[serious] Unpopular free speech

[Ecofarm]

I think if someone slips into a fundraiser party of some sort and then manages to anonymously slide into line for a photo with Jesse, then they are definately not a racist.

Right?

[giblets]

It's like being Catholic. Do whatever you want; as long as you go to confession it's okay.

[Heraclitus]

It's like being Catholic. Do whatever you want; as long as you go to confession it's okay.

Not only that, there are lots of Jews in AmRen. That's like confessing to the pope.



(BTW The 2050 date has been revised down to 2042 since then)


On a serious note, Jesse knew full well who's hand he was shaking back in March on the National Press Club in DC.

[Heraclitus]

The guy's enunciation is crazy.

What is up with that thou. I'm not American which part/class of the US speaks like that? I've never heard anything like it.

[Tattila the Hun]

I'd bang the news woman on the left.

And I on the right. (A few seconds at the start. Lovely creature. Anastasia Churkina, I believe. )

[Heraclitus]

The USSR must have had the highest hot girl per capita ratio in the world

[Dr Strangelove]

At first I thought: "Why would Russia Times air an interview that seems sympathetic to a western racist?" Then I realised it was a win - win situation for them. First, they make the US look repressive. It gives them the chance to say: "See, the Americans suppress free speech too, so they're just being hypocritical when they criticize us." Second, it gives them the chance to portray Americans as racists.

[Heraclitus]

I belive racialist a more appropriate term for this kind of belief.

[Heraclitus]

You are however right that he was probably only given a chance to speak because this was RT intention. He does have a few other appearances on the chanel.





Overall I think he sounds reasonable in this piece.

[DaShi]

Of course you do.

[Heraclitus]

Of course you do.

Did you even listen to the piece I posted?

Edit: You seem to have a thing for haunting some of my threads without making any meaningfull contributions I don't think I'll be responding to your unconstructive comments in the future.

[Elok]

Is it of the "see, there's black people and then there's ******s" variety? Or is it your favored policy of treating Black people as inferior based on average IQ--totally ignoring individual differences--while not extending preferential treatment to Asians on the same grounds?

[Heraclitus]

Is it of the "see, there's black people and then there's ******s" variety? Or is it your favored policy of treating Black people as inferior based on average IQ--totally ignoring individual differences--while not extending preferential treatment to Asians on the same grounds?

I tought "******" was a forbidden word in America? Anyhow to adress your comment.


I don't think a fair government should treat its citizens differently based on race. I am strongly against any kind of discrimination of this sort.
I am however strongly in favour of discriminating based on things like ability or merit.


I do however think people should for pragmatic reasons have freedom of association and that they should be allowed to choose what kinds of people can gain citizenship. If someone wishes an ethnostate or region let them have it isn't this what Wilsonian principles are all about, allowing peoples the right to self determination?

I also believe that a double standard exists in culture and media that is anti-white.


Who is a racialist? Who is a racist? A tough question, the above statements would already put me beyond the pale of acceptable politics and are plus ungood.

If I was to add that I don't think we can expect Africa to not do too well in the future without a class of higher IQ types (perhaps the Chinese are stepping up or perhaps genetic engineering will fix these things) and that we need to adjust our investments, aid and foreign policy accordingly... well that would be double plus ungood.

Preventing illegal immigration and reducing legal immigration from low IQ countries is just common sense in such a context as well, since the people coming will on average be a net loss to your (presumably high IQ country, high trusting society) as well as a loss to the underdeveloped country because of brain drain.





A racist would in my opinion be someone who hates or seeks to harm other people on account of their race. How would you define a racist?


By many definitions I am racist. See what academia has to say about "white privilege". By living in a white society I am already racist since I am enjoying a higher standard of living than in a multiracial society. When crime rates rise, education standards plumit and property value falls I am merely loosing my white privilege that I have mistaken for "normal".

