White Supremacists - We aren’t all mentally ill

[Toni]

None of them are happy. All of their problems are the fault of others. they lash out in anger and violence. I would say that is a mental issue.

Isn’t that just immaturity?

Depends on severity. I say grabbing military grade weapons and heading to a Walmart goes well beyond immaturity.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

True then and true now, courtesy of Dr. Seuss:

View attachment 23166

https://library.ucsd.edu/speccoll/dswenttowar/#intro

Never knew about that.

 

[SimpleDon]

I think that he was talking about cultural evolution, not biological evolution. Tribalism is a product of cultural evolution...

Culture (the thing that binds tribes) and tribalism are products of biological evolution, as they did provide individuals with reproductive/survival advantages in millennia past.
Mental illness during that period of time would have been whatever impulses failed to confirm or conform to the idea that "my tribe is the best tribe". Now that tribalism has become a threat to the continued existence of the species and doesn't confer any reproductive advantages to individuals, tribalism can be thought of as a mental illness.
IOW, the utility of the label - "mentally ill" in this context is less than zero. In fact, as applied to an individual because of a retained tribalist trait, it holds the same meaning as "stable genius".

On a practical level though, if the white supremacists want to insist on their own sanity, then I guess it's okay to lock 'em up or put them to death if they shoot a bunch of people, right?

No, only when they break laws. And I don't support the death penalty in any case. It implies a certain perfection in our justice system that it has never deserved.

It is common to believe that everything about an organism is the way that it is because of evolution and natural selection, but it is far from the truth of the matter. Random genetic drift probably has more to do with you the way that you are than evolution and natural selection. Your DNA is mostly junk to which most mutations don't matter. Mutated junk is still junk.

As Toni pointed out, biological evolution happens over millions of years, where cultural evolution happens over decades and centuries. Some people are tribal and some aren't, but it is not because of our genome like fight or flight is.

People want to justify racism, for example, based on the human genome, that there is a fundamental difference between the so-called races beyond the obvious; skin tone, nostril flare, hooded eyes, etc. That these rather superficial differences affect intelligence, initiative, etc. Biological evolution is going on all of the time, but it is an extremely slow process and on a human time scale we can't detect it. What happens rather rapidly are certain characteristics becoming sexual preferences like hooded eyes in the orient. These are localized cultural changes, empathizing certain physical characteristics, not changes to the human genome. In other words, these types of changes aren't biological evolution, they just increase the percentage of humans with hooded eyes.

Likewise, the fact that European Jews have a higher intellect than average or that the Chinese study more in school or that humans who migrated to the northern latitudes lost the melanin in their skin or that some people have blue eyes that never turned brown are all cultural evolution or sexual preference selection, not biological evolution. All of the changes above and many more are short term cultural evolution caused by local conditions.

The European Jews couldn't own land in Europe, they had to learn to live by their intellect as teachers, lawyers, doctors, bankers, and merchants. The landowning gentry didn't need to live based on their intellect, their future was usually sealed at birth. They would either inherit the land or their older brother would.

The genius of the Confucian system of government was that a position in the apparatus of the government was rewarded based on merit alone, not on the social order as in Europe. This put a premium on education across the whole Chinese society that continues to today, even if Chinese mothers don't know why they nag their children to study hard to do well in school.

The people in the northern latitudes lost the melanin in their skin because they needed to take in more vitamin D from the reduced sunlight in the north.

Every person who has blue eyes is a descendant of a single individual who lived 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. If the parents of the individual thought that blue eyes were a mark of the devil and killed the baby, we probably wouldn't have any blue-eyed people today. But they didn't.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

White supremacist just means racist who holds white people as superior to other races. It need not be the same as white nationalist/separatist (who wants to live with only white people) or violent white race militants (who wish harm to people of other races). This is obvious, but often obfuscated. White separatists also need not be white supremacists.

There can exist white separatists who are neither hateful but merely have it in their heads that racial homogeneity is desirable, and that isn't exclusive to white people. Hatred, superiority and violent intent only tends to get into these white people, and not into people of other races who want their own racial homogeneity.

To these people I say the USA and Canada are not where their racial bloodlines come from. The Japan comparison fails for that reason. These white separatists should find a country where it is and has always or at least long been white and then keep it white if they want to. With the US history of not only building amongst native Americans, but also importing black people as slaves, that's not a good choice.

