|
Until you sign up you can't do much. Yes, it's free.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 | / / / Viewing Topic
|  |
|
to promote more true race equality  |
|
|
|
 Replies: 142 — Last Post Dec. 5, 2008 2:51pm by kidd rune
|
|
|
|
|
Web Resources: Suicide Myths Dispelled, Suicide Information
USA Suicide Hotline: 1-800-SUICIDE (1-800-784-2433)
|
kidd rune
Soothsayer
 Patron
|
     
To promote true race equality you have to PROVE that races are equal. You have to explain what equality is and how all races of man ARE equal. Do that.
 And kidd Rune thinks segregated continents are the answer. 
When did I ever say this? I said that nations created FOR races would help. A nation created for Whites. Whites could live there if they WANT TO. Other nations for mixed people and pro-multicultural people could exist too. Exaggerate my shit...
I don't CARE if rune believes in race because I believe that "race" is equivalent to skin color and it doesn't make any significant difference in human behaviour.
Can you back this up? What about the genetic differences proven by Masatoshi Nei and Arun K. Roychoudhury using DNA samples from various populations? The distance between a Keltic-Nordic Englishman being 0.133% from a Nigerian Negroid.
That's a LOT genetically - seeing as Neanderthals - a whole different species, have been claimed to be 0.3% different genetically (And Chimpanzees - a whole different GENUS - are 1.2-1.6% different.
The greatest percentage of genetic difference is .176% between Nigerians and Australian Aborigines. This is 11% of the genetic difference of 1.6% between humans and chimpanzees, different biological Families whose ancestral lines are believed to have separated 5-7 million years ago. The .133% genetic difference between the English and Nigerian populations is 8.3% as large as the genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees.
Sorry, Takinam, but I think that's a bit more than pigment. 
But this kid looks Swedish - correct? Light skin yellowish hair. He fits right in - don't you think?!?!?
-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"
|
8:13 pm on Nov. 26, 2008 | Joined: Nov. 2007 | Days Active: 262
Join to learn more about kidd rune Florida, United States | Straight Male | Posts: 10,341 | Points: 13,888
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
 LiveWire Humor
|
|
Moonscar
Dairy Product Addict
|
Quote: from kidd rune at 8:13 pm on Nov. 26, 2008
To promote true race equality you have to PROVE that races are equal. You have to explain what equality is and how all races of man ARE equal. Do that.
And kidd Rune thinks segregated continents are the answer.
When did I ever say this? I said that nations created FOR races would help. A nation created for Whites. Whites could live there if they WANT TO. Other nations for mixed people and pro-multicultural people could exist too. Exaggerate my shit...
I don't CARE if rune believes in race because I believe that "race" is equivalent to skin color and it doesn't make any significant difference in human behaviour.
Can you back this up? What about the genetic differences proven by Masatoshi Nei and Arun K. Roychoudhury using DNA samples from various populations? The distance between a Keltic-Nordic Englishman being 0.133% from a Nigerian Negroid.
That's a LOT genetically - seeing as Neanderthals - a whole different species, have been claimed to be 0.3% different genetically (And Chimpanzees - a whole different GENUS - are 1.2-1.6% different.
The greatest percentage of genetic difference is .176% between Nigerians and Australian Aborigines. This is 11% of the genetic difference of 1.6% between humans and chimpanzees, different biological Families whose ancestral lines are believed to have separated 5-7 million years ago. The .133% genetic difference between the English and Nigerian populations is 8.3% as large as the genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees.
Sorry, Takinam, but I think that's a bit more than pigment.
But this kid looks Swedish - correct? Light skin yellowish hair. He fits right in - don't you think?!?!?
Not with those lips, hair, nose and cheeks.
-------
"When you do things right.
People won't be sure you've done anything at all" ~ God like space cloud
|
8:18 pm on Nov. 26, 2008 | Joined: Nov. 2008 | Days Active: 248
Join to learn more about Moonscar New York, United States | Straight Male | Posts: 3,966 | Points: 6,494
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
kidd rune
Soothsayer
Patron
|
I wasn't following the debate, I was just making a statement.....