I don't see it their way at all. If somehow magically all Blacks in the world where to dissapear and be replaced by whites, Africa wouldn't be seeing a rise in living standards due to privilege. They would simply build the kind of society that Whites build. And if you magically replace all Whites with Blacks you will see not the shedding of white privilege but again the kind of society that Blacks create. Just as switching the Japanese for South Africans (of all races mind you) and vice versa would see the countries of Japan and South Africa both trending towards where the other country was before the switch (in general societal matters, the structure of the primary and secondary part of the economy would without a doubt change quite significantly).

Neither is at fault for their nature. Let me stress neither society is "superior" since that would require there to a thing like objective values or even perhaps implicitly objective morality (perhaps proscribed by a vengeful bronze age diety with a long white beard?). Black activists and White studies majors are indeed right to criticize the scientific method as imperialistic, since it is. Its an algorithm used by a few great westerners in the past few centuries to approximated nature well enough for the rest of us to manipulate it. To change it. To get the results we wanted. To help us replicate. There are many other strategies besides this one for replication.


The universe dosen't care about truth, it cares about survival and since it dosen't give a good reason for this besides making things that made your ancestors survive feel good some of us humans are free to choose otherwise.


The reason I'm holding my views is since I want to know as much as I can about the world for no real reason, I won't be living forever so I will need to make sure as much of my genetic make-up makes it into the future so beings observing the universe and learning things I could never phatom will be slightly more like me than the other replicator down the street. In fitness terms caring about your family is a good way to do this, caring about your extended family is also ok but slightly worse, caring for your very extended somewhat inbreed family (aka race) is also ok as is caring for humanity and then finally all Earth life. Taking these categories out of order reduces the chance of your particular combination to make it forward, individual genes may do well even if you mess these up as long as you do replicate at some point in your life.


Again saying things like that there is something like group differences is notably and perhaps blatantly racist by many more definitions as well.



Racialist in theory should imply someone without hostility or prejudice to people of other races, who does however consider race to be something real that affects society at large a useful abstraction like gender or perhaps the concept of family.

[giblets]

I don't see it their way at all. If somehow magically all Blacks in the world where to dissapear and be replaced by whites, Africa wouldn't be seeing a rise in living standards due to privilige. They would simply build the kind of society that Whites build. And if you magically replace all Whites with Blacks you will see not the sheding of white privlige but again the kind of society that Blacks create. Just as switching the Japanese for South Africans (of all races mind you) and vice versa would see the countries of Japan and South Africa both trending towards where the other country was before the switch (in general societal matters, the structure of the primary and secondary part of the economy would without a doubt change quite significantly).

If this is meant to mean that a white person, put in the same environment, will behave differently from a black person, you might be a racist...

[Elok]

So...what exactly do you say should be done based on this evidence? Lower immigration quotas from "dumb" countries, but this should not be considered discrimination somehow? I don't know what you're talking about WRT White Privilege, but as I believe in no such thing I'll assume it's irrelevant AFAIC.

I agree that "racist" can have several different meanings--wonderful thing, this English language--but in this context, it's "one who supports preferential treatment based on race, or favors one race over another." I believe that any average differences are irrelevant, as it is patently unjust to treat people as an extension of their demographic. And if it does not translate into policy differences, it's just an academic point.

I mentioned this before, and somebody--you? David Floyd? I don't recall--said that the point was not to get so worked up over lower Black test scores, as they have lower potential. That is blatantly racist--you'd be treating children not as individuals with their own potential, but as representatives of their race. If anything, you might categorize people by their actual IQs instead of just assuming the rough correlation "black = dumb," and that would be more sensible. But it's just bad policy to assume children can't rise to a challenge.

And yes, "******" is a verboten word, but I've heard plenty of racists use this weird argument in those terms. AFAICT, it means that they're only opposed to minorities when they aren't prettied up and sanitized for their comfort. For example, a Mexican is only a "wetback" when he eats cheap roadside tamales, picks fruit for a living, and acts like a person who lives off cheap roadside tamales and picks fruit for a living. A Mexican in a business suit is fine, unless perhaps he sells used cars in which case he might still be a wetback with that sleazy spic attitude. It's a confusing sort of calculus.