character was an aspiring and charismatic individual, who struggles to differentiate from black people as much as possible. While I don't agree with the specifics of his methods and his beliefs I thought his intentions were noble, just badly misled. Of coarse he is later confronted with the harsh reality that many white people act in the same way, that many white nationalists accuse, black people of.
This type of response is expected I suppose. Many people feel insecure and don't have a sense of belonging in their own society, they face competition in jobs and welfare distribution, the media publishes the detrimental effects of changes in society (so immigration), they are exposed to radical groups who oppose them (like Muslim fundamentalists) and some people in authority figures support their view (such as politicians, for political reasons, and the status quo is made up of mostly white, middle class males).

One of the most important things when developing a view is self-scrutiny, this is missing in the mindsets of many people who spend a lot of time defending their views. If the views were perfect they wouldn't need defending.

 

[ApostateAbe]

"If the views were perfect they wouldn't need defending."

Because all perfectly truthful ideas convince most people instantly upon hearing them?

 

[ApostateAbe]

I'd give them points for the questioning of social ideological 'truths', but I think their beliefs are largely based on proximity.That is, they take the beliefs of their family/friends to the exclusion of the beliefs of the rest of the world. It's not piercing logic, but motivated vitriol. They do this to preserve their beliefs, not to arrive at a higher truth.

I don't agree that racial superiority is obvious, there are a LOT of confounds, but I do like that you even ask the question. Too many people are scared to even contemplate it for fear of being a bigot.

A common answer to what motivates a strange ideology is: "Because their parents believe it." It is at best an incomplete explanation, because you also need to explain why the children did not abandon the ideology and how recruits are gained without such family connections. Many ideologies simply die out. Many ideologies evolve into something else entirely. So what else motivates the ideology of white supremacism, in your opinion? Is it otherwise the natural tendency to hate those who look different?

 

[Wolf18]

Scientific racism comes in conflict with political racism for two reasons:

1. Whites are not the most intelligent race, but are only in the middle, bested by both East Asians and Ashkanazi Jews, to the chagrin of any white supremacist who pays attention to the science.

Why are Ashkenazi Jews not considered white? Our stereotypical "intelligence" comes only from our educations, not our genes. If you raise, say, a Kazakh child as an Ashkenazi Jew, that child will turn out like an Ashkenazi whose parents are from Germany and Poland.

I know less about what you call "East Asians," but I assume the same would be true in their case.

SW

 

[ApostateAbe]

Why are Ashkenazi Jews not considered white? Our stereotypical "intelligence" comes only from our educations, not our genes. If you raise, say, a Kazakh child as an Ashkenazi Jew, that child will turn out like an Ashkenazi whose parents are from Germany and Poland.

I know less about what you call "East Asians," but I assume the same would be true in their case.

SW

I really can't tell the difference between an Ashkanazi Jew and a "white" by sight. Supposedly, the difference would have something to do with ancestry, being Jews who migrated to Europe in the middle ages. The genetics would be the most important consideration, skin color being only a rough indication of genetics.

The studies of identical twins reared apart are the studies that indicate that genetics plays a much greater role on our personalities than we would all like to think. I mentioned it briefly in my previous post, but see this article for a lengthier summary:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...udies-genes-and-parenting-what-makes-us-who-w

Full study of Bouchard et al. can be found here:

http://www.d.umn.edu/~jetterso/documents/ScienceMNTwinStudies.pdf

Thomas Bouchard was the researcher who rebuilt the knowledge available in the early twentieth that was subsequently buried as only the unscientific drivel of backward bigots. But the studies of Bouchard have been confirmed many times over and are now commonly accepted in the field of psychology.

 

[Absurdity]

Why are Ashkenazi Jews not considered white? Our stereotypical "intelligence" comes only from our educations, not our genes. If you raise, say, a Kazakh child as an Ashkenazi Jew, that child will turn out like an Ashkenazi whose parents are from Germany and Poland.

I know less about what you call "East Asians," but I assume the same would be true in their case.

SW

Studies of Korean children adopted by families in the US and Europe have found their IQs to be substantially higher to those of their peers (averaging around 115).

It doesn't appear to come only from culture. Rather, a substantial amount seems to come from genes.

 

[Wolf18]

I really can't tell the difference between an Ashkanazi Jew and a "white" by sight. Supposedly, the difference would have something to do with ancestry, being Jews who migrated to Europe in the middle ages. The genetics would be the most important consideration, skin color being only a rough indication of genetics.

The studies of identical twins reared apart are the studies that indicate that genetics plays a much greater role on our personalities than we would all like to think. I mentioned it briefly in my previous post, but see this article for a lengthier summary:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...udies-genes-and-parenting-what-makes-us-who-w

Full study of Bouchard et al. can be found here:

http://www.d.umn.edu/~jetterso/documents/ScienceMNTwinStudies.pdf

Thomas Bouchard was the researcher who rebuilt the knowledge available in the early twentieth that was subsequently buried as only the unscientific drivel of backward bigots. But the studies of Bouchard have been confirmed many times over and are now commonly accepted in the field of psychology.

Interesting. I heard about the twins experiment, but my computer isn't opening the other link. I'll try again later.

Anyway, I suppose ancestry could play a role. However, "ancestry" and "race" are not the same thing. If you believe that ancestry plays a role in intelligence and personality, you are not a "racist," scientific or not.

SW

 

[ApostateAbe]

Interesting. I heard about the twins experiment, but my computer isn't opening the other link. I'll try again later.

Anyway, I suppose ancestry could play a role. However, "ancestry" and "race" are not the same thing. If you believe that ancestry plays a role in intelligence and personality, you are not a "racist," scientific or not.

SW

"Race" is kinduva fluid term, and I thought about not using it, in favor of the phrase "genetic groups." But, my model of the intelligence of genetic groups holds that East Asians tend to be innately smarter than Europeans who tend to be innately smarter than South Americans who tend to be innately smarter than Sub-Saharan Africans, and that is really the core thing it takes to be a racist, in my opinion and in the opinion of many.

 

[Wolf18]

"Race" is kinduva fluid term, and I thought about not using it, in favor of the phrase "genetic groups." But, my model of the intelligence of genetic groups holds that East Asians tend to be innately smarter than Europeans who tend to be innately smarter than South Americans who tend to be innately smarter than Sub-Saharan Africans, and that is really the core thing it takes to be a racist, in my opinion and in the opinion of many.

Understood. Isn't all this still too broad to be scientific? I mean, I know some "Sub-Saharan African" geniuses, and some Asians who aren't so clever. My Ashkenazi Jewish "friend" (who really sort of stalks me) has a below-average IQ. I am genetically 1/2 Ashkenazi Jewish, 1/4 Irish, and ~1/4 Welsh. However, my IQ (I've been told by non-experts) is in the gifted - genius range. Should this be?

SW

 

[ApostateAbe]

Understood. Isn't all this still too broad to be scientific? I mean, I know some "Sub-Saharan African" geniuses, and some Asians who aren't so clever.

SW

Me too, and that is why I used the word "tend." An IQ of a race is not just a single number, but it is a normal distribution (a bell curve), with two tail ends, the right tail end being the geniuses and the left tail end being the mentally handicapped. The standard deviations of the IQ of each race are about the same (plus or minus 15), so the single values represent the mean, or the top of the curve. Differences between each mean implies that some races have more geniuses (a greater right tail end) than other races. But, there is plenty of overlap in the middle. This image may help, representing the IQs of whites and blacks in America:

[bimgx=350]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-C9-3fvlG5_Q/T5eRnflxkOI/AAAAAAAAAaU/pVKqnvo2tFM/s1600/bell%2Bcurve.jpg[/bimgx]
It comes from Herrnstein and Murray's The Bell Curve. The black curve was scaled up on the population axis (y axis) to be of equal height to the whites, and the unscaled chart looks like this:

[bimgx=350]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PtP-9Hzfe9s/T5eRcTfFFMI/AAAAAAAAAaI/02XRuV-KVZE/s400/bell%2Bcurve%2Bn.jpg[/bimgx]
This chart would imply that for every black person in America there is a white person of equal IQ. That's the good news. The bad news is that black IQs are equal to the stupider side of white IQs, not the smarter side.

 

[ApostateAbe]

And I hasten to add the point that the data of these charts would imply that blacks have their geniuses, at least a few, but not as many as whites.

 

[Wolf18]

I find these statistics slightly hard to believe, but that is irrelevant. IQ tests culture, not intelligence.