Aren't you past that "Skin color" crap anyway?
-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"
|
8:24 pm on Nov. 26, 2008 | Joined: Nov. 2007 | Days Active: 262
Join to learn more about kidd rune Florida, United States | Straight Male | Posts: 10,341 | Points: 13,888
|
|
| |
|
|
Takinam
Dairy Product Addict
|
Quote: from kidd rune at 8:13 pm on Nov. 26, 2008
To promote true race equality you have to PROVE that races are equal. You have to explain what equality is and how all races of man ARE equal. Do that.
And kidd Rune thinks segregated continents are the answer.
When did I ever say this? I said that nations created FOR races would help. A nation created for Whites. Whites could live there if they WANT TO. Other nations for mixed people and pro-multicultural people could exist too. Exaggerate my shit...
I don't CARE if rune believes in race because I believe that "race" is equivalent to skin color and it doesn't make any significant difference in human behaviour.
Can you back this up? What about the genetic differences proven by Masatoshi Nei and Arun K. Roychoudhury using DNA samples from various populations? The distance between a Keltic-Nordic Englishman being 0.133% from a Nigerian Negroid.
That's a LOT genetically - seeing as Neanderthals - a whole different species, have been claimed to be 0.3% different genetically (And Chimpanzees - a whole different GENUS - are 1.2-1.6% different.
The greatest percentage of genetic difference is .176% between Nigerians and Australian Aborigines. This is 11% of the genetic difference of 1.6% between humans and chimpanzees, different biological Families whose ancestral lines are believed to have separated 5-7 million years ago. The .133% genetic difference between the English and Nigerian populations is 8.3% as large as the genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees.
Sorry, Takinam, but I think that's a bit more than pigment. 
But this kid looks Swedish - correct? Light skin yellowish hair. He fits right in - don't you think?!?!?
I basically reiterated than many of the genetic differences we see in humans are superficial and those that aren't are usually disadvantages and noticeable through genetic illness. If you have a trait that is disadvantageous, you will be less likely to reproduce. I don't get it. Are you trying to ridicule me by stating that I said all human populations are the exact same? The point is that humans don't have the look the exact same for differences to be insignificant. As long as perceived "race" doesn't affect human behaviour, fitness, etc in relation to unknowns that other humans don't experience, then it doesn't matter. In the end, the only thing that matters is that we are HUMAN, HEALTHY, and of relative good genetic stock. Those things are SIGNIFICANT and random among ourselves. And yes, if you have ever been to Sweden, the people are extremely nice. === And just to quote the validity and reliability of your genetics information for which I don't believe.. THIS IS YOUR LINK.
http://www.racialcompact.com/racesofhumanity.html This is your author.
Richard McCulloch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_McCulloch This is his Wikipedia article, and Wikipedia is quite reliable.
"Richard McCulloch (born 1949) is an American author and advocate for racial preservationism. He sees the Nordish race as particularly endangered and proposes racial separatism." "McCulloch defines race to be a genetic population of humans similar to the way a species is a subdivision of a genus in taxonomy. He does not consider Caucasoid to be a race but a "subspecies", since it is too broad to have any functional meaning. Real races he contends are limited to smaller populations. He further explains that these races were formed by genetic isolation among the populations who migrated out of Africa. He claims these races now have distinct mental attributes and genetic attributes. [1]"
------>
(The last part is laughable because no proof exists for distinct mental and genetic attributes. Such is the reliability of your source and the bias of your author). He refers to the "Nordish" race in his writing ("In particularly McCulloch feels that his self-dubbed Nordish race" - From the Wikipedia article, and it is cited), which isn't actually a "defined" race. Please find a more reliable source and post it here. Preferrably, someone who sticks to the conventions of what SCIENTISTS have said, and who isn't some heretic AUTHOR with an opinion on something he doesn't specialize in. I would prefer a scientific review, and I would like to see all of his SOURCES, for which he doesn't always give. I would like someone who isn't a white nationalist to give me a good source, if what McColloch says is right, then it should be more widely available and not only available on his own personal website. None of the sources I've read that pertain to human genetics state what McColloch has said as a source, neither does Wikipedia.
