But I have noticed a slight contradiction among racial nationalists.  They advocate for the separation of all races and the purification of at least their race.  Yet at the same time, those who believe this and harbor no hatred against other races usually also believes all races to be inherently equal (for if not, they would assert the superiority, or at least a hierarchy, of one over the others, which would make them technically a racist, which they often vehemently deny).

This in itself is not a contradiction, but I'd have to ask to the racial nationalists or anybody who thinks they can answer a few questions regarding this:

1) If all races are truly inherently equal (and by that, I mean if hypothetically born under the same exact circumstances, with the only difference being their race), then what is the significance of keeping a certain racial group pure?  Why would it be important?

2) What are the dangers of racial intermixing?  If it's so important that we do not intermix despite our inherent equality, what kinds of negatives are we preventing?  Why would these negatives come about?

3) If you answered racial tensions in question #2, then is racial intermixing really the cause of the problem, or is self-identification with a race (that supposedly has little implications on a person due to every race's inherent equality) to the point that it forms a major part of one's identity, thereby leading groups to form and tensions to form between these groups more of the cause?

While believing all races to be inherently equal and also needing to remain separate is not a contradiction in and of itself, it seems to me that the reasoning for keeping the races separate appears to contradict that.  After all, if everyone individual was inherently equal despite the race, what would be the issue with intermixing?  If dangers come about from racial intermixing, it certainly could not be because both are inherently equal, could it?

Post edited at 10:32 pm on Oct. 8, 2008 by Bud2400

/devil's advocate.

-------
ню вит хуйс

---

No race is superior or inferior, just different. We should have the right to preserve those differences.  

/devil's advocate.

---

Okay. Now you need to explain how they're different, whether or not this difference is inherent (and if it is, how equality would still be maintained), and most importantly, why it's significant (or at least significant enough to warrant preservation).

Post edited at 12:44 am on Oct. 9, 2008 by Bud2400

---

Okay.  Now you need to explain how they're different, whether or not this difference is inherent (and if it is, how equality would still be maintained), and most importantly, why it's significant (or at least significant enough to warrant preservation).

---

Isn't it obvious? White empires were always the greatest, empires have always fallen because of race-mixing, Whites score higher on IQ tests regardless of their background and all the other races are only good at running and cooking rice.

Therefore whites should remain pure. Not that we're better or anything. Just different.

-------
ню вит хуйс

This is a joke, yes?

-------
"It is the wrong question to ask, and therefore, as one  might expect, has
no right answer." - Hans von Campenhausen

This is the philosophy of my life.

---

This is a joke, yes?

---

I'd imagine it is.  He's clearly mocking how white nationalists tend to argue how the races are inherently different by taking what would be considered the values of European culture, the virtues of European history, and the current collective socioeconomic / educational position of whites (such as their general IQs) in our society today over most other races, yet at the same time, suggest that nobody's inherently superior or inferior over the other (which would make that specific argument irrelevent for if we're all inherently equal and just want to celebrate a culture, then why must race get in the way of that?).  In other words, they take what general social differences they see and immediately apply it to race based on that simple association alone, thereby disregarding any other possible factors.

As amusing as his mocking may be, it doesn't tell the full story.  It takes anecdotes of the views expressed by white nationalists frm his point of view, but I'd imagine a real white nationalist, or any kind of racial nationalist, answering the question or responding to what he said would be rather different.

2)
Loss of individuality, destruction of race, culture, ect.

---

This is a joke, yes?

---

I've never seen it as racial mixing being dangerous so much as the application of some degree of racial separatism being a practical and reasonable solution to certain problems.

-------
The reincarnation of Raekwon
this is what it sounds like when thugs cry

---

1)
Cultural differences, exploitation, different treatment, different qualities, ect.

---

Once ppl agree to live together then they can DECIDE to treat ppl equally.

---

2)
Loss of individuality, destruction of race, culture, ect.

---

I am glad you think racial tensions is not the reason for not intermixing.

-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP

---

1) Cultural differences

---

So why must race be mixed with culture? Is an Asian person incapable of growing up in, functioning perfectly in, and expressing a European culture?