There are still flaws in your theory. Modern science points to Africa as the continent on which language and humans themselves originated. In addition, IQ tests test logic and problem-solving. Until a few hundred years ago, this was not part of African culture. However, other forms of intelligence, which are not valued in Western civilisation, were valued there.

SW

 

[h0bby1]

IQ test are supposed to be independant from culture

but it's rather well proven the relation between intelligence and genetic is not obvious, even the way brain form in embryo, with neuron groups and all is not much determined by genetics, it's quite a chaotic and random process actually, if anything, much more determined by environmental factors rather than genetic, brain has high plasticity, specially in early years, so what the children is exposed to before he is about 7 will have more impact on the formation of the cognitive system than genetic

it has been studied how the brain form in embryo, and it's very random system, there seem to be already a sort of competition between neurons, but it's very random, even the similar zone in two side of hemisphere have very different topography in any individual, formation of neo cortex come last and it's also a very chaotic process

genetic can play on personality, via many thing related maybe to hormonal system, but most of the more evolved part of the brain develop after birth, in relation to environment, neuron groups develop a bit like muscle depending on which one are used, the base of the nervous system development before birth is not determined highly by genetic factor

even if you take twin or clone, they will be most likely to have significantly different neuron topography

the parts of the brain that matter the more in term of advanced cognitive function develop in reaction to environment

 

[ApostateAbe]

I find these statistics slightly hard to believe, but that is irrelevant. IQ tests culture, not intelligence.

There are still flaws in your theory. Modern science points to Africa as the continent on which language and humans themselves originated. In addition, IQ tests test logic and problem-solving. Until a few hundred years ago, this was not part of African culture. However, other forms of intelligence, which are not valued in Western civilisation, were valued there.

SW

If we go back far enough in time, all humans were in Africa, and that is where the human species was born. It was about 100,000 years ago, a short time on the evolutionary time scale, when some humans emigrated out of Africa and others remained. Geographical divergence means genetic divergence, and the populations adapted to their respective environments. Part of these adaptations entailed differences in IQ, and the most probable explanation in my opinion is provided by J. Phillipe Rushton in his book Race, Evolution and Behavior. I can explain the theory in more detail if you happen to be interested.

You are right that IQ tests are all about logic and problem solving, and the other aspects of intelligence are overlooked by IQ tests. Logic and problem solving, however, are the skills central to an industrial economy, required especially for engineering, science, law, medicine, teaching, and industrial entrepreneurialism. If there are inequalities between populations with respect to these skills, then it serves to explain economic inequalities. It is still possible that the lower-IQ populations tend to have greater other important skills that contribute to a happier life. If the question is merely about intelligence as measured by IQ, then the data is dispassionately unfair. Even more depressing is that differences in IQ in are largely genetic, as strongly indicated by those studies of identical twins reared apart I mentioned before.

There are many steps the ladder leading to the conclusion that makes one a racist. If you take out only one rung, you never it make it to the step that says, "I am a racist."

1) Intelligence is measurable.
2) Intelligence is largely genetic.
3) Races are genetically distinct.
4) Races have unequal average intelligence.
5) I am a racist.​

All steps on the ladder leading up to the last step are scientifically challenged, one way or the other, and I have stepped on them all. I do NOT suggest you do the same.

 

[Hadoblado]

A common answer to what motivates a strange ideology is: "Because their parents believe it." It is at best an incomplete explanation, because you also need to explain why the children did not abandon the ideology and how recruits are gained without such family connections. Many ideologies simply die out. Many ideologies evolve into something else entirely. So what else motivates the ideology of white supremacism, in your opinion? Is it otherwise the natural tendency to hate those who look different?

It is one I arrived at exhaustively. Chaps such as yourself may (or may not) have been motivated to seek the truth at the expense of peer respect, but that is a rare characteristic. When a movement of people bent on maintaining the current social order, have no interest in applying these same reasonings to their own position, and use largely peripheral pathway arguments, its fairly safe to rule out the possibility that they are interested in objective truth. They have an agenda, and they ignore every piece of evidence to the contrary of their beliefs.

When I said they got their beliefs from their parents/families, I should have included peers. We know racism is a common ideology, even when there is no actual meaningful difference between populations. It is fairly rare for a child to land two units of separation from the nest, and beliefs are heavily influenced by social factors.