Post edited at 8:40 pm on Nov. 26, 2008 by Takinam
|
|
|
|
|
Takinam
Dairy Product Addict
|
Quote: from Moonscar at 8:32 pm on Nov. 26, 2008
Quote: from kidd rune at 8:24 pm on Nov. 26, 2008
I wasn't following the debate, I was just making a statement.....
Aren't you past that "Skin color" crap anyway?
Again, I wasn't following the debate so that question leaves me confused.
Regardless, the "skin color crap" holds true. Perceived race has no bearing on significant mental structure so it doesn't matter. McColloch thinks so as quoted in his own writing (http://www.racialcompact.com/) but no evidence backs him up. The website is just a variety of what McColloch thinks about the demographics of people. McColloch has his ideas and the FFF (Foreningen for Folkens Framtid ) was to created to support thembut that has since disbanded. I would like rune to provide something of due reliability. Truth cannot be ignored. If McColloch is right, then his work will be quoted and classified as such. "A call for Racial Preservation, Racial Independence, Racial Rights and Racial Good Will" - (http://www.racialcompact.com/) Reliability is key. No one will just believe what you will just because you say it. The same stats, runie, and the same conclusion elsewhere will suffice. Post edited at 8:44 pm on Nov. 26, 2008 by Takinam
|
|
|
jakelong
Swami
 Ad Free
|
Quote: from kidd rune at 5:32 pm on Nov. 26, 2008
What if Whites die out?
You mean if we develop some special disease to kill them all off. Yeah that'd be too bad but us mixed ppl can have sex and after a few gens I can try popping out a white kid for you.
Who's going to pay for Africa? Blacks sure as hell aren't!
Haiti was home to many Blacks brought by Europeans.
Yep but you always use that example. Is that the only one you know?
And they wouldn't have had anything past basic literacy or guns or horses either!
And they wouldn't have dictators and mass killing and corruption.
It was mostly from the trade with India
It wasn't TRADE as in fair exchange. It was colonization and exploitation.
but you can't say that India is a 2nd world country not because of Britain.
Was it a 1st world country unde Britain?
India would be (almost) as shitty as sub-Saharan Africa
India was thriving civilization with years of knowledge and literature and arts long before the vikings knew to wash themselves properly. It had sueperior mathematicians and scientists while europeans were still living in huts. If it had NOT been colonized it might have done fine. Industrialization of those so-called first world nation came at a HUGE human cost for bothe indian and british workers. People were starved and exploited by the thousands and mistreated not just in the colonies but in Europe.
If you want to thank anyone then thank those blue bloods and rich exploiters who left ppl to die in the streets and kids to worked in the mills at the age of10 and men and women who died of turbeculosis at the age of 30 while the rich lived in fancy houses and spit on the poor even the poor whites.
Too late now - but at least the Indian people still exist.
Because they repoduce pretty fast. Not because of the whites.
That's infrastructure?
What do you call it? Infrastructure such as waterworks and baths existed in the Middle East long before white european found out about it. When the Roman Empire fell there was no running water and no proper plumbing in Europe for centuries. People in europe were living among garbage with rats and disease spreading because ppl lived with animals. That's how the Plague spread all over Europe. In the 1340s the Black Death killed 75 million Europeans. Why? Because of the fleas from rats which infested all Europe. Why? Because Europans had no clue about medicine and washing and sanitary.
Even in 1770s Russia had some plagues. But the Indus Valley civilization had known sewage and drainage and bathing andproper hygiene back in the 25th century BC
The ancient Indus systems of sewerage and drainage that were developed and used in cities throughout the Indus region were far more advanced than any found in contemporary urban sites in the Middle East and even more efficient than those in many areas of Pakistan and India today. The advanced architecture of the Harappans is shown by their impressive dockyards, granaries, warehouses, brick platforms and protective walls.
The purpose of the citadel remains debated. In sharp contrast to this civilization's contemporaries, Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt, no large monumental structures were built. There is no conclusive evidence of palaces or temples—or of kings, armies, or priests. Some structures are thought to have been granaries. Found at one city is an enormous well-built bath, which may have been a public bath. Although the citadels were walled, it is far from clear that these structures were defensive. They may have been built to divert flood waters. Most city dwellers appear to have been traders or artisans, who lived with others pursuing the same occupation in well-defined neighborhoods. Materials from distant regions were used in the cities for constructing seals, beads and other objects. Among the artifacts discovered were beautiful glazed faïence beads. Steatite seals have images of animals, people (perhaps gods) and other types of inscriptions, including the yet un-deciphered writing system of the Indus Valley Civilization. Some of the seals were used to stamp clay on trade goods and most probably had other uses as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilization That's civilization for you. And no they didn't really look traditional "white" or european either  Not that it matters though. Just so you know. 
-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP
|
2:29 am on Nov. 27, 2008 | Joined: Aug. 2005 | Days Active: 766
Join to learn more about jakelong California, United States | Straight Male | Posts: 14,200 | Points: 25,033
|
|
| |
|
|
kidd rune
Soothsayer
Patron
|
You mean if we develop some special disease to kill them all off. Yeah that'd be too bad but us mixed ppl can have sex and after a few gens I can try popping out a white kid for you.
Do you know how small of a chance that will be of ever happening? You don't get it - Whites can't exist inside of other races. You're depriving a race of life.
Yep but you always use that example. Is that the only one you know?
No...
And they wouldn't have dictators and mass killing and corruption.
Prove it. Do you think Africa was full of love and friendship before that?
They wouldn't have had the technology to do mass killings - but there would probably have been constant warfare.
It wasn't TRADE as in fair exchange. It was colonization and exploitation.
But the Europeans gave back a lot to India, as I said.
Was it a 1st world country unde Britain?
They didn't have the classifications back then and that all depended on the other nations. But, without British help, they would be 3rd world no doubt.
India was thriving civilization with years of knowledge and literature and arts long before the vikings knew to wash themselves properly. It had sueperior mathematicians and scientists while europeans were still living in huts.
HA! Don't mix up the Aryan invented India with the India of THAT day.
India has been subject to Caucasoid invasions for over 5000 years, prompting the rise and fall of one civilization after another as the White invaders became absorbed into the non-Whites. Then, about 1800 B.C. Aryans again invaded from the northwest, this time establishing a caste system of White Supremacy in some ways. Interracial mixing was banned and punishable by death. India blossomed into a great culture, giving expression to philosophy, poetry, science, mathematics, and literature. The land prospered as never before - OR AFTER. The caste system lasted for about 2000 years - then broke down but still somewhat exists today. And about the Vikings at that time? Nah... http://www.infohub.com/TRAVEL/SIT/sit_pages/8618.html
http://www.trypillia.com/articles/eng/se4.shtml http://www.eyci.ca/history/first_c.htm http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=48570
Europe's oldest civilization~built 7000 years ago, between 4800 and 4600 BC, 150 gigantic monuments, temples even, 2000 years older than Stonehenge and the Pyramids! http://www.knowth.com/newgrange.htm
http://www.maeshowe.co.uk/maeshoweabout.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age_Europe
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/7-5-2005-72654.asp
Then again, Vikings didn't exist at that time. Here's info on the genetic origin of the Indo-European languages:
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?jgrjqzm3yka
If it had NOT been colonized it might have done fine. Industrialization of those so-called first world nation came at a HUGE human cost for bothe indian and british workers. People were starved and exploited by the thousands and mistreated not just in the colonies but in Europe.