 

[PyramidHead]

White supremacist just means racist who holds white people as superior to other races. It need not be the same as white nationalist/separatist (who wants to live with only white people) or violent white race militants (who wish harm to people of other races). This is obvious, but often obfuscated. White separatists also need not be white supremacists.

There can exist white separatists who are neither hateful but merely have it in their heads that racial homogeneity is desirable, and that isn't exclusive to white people. Hatred, superiority and violent intent only tends to get into these white people, and not into people of other races who want their own racial homogeneity.

To these people I say the USA and Canada are not where their racial bloodlines come from. The Japan comparison fails for that reason. These white separatists should find a country where it is and has always or at least long been white and then keep it white if they want to. With the US history of not only building amongst native Americans, but also importing black people as slaves, that's not a good choice.

This is a bad take and you should think about it more before you repeat it yet again. What basis, other than racism, could there be for wanting to live with only people from a certain race and taking steps to make that happen? What means, other than violence, could be used to convert an existing multicultural society into a racially homogeneous one? You're playing into the hands of the far right by conceding that there are excusable and inexcusable variants of wanting to exclude people from society's goods based on how they look or where they were born. It's all bad, from top to bottom, and should be recognized as such.

 

[Elixir]

White supremacist just means racist who holds white people as superior to other races. It need not be the same as white nationalist/separatist (who wants to live with only white people) or violent white race militants (who wish harm to people of other races). This is obvious, but often obfuscated. White separatists also need not be white supremacists.

There can exist white separatists who are neither hateful but merely have it in their heads that racial homogeneity is desirable, and that isn't exclusive to white people. Hatred, superiority and violent intent only tends to get into these white people, and not into people of other races who want their own racial homogeneity.

To these people I say the USA and Canada are not where their racial bloodlines come from. The Japan comparison fails for that reason. These white separatists should find a country where it is and has always or at least long been white and then keep it white if they want to. With the US history of not only building amongst native Americans, but also importing black people as slaves, that's not a good choice.

This is a bad take and you should think about it more before you repeat it yet again. What basis, other than racism, could there be for wanting to live with only people from a certain race and taking steps to make that happen? What means, other than violence, could be used to convert an existing multicultural society into a racially homogeneous one? You're playing into the hands of the far right by conceding that there are excusable and inexcusable variants of wanting to exclude people from society's goods based on how they look or where they were born. It's all bad, from top to bottom, and should be recognized as such.

I disagree that it's a bad take. Of course a person who only wants to live around white people is a racist. So are all the other categories that JP mentioned. That doesn't mean they are all the same and a single "remedy" will apply to them all. Some are just deluded (e.g. people who think it's good for the species to preserve genetic diversity by only inbreeding to one's own race). Others are real jihadists, bent on telling others how they must behave.
I disagree that the "purity" advocates should be allowed to create a State with a geographical caliphate, though. Unless it's some tiny island where they can act out their own version of the Sentinelese.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

[This is a bad take and you should think about it more before you repeat it yet again. What basis, other than racism, could there be for wanting to live with only people from a certain race and taking steps to make that happen?

It is racism. I didn't say it isn't. But it isn't necessarily supremacist or hateful or violent. And it is only when white people talk about wanting it that that gets presumed. Somebody brought up Japan recently as a comparison point. Israel is another. They want "homes for their people", defined racially or ethnically or whatever, and seek to minimize outside mixing etc. I myself much prefer racial diversity, but these people don't. It doesn't have to be seen as a moral issue.

What means, other than violence, could be used to convert an existing multicultural society into a racially homogeneous one? You're playing into the hands of the far right

You clearly didn't read what I wrote. I specifically wrote the opposite. The US and Canada are not good choices, because they are already very multicultural as part of their identities. If these people want racial homogeneity, they need to look elsewhere.

 

[Jarhyn]

[This is a bad take and you should think about it more before you repeat it yet again. What basis, other than racism, could there be for wanting to live with only people from a certain race and taking steps to make that happen?

It is racism. I didn't say it isn't. But it isn't necessarily supremacist or hateful or violent. And it is only when white people talk about wanting it that that gets presumed. Somebody brought up Japan recently as a comparison point. Israel is another. They want "homes for their people", defined racially or ethnically or whatever, and seek to minimize outside mixing etc. I myself much prefer racial diversity, but these people don't. It doesn't have to be seen as a moral issue.