There are plenty of things that aren't pursuit of truth that motivate racism. Many of the people I grew up with were genuine heartfelt racists, though did not pursue the ideology politically.

I suppose a good question to ask yourself is, even if the averages are different for genetic reasons, why should we care? If we have little application for the knowledge, why pursue it? There would still be black geniuses, and we should still judge every individual on their merit alone. For the white supremacist, what possible reason is there to explore this effect other than to further their own prejudiced ideology?

 

[Hadoblado]

If we go back far enough in time, all humans were in Africa, and that is where the human species was born. It was about 100,000 years ago, a short time on the evolutionary time scale, when some humans emigrated out of Africa and others remained. Geographical divergence means genetic divergence, and the populations adapted to their respective environments. Part of these adaptations entailed differences in IQ, and the most probable explanation in my opinion is provided by J. Phillipe Rushton in his book Race, Evolution and Behavior. I can explain the theory in more detail if you happen to be interested.

You are right that IQ tests are all about logic and problem solving, and the other aspects of intelligence are overlooked by IQ tests. Logic and problem solving, however, are the skills central to an industrial economy, required especially for engineering, science, law, medicine, teaching, and industrial entrepreneurialism. If there are inequalities between populations with respect to these skills, then it serves to explain economic inequalities. It is still possible that the lower-IQ populations tend to have greater other important skills that contribute to a happier life. If the question is merely about intelligence as measured by IQ, then the data is dispassionately unfair. Even more depressing is that differences in IQ in are largely genetic, as strongly indicated by those studies of identical twins reared apart I mentioned before.

There are many steps the ladder leading to the conclusion that makes one a racist. If you take out only one rung, you never it make it to the step that says, "I am a racist."

1) Intelligence is measurable.
2) Intelligence is largely genetic.
3) Races are genetically distinct.
4) Races have unequal average intelligence.
5) I am a racist.​

All steps on the ladder leading up to the last step are scientifically challenged, one way or the other, and I have stepped on them all. I do NOT suggest you do the same.

This is a very good post.

 

[walfin]

Really? I put it to you that if there was merit to scientific racism, Jews and East Asians would be the ones embracing it in droves. After all, it puts them on the pedestal of "world geniuses". Why aren't they doing so?

Just as Wolf18 has said he knows little about East Asians, I cannot speak for Jews, Ashkenazim or Sepharadim or otherwise. But I suggest to you that most people of East Asian ethnicity buy into this stuff far less than your average white supremacist. Why? Because the entire theory is an obvious ploy, meant to portray the Jews and Asians as nerds, the Blacks as subhuman and the Whites as "just right". Apart from that, it's pretty clear that Jews and Asians are just the latest tool employed by the White supremacist to justify racism - specifically against Blacks since they're the most significant minority group in the US (since most of these "scientific" racists come from the US), with a population far greater than East Asians (I'm not sure about Jews). This is also quite clearly a divide-and-conquer strategy adopted against non-Whites. It's not difficult to see through this ridiculous crap.

If East Asians are really so greatly admired by scientific racists,

Why is it that white racists are determinedly opposed to Asian immigration into the US?
Why is it that while white racists claim they just want the white race to be left alone, they don't advocate recalling all white American nationals residing in other countries back to the US?
Why is it that while Native Americans very likely share some common ancestry with East Asians, they almost never mention Native Americans?
Why is it that East Asians and Jews both share a history of tremendous persecution at the hands of White supremacists?
etc. etc. ad nauseum.

If East Asians are indeed smarter than the average white, then I am glad that I am smart enough to see through this bullshit and reject it outright as yet another vile attempt to deny the humanity of non-whites. And I am glad that I am smart enough to confine my condemnation and revulsion to only white supremacists and their bosom buddies, the proponents of scientific racism, and not all white people.

Sorry for the vehement tone of this post. I don't deny that it is a partially emotionally-driven response.

 

[ApostateAbe]

walfin, scientific racism is definitely not for you. I take that to be a good thing, because I would be more than a little worried if most of the world would accept it, as they have in the past, with disasterous consequences. Germany and Japan accepted it and we know what happened thereafter. What if the whole of China accepted it today? There will be no World War 4. I just have a few things to say in my defense.