If you want to thank anyone then thank those blue bloods and rich exploiters who left ppl to die in the streets and kids to worked in the mills at the age of10 and men and women who died of turbeculosis at the age of 30 while the rich lived in fancy houses and spit on the poor even the poor whites.
I'm not thanking anyone or saying anything but India got a lot of technology from Europeans. Do I approve of them going there and colonizing it? No. And I really doubt they would have made that large technological leap. They were years behind Europe - though they, historically, were strong.
Because they repoduce pretty fast. Not because of the whites.
The Whites didn't feel like slaughtering them all either - Here's a bit of what the Indians did because the Whites told them to eat beef grease:
http://paste2.org/p/107751
What do you call it? Infrastructure such as waterworks and baths existed in the Middle East long before white european found out about it. When the Roman Empire fell there was no running water and no proper plumbing in Europe for centuries. People in europe were living among garbage with rats and disease spreading because ppl lived with animals. That's how the Plague spread all over Europe. In the 1340s the Black Death killed 75 million Europeans. Why? Because of the fleas from rats which infested all Europe. Why? Because Europans had no clue about medicine and washing and sanitary. Even in 1770s Russia had some plagues.
I lol'd. Trying to mix up the peasants with all of Europe? Much of these "Dirty" Europeans were immigrants into the new land.
But the Indus Valley civilization had known sewage and drainage and bathing andproper hygiene back in the 25th century BC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilization That's civilization for you. And no they didn't really look traditional "white" or european either
I could ask you "What race are the Indians" but no true answer can be given. It's always different.
Aryans invaded - Mediterraneans invaded - Semites invaded (Only a little) - Dravidic Caucasoids mixed with Veddic Australoids... Maybe Kemp is right?
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=3229292&postcount=1 The Dravidic nonWhite Australoid mixed people lived mostly in Southern India - the IVC was in the north. And that sculpture is from late Mature Harappan period according to Wiki - which is at the end of the civilization. OF COURSE they didn't look like the Aryan invaders - they mixed out by then.
-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"
|
9:39 am on Nov. 27, 2008 | Joined: Nov. 2007 | Days Active: 262
Join to learn more about kidd rune Florida, United States | Straight Male | Posts: 10,341 | Points: 13,888
|
|
| |
|
|
Moonscar
Dairy Product Addict
|
Quote: from kidd rune at 9:39 am on Nov. 27, 2008
You mean if we develop some special disease to kill them all off. Yeah that'd be too bad but us mixed ppl can have sex and after a few gens I can try popping out a white kid for you.
Do you know how small of a chance that will be of ever happening? You don't get it - Whites can't exist inside of other races. You're depriving a race of life.
Yep but you always use that example. Is that the only one you know?
No...
And they wouldn't have dictators and mass killing and corruption.
Prove it. Do you think Africa was full of love and friendship before that?
They wouldn't have had the technology to do mass killings - but there would probably have been constant warfare.
It wasn't TRADE as in fair exchange. It was colonization and exploitation.
But the Europeans gave back a lot to India, as I said.
Was it a 1st world country unde Britain?
They didn't have the classifications back then and that all depended on the other nations. But, without British help, they would be 3rd world no doubt.
India was thriving civilization with years of knowledge and literature and arts long before the vikings knew to wash themselves properly. It had sueperior mathematicians and scientists while europeans were still living in huts.
HA! Don't mix up the Aryan invented India with the India of THAT day.
India has been subject to Caucasoid invasions for over 5000 years, prompting the rise and fall of one civilization after another as the White invaders became absorbed into the non-Whites. Then, about 1800 B.C. Aryans again invaded from the northwest, this time establishing a caste system of White Supremacy in some ways. Interracial mixing was banned and punishable by death. India blossomed into a great culture, giving expression to philosophy, poetry, science, mathematics, and literature. The land prospered as never before - OR AFTER. The caste system lasted for about 2000 years - then broke down but still somewhat exists today. And about the Vikings at that time? Nah... http://www.infohub.com/TRAVEL/SIT/sit_pages/8618.html
http://www.trypillia.com/articles/eng/se4.shtml http://www.eyci.ca/history/first_c.htm http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=48570
Europe's oldest civilization~built 7000 years ago, between 4800 and 4600 BC, 150 gigantic monuments, temples even, 2000 years older than Stonehenge and the Pyramids! http://www.knowth.com/newgrange.htm
http://www.maeshowe.co.uk/maeshoweabout.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age_Europe
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/7-5-2005-72654.asp
Then again, Vikings didn't exist at that time. Here's info on the genetic origin of the Indo-European languages:
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?jgrjqzm3yka
If it had NOT been colonized it might have done fine. Industrialization of those so-called first world nation came at a HUGE human cost for bothe indian and british workers. People were starved and exploited by the thousands and mistreated not just in the colonies but in Europe.
If you want to thank anyone then thank those blue bloods and rich exploiters who left ppl to die in the streets and kids to worked in the mills at the age of10 and men and women who died of turbeculosis at the age of 30 while the rich lived in fancy houses and spit on the poor even the poor whites.
I'm not thanking anyone or saying anything but India got a lot of technology from Europeans. Do I approve of them going there and colonizing it? No. And I really doubt they would have made that large technological leap. They were years behind Europe - though they, historically, were strong.
Because they repoduce pretty fast. Not because of the whites.
The Whites didn't feel like slaughtering them all either - Here's a bit of what the Indians did because the Whites told them to eat beef grease:
http://paste2.org/p/107751
What do you call it? Infrastructure such as waterworks and baths existed in the Middle East long before white european found out about it. When the Roman Empire fell there was no running water and no proper plumbing in Europe for centuries. People in europe were living among garbage with rats and disease spreading because ppl lived with animals. That's how the Plague spread all over Europe. In the 1340s the Black Death killed 75 million Europeans. Why? Because of the fleas from rats which infested all Europe. Why? Because Europans had no clue about medicine and washing and sanitary. Even in 1770s Russia had some plagues.
I lol'd. Trying to mix up the peasants with all of Europe? Much of these "Dirty" Europeans were immigrants into the new land.
But the Indus Valley civilization had known sewage and drainage and bathing andproper hygiene back in the 25th century BC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilization That's civilization for you. And no they didn't really look traditional "white" or european either
I could ask you "What race are the Indians" but no true answer can be given. It's always different.
Aryans invaded - Mediterraneans invaded - Semites invaded (Only a little) - Dravidic Caucasoids mixed with Veddic Australoids... Maybe Kemp is right?
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=3229292&postcount=1 The Dravidic nonWhite Australoid mixed people lived mostly in Southern India - the IVC was in the north. And that sculpture is from late Mature Harappan period according to Wiki - which is at the end of the civilization. OF COURSE they didn't look like the Aryan invaders - they mixed out by then.
"Whites can't exist inside of other races. You're depriving a race of life. " You mean like your depriving a race of freedom if you carry out this plan? No one is depriving anything, people just don't look at race as much as you so they don't care if they mix.
-------
"When you do things right.
People won't be sure you've done anything at all" ~ God like space cloud
|
9:58 am on Nov. 27, 2008 | Joined: Nov. 2008 | Days Active: 248
Join to learn more about Moonscar New York, United States | Straight Male | Posts: 3,966 | Points: 6,494
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
kidd rune
Soothsayer
Patron
|
That would be a pretty small country..........
Okay?
-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"
|
10:31 am on Nov. 27, 2008 | Joined: Nov. 2007 | Days Active: 262
Join to learn more about kidd rune Florida, United States | Straight Male | Posts: 10,341 | Points: 13,888
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| Looking for something else?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| / / / Viewing Topic | |
|
491 users online 
221630 members 
You have 1 new message.