What means, other than violence, could be used to convert an existing multicultural society into a racially homogeneous one? You're playing into the hands of the far right

You clearly didn't read what I wrote. I specifically wrote the opposite. The US and Canada are not good choices, because they are already very multicultural as part of their identities. If these people want racial homogeneity, they need to look elsewhere.

I see it as a conflict between their morals, and good ethics: they harm themselves through ignorance and xenophobic behavior that in turn harms others by shutting them outside the fires of community for no good reason but what is in reality a failure of empathy and a capitulation to the selfish gene.

 

[PyramidHead]

[This is a bad take and you should think about it more before you repeat it yet again. What basis, other than racism, could there be for wanting to live with only people from a certain race and taking steps to make that happen?

It is racism. I didn't say it isn't. But it isn't necessarily supremacist or hateful or violent. And it is only when white people talk about wanting it that that gets presumed. Somebody brought up Japan recently as a comparison point. Israel is another. They want "homes for their people", defined racially or ethnically or whatever, and seek to minimize outside mixing etc. I myself much prefer racial diversity, but these people don't. It doesn't have to be seen as a moral issue.

Yes it absolutely fucking does, because race is what you're born with and nobody should be told where they can and can't live based on how they are born, end of conversation. You're invoking the exact same go-to examples of white supremacists (even if we use that term to differentiate them from 'mere' nationalists), and doing so unquestioningly. Is there a Japanese race, first of all? How is 'Japanese' defined? Answer: if you were born in Japan, you're Japanese, according to the Japanese. Thus there is no comparison to be made, except in the cases of actual ethnic and racial discrimination that is a real problem in Japan and shouldn't be minimized.

You clearly didn't read what I wrote. I specifically wrote the opposite. The US and Canada are not good choices, because they are already very multicultural as part of their identities. If these people want racial homogeneity, they need to look elsewhere.

This perpetuates the myth of a self-contained society of white people who just leave everybody else alone and go about their business while happening to exclude others based on appearance or genetic lineage. The world does not and can never again work that way. There are no "good choices" for a place where white nationalists can innocently set up camp, and the history of Europe shows that they never needed one. Humans have the right to traverse the world and live and thrive wherever they please, and if you disagree on the basis of skin color... that makes you actually evil, not just lacking in a "preference" for "racial diversity".

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I see it as a conflict between their morals, and good ethics: they harm themselves through ignorance and xenophobic behavior that in turn harms others by shutting them outside the fires of community for no good reason but what is in reality a failure of empathy and a capitulation to the selfish gene.

I tend to agree. But it is a natural part of people having a group identity of race. I think that silly. Others find it to be important. And it is pushed, not inhibited with all of the identity politics that are sweeping over everything these days. Its natural that white separatists would gain prominence. Hopefully the concept will fade away again. I've lived in mostly multi-racial places and find it preferable.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Yes it absolutely fucking does, because race is what you're born with and nobody should be told where they can and can't live based on how they are born, end of conversation.

People are told that ALL THE TIME though. Race has hardly anything to do with it. You are born into a rich or poor family, born in the USA or in Somalia, etc. Where you are born very much does limit where you can go and what you can do and become. Wish it wasn't so, but it is. You are in denial of reality if you think otherwise. I'm personally against "race identity" as a thing, but I understand tribes are going to form, and I find it notable this this is rarely objected to when it isn't white identity, as opposed to the Asians in asian countries (Especially the way Chinese and Japanese react to Filipinos, Thais and other southeast asians), Blacks in Africa, Jews (the chosen people), and others. If its wrong for the one, why isn't it wrong for the other? Or can we agree that its always wrong and everyone should be mixing? But even then, how would we force that and to what extent?

You're invoking the exact same go-to examples of white supremacists

Even if so, so what? That isn't an argument. That's a fallacy. You're calling for the trains to run on time? HITLER did that! *gasp* Something doesn't become bad just because somebody bad did it. An argument doesn't become tainted just because somebody bad makes it.

Humans have the right to traverse the world and live and thrive wherever they please

Tell that to somebody with the misfortune of being born in Gaza or the West Bank. Also tell that to the Philippines, where my non-Filipino friends are not allowed to work as lawyers there even if they become Filipino citizens, because they are the "wrong race". Its exclusively the white separatists who get told they shouldn't be allowed a "homeland" for their people and their racial identity. This is re-emphasized in their minds with their concerns over immigration from other cultures.

I would prefer to live in a world without borders and without people having any senses of racial identity, but that sadly isn't the world we live in.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I see it as a conflict between their morals, and good ethics: they harm themselves through ignorance and xenophobic behavior that in turn harms others by shutting them outside the fires of community for no good reason but what is in reality a failure of empathy and a capitulation to the selfish gene.

I tend to agree. But it is a natural part of people having a group identity of race.

People love to coral themselves into groups. Sports, politics, movies, computers. Race is a little bit special because we are born into it, which means there is definitely a horse in the race. The mongrels that think coax digital is better than TOSLINK do so because partially they experience it differently and are partisan idiots that should be drowned. Race, however, is an issue you are born into. You don't get to try out the different standards. So there is almost no inherent reason to suggest something is better, especially when the genes are all the same. Of course, some people spend $40 on a vinyl recording of a digitally created album.

I think that silly. Others find it to be important.

Do they find it important, or do they want their physical identity to be important. There is a difference.

 

[PyramidHead]

People are told that ALL THE TIME though. Race has hardly anything to do with it. You are born into a rich or poor family, born in the USA or in Somalia, etc. Where you are born very much does limit where you can go and what you can do and become. Wish it wasn't so, but it is. You are in denial of reality if you think otherwise.

I don't think otherwise, and actively support measures to dismantle that reality, which is why I am a socialist.

I'm personally against "race identity" as a thing, but I understand tribes are going to form, and I find it notable this this is rarely objected to when it isn't white identity, as opposed to the Asians in asian countries (Especially the way Chinese and Japanese react to Filipinos, Thais and other southeast asians), Blacks in Africa, Jews (the chosen people), and others. If its wrong for the one, why isn't it wrong for the other? Or can we agree that its always wrong and everyone should be mixing? But even then, how would we force that and to what extent?

The argument against racial segregation is not "they should be mixing", which implies a positive behavior, racial mixing, that must therefore be "forced". The argument is that denying people the right to societal wealth because of their birthplace or their skin color is always wrong, and being in favor of the denial as long as it's done "non-violently" is to minimize the inevitable violence involved in such a stance. This is doubly true when (a) the ones being denied societal wealth are descendants of those who actually built it, and (b) the ones denying them access to it are descendants of those who initially colonized and dominated that first group. Where economic mobility and opportunity are largely dependent on birth, as you say, these historical realities can't be ignored.

Humans have the right to traverse the world and live and thrive wherever they please

Tell that to somebody with the misfortune of being born in Gaza or the West Bank. Also tell that to the Philippines, where my non-Filipino friends are not allowed to work as lawyers there even if they become Filipino citizens, because they are the "wrong race".

I will most definitely tell them both. Can I have their contact information?

Its exclusively the white separatists who get told they shouldn't be allowed a "homeland" for their people and their racial identity. This is re-emphasized in their minds with their concerns over immigration from other cultures.

The region now known as Europe was originally the homeland of white people. In order to expand the boundaries of their homeland, Europeans invaded Africa, then Asia, then the Americas, and eventually spread an empire across the entire globe that, to this day, is the dominant force in world events. And now they want a "homeland" so they don't have to look at the people they bulldozed, raped, cannibalized, tortured, kidnapped, and infected in their climb to power. Well, if they really want it, then they should be in favor of relinquishing the homelands that were stolen from other people back to whoever is the best proxy for their original inhabitants. That means relinquishing their imperial grip on the whole of the African continent, the British and French colonies dotting the Pacific, emptying the United States and returning it to indigenous people, and withdrawing entirely from Australia. When they start pushing that as a first step, then we can talk about a white "homeland".

 

[Torin]

To clarify, is this about actual white supremacism or the "everyone I don't like is a white supremacist" version that some leftists use the term to mean?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I think that silly. Others find it to be important.

Do they find it important, or do they want their physical identity to be important. There is a difference.

A while back we had a thread on "Race Pride" in which a poster (now gone?) named Crazzie_Eddie and I debated this. He took the side of Race Pride being something worth caring about (but somehow that not applying to White Pride; he was somehow against that) and I took the side of race not mattering. Nothing he said in that thread convinced me that my "race" should matter to me, but to be fair, perhaps that is because I'm a super mutt, mixed numerous times among numerous "races" if you go back only a couple generations.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Well, if they really want it, then they should be in favor of relinquishing the homelands that were stolen from other people back to whoever is the best proxy for their original inhabitants. That means relinquishing their imperial grip on the whole of the African continent, the British and French colonies dotting the Pacific, emptying the United States and returning it to indigenous people, and withdrawing entirely from Australia. When they start pushing that as a first step, then we can talk about a white "homeland".

I think you may find a few who would take that deal, but lack the power to make it happen. When I was a kid I remember some stories about a family that lived on a farm not far from where I lived, and that we non-white people were not welcome on their farm because they were racists and only wanted white people there. I remember thinking that was stupid. But I also remember them taking no hostile action towards anybody outside their farm. For all I know they never left it (or this whole thing may have been a folk story). Such people would be racist and separatist but not necessarily supremacist, violent, nazis, etc.

We have a tendency to forgot that there are wide spectrums regarding these things, and that not only are there not "Good people on both sides", but there aren't just two binary "sides".

 

[PyramidHead]

Well, if they really want it, then they should be in favor of relinquishing the homelands that were stolen from other people back to whoever is the best proxy for their original inhabitants. That means relinquishing their imperial grip on the whole of the African continent, the British and French colonies dotting the Pacific, emptying the United States and returning it to indigenous people, and withdrawing entirely from Australia. When they start pushing that as a first step, then we can talk about a white "homeland".

I think you may find a few who would take that deal, but lack the power to make it happen. When I was a kid I remember some stories about a family that lived on a farm not far from where I lived, and that we non-white people were not welcome on their farm because they were racists and only wanted white people there. I remember thinking that was stupid. But I also remember them taking no hostile action towards anybody outside their farm. For all I know they never left it (or this whole thing may have been a folk story). Such people would be racist and separatist but not necessarily supremacist, violent, nazis, etc.

We have a tendency to forgot that there are wide spectrums regarding these things, and that not only are there not "Good people on both sides", but there aren't just two binary "sides".

I don't see any actual content in this reply of yours other than a spurious anecdote and a repetition of your original claim, which has been refuted. Please, please stop defending the nuance of these people as if there's anything laudable or even defensible in it. History will not look kindly on the apologetics you engage in, which give any violent racist an easy way to avoid public censure: just claim to be a 'mere' nationalist who wants to 'peacefully' segregate non-whites from where he lives while still exploiting their labor and resources.

 

[Jarhyn]

Well, if they really want it, then they should be in favor of relinquishing the homelands that were stolen from other people back to whoever is the best proxy for their original inhabitants. That means relinquishing their imperial grip on the whole of the African continent, the British and French colonies dotting the Pacific, emptying the United States and returning it to indigenous people, and withdrawing entirely from Australia. When they start pushing that as a first step, then we can talk about a white "homeland".

I think you may find a few who would take that deal, but lack the power to make it happen. When I was a kid I remember some stories about a family that lived on a farm not far from where I lived, and that we non-white people were not welcome on their farm because they were racists and only wanted white people there. I remember thinking that was stupid. But I also remember them taking no hostile action towards anybody outside their farm. For all I know they never left it (or this whole thing may have been a folk story). Such people would be racist and separatist but not necessarily supremacist, violent, nazis, etc.

We have a tendency to forgot that there are wide spectrums regarding these things, and that not only are there not "Good people on both sides", but there aren't just two binary "sides".

I don't see any actual content in this reply of yours other than a spurious anecdote and a repetition of your original claim, which has been refuted. Please, please stop defending the nuance of these people as if there's anything laudable or even defensible in it. History will not look kindly on the apologetics you engage in, which give any violent racist an easy way to avoid public censure: just claim to be a 'mere' nationalist who wants to 'peacefully' segregate non-whites from where he lives while still exploiting their labor and resources.

Separate but equal is anything but equal.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What's a good example of a White-Supremacy website?

Where they say: We Whites are superior to other races and want to promote White interests against all the others?

 

[Torin]

What's a good example of a White-Supremacy website?

Where they say: We Whites are superior to other races and want to promote White interests against all the others?

Stormfront?