I am no ally of the white supremacists nor the white separatists, and they would happily dismiss me from their ranks. None of them would prefer to think of any race as more economically capable than whites, especially not Ashkanazi Jews. They believe Jews became wealthy only by conspiring and cheating the wealth out of the hard-working hands of whites. I believe Ashkanazi Jews became wealthier than whites by providing more valuable services than whites, something following from greater intelligence. The higher-IQ races are no more nor any less human, just as there is no breed of dog that is any more "dog." And being in the middle is not "just right" when it comes to economic competition or competition of any sort. Being in the middle means losing.

Most importantly, I try not to let the moral associations and value judgments affect my beliefs of objective reality, though I often fail. Instead, I try to believe what most probably follows from the evidence, regardless of whatever evil may accompany those beliefs. Those beliefs may genuinely turn me into an evil person. If so, I accept it for the sake of accepting the probable knowledge of reality. Eve made the same choice per the myth, and I would do the same as she.

 

[Wolf18]

Walfin, well written.

SW

 

[Hadoblado]

Really? I put it to you that if there was merit to scientific racism, Jews and East Asians would be the ones embracing it in droves. After all, it puts them on the pedestal of "world geniuses". Why aren't they doing so?

Maybe they're just too smart for that shit. Actually, I'd be interested in seeing the comparison. Would Asians and Jews have more geniuses?

If East Asians are really so greatly admired by scientific racists,

Why is it that white racists are determinedly opposed to Asian immigration into the US?

Scientific racism is a different position from 'white' racism. I'm verging on scientific racism but I couldn't give a shit who is allowed in what country.

Why is it that while white racists claim they just want the white race to be left alone, they don't advocate recalling all white American nationals residing in other countries back to the US?

Because they're biassed idiots.

Why is it that while Native Americans very likely share some common ancestry with East Asians, they almost never mention Native Americans?

If Native Americans are treated in any way similar to Australian Aboriginals, they won't compare well, regardless of genetic factors.

Why is it that East Asians and Jews both share a history of tremendous persecution at the hands of White supremacists?

Again, because white supremacists are not after truth.

If East Asians are indeed smarter than the average white, then I am glad that I am smart enough to see through this bullshit and reject it outright as yet another vile attempt to deny the humanity of non-whites. And I am glad that I am smart enough to confine my condemnation and revulsion to only white supremacists and their bosom buddies, the proponents of scientific racism, and not all white people.

Your intelligence has nothing to do with it. You admit that your position is motivated, don't then claim that you only hold it because you are intelligent. You deny the position outright, ignoring evidence. While this is understandable, given that both positions have been represented here, you are basically failing to discern the difference between base prejudice and scientific racism, equating one with the other.

I can't speak for Abe, but I know I have zero motivation regarding racial discrimination. I want to know the difference between the races, but I have no intention of enacting social change based on what I find. I just want to know, and that requires me to not discard evidence based on some sort of moral authority. I'd prefer the races to be equal in every way, but I don't think they are.

Sorry for the vehement tone of this post. I don't deny that it is a partially emotionally-driven response.

It is to your credit that you can identify this. I have much more respect for someone that can acknowledge their own emotionality in a discussion.

 

[walfin]

While this is understandable, given that both positions have been represented here, you are basically failing to discern the difference between base prejudice and scientific racism, equating one with the other.

The latter is a tool of the former, and I believe you can see how that can be the case.

Before East Asians began to be considered more intelligent, "scientists" were measuring their skulls and coming up with "research" that showed that their brains were smaller. Now that these people are claiming that East Asians are smarter in order to make their research appear less self-serving, the "scientific" racists in the US resort to claiming that East Asian males have diminutive genitalia (considering that that is a condition that affects only 0.6% of males across races, it is clearly rubbish - a childish and false insult, a made-up playground taunt, but it nevertheless keeps on getting repeated to no end by adults who should know better).

Nobody's gonna fall for this sort of claptrap again. Science, my arse.

I'd prefer the races to be equal in every way, but I don't think they are.

There's a difference between saying I don't think they are and I don't think they can ever be.

In particular, if you look at most of these IQ charts, mainland China is significantly lower on the list than other Chinese majority countries/territories (HK, Taiwan and Singapore), which are clustered together with Japan and Korea.

There must be a pretty strong environmental component, given that the Chinese in China and those in the other countries are of the same ethnicity. We're not even talking about the Koreans and Japanese.