Or do you believe that they're more likely to attempt retaining their own culture rather than assimilate? And if that's the case, why wouldn't you argue for assimilation as opposed to separatism?

---

exploitation

---

Could you elaborate?

---

different treatment, different qualities, ect.

---

Of what? Their culture?

Goes back to the point of why wouldn't you simply argue for assimilation as opposed to separatism?

---

Loss of individuality

---

Loss of individuality? If anything, I get the opposite sense - arguing for a stronger identification with a certain race and preservation of that race encourages collectivism, the opposite of individualism. Your race may be a strong part of your individual character if you wish it to be, but you're using a collective concept to do that. If you want to encourage individuality, you'd advocate tossing away all collective ideals you may have (race being one of them) and defining yourself based on who you individually are through your own personal experiences as opposed to through collective concepts or collective experiences.  It's akin to describing all of your individual hobbies, thoughts, exactly the way you act, etc. instead of using a label to describe yourself (which simplifies the explanation, though at the expense of creating misunderstandings).

---

destruction of race, culture, ect.

---

And what is the significance of that?  

I'm not trying to get on your ass about it. Please don't get that impression. I'm just wanting to discuss these things without the usual strawmen and bullshit being thrown around.

Post edited at 10:58 pm on Oct. 9, 2008 by Bud2400

---

I've never seen any point to the whole 'racial purification' thing (which miiiiight be because of my dating history, lmao), so I guess the only thing that would apply to me is the racial mixing issue

I've never seen it as racial mixing being dangerous so much as the application of some degree of racial separatism being a practical and reasonable solution to certain problems.

---

You told me once that you're a black nationalist, right?

I'm interested.  How and why do you think some degree of separatism will benefit society as a whole over complete integration?  What are the benefits vs. the costs?  What undesireable things would be prevented?

---

 If anything, I get the opposite sense - arguing for a stronger identification with a certain race and preservation of that race encourages collectivism, the opposite of individualism.  Your race may be a strong part of your individual character if you wish it to be, but you're using a collective concept to do that.

---

---

 If you want to encourage individuality, you'd advocate tossing away all collective ideals you may have (race being one of them) and defining yourself based on who you individually are through your own personal experiences as opposed to through collective concepts or collective experiences.

---

---

So why must race be mixed with culture? Is an Asian person incapable of growing up in, functioning perfectly in, and expressing a European culture?

---

As I've stated before, around here culture clashes.

---

Or do you believe that they're more likely to attempt retaining their own culture rather than assimilate? And if that's the case, why wouldn't you argue for assimilation as opposed to separatism?

---

If White and nonWhite culture mixed, the dominant would overtake and the other would, henceforth, die out.

---

Could you elaborate?

---

But the most exploitative aspect of the situation is that neither the racial quotas, the business preferences, the loss of freedom of speech, nor the disproportionate contributions to the welfare state have managed to sate the appetites of non-Whites living in the United States.

The more Whites sacrifice, the more non-Whites demand. Many Whites are beginning to believe that no amount of tribute, other than mass suicide, would satisfy the non-White demands.

If our presence stirs up that much hatred in the hearts of non-Whites, then the only sensible course of action is to separate ourselves from them.

---

Of what? Their culture?

Goes back to the point of why wouldn't you simply argue for assimilation as opposed to separatism?

---

If someone wants to experience Mexican culture in the USA, they shouldn't approve of the illegal immigration, but visit Mexico and see the real deal.

---

Loss of individuality? If anything, I get the opposite sense - arguing for a stronger identification with a certain race and preservation of that race encourages collectivism, the opposite of individualism. Your race may be a strong part of your individual character if you wish it to be, but you're using a collective concept to do that. If you want to encourage individuality, you'd advocate tossing away all collective ideals you may have (race being one of them) and defining yourself based on who you individually are through your own personal experiences as opposed to through collective concepts or collective experiences.  It's akin to describing all of your individual hobbies, thoughts, exactly the way you act, etc. instead of using a label to describe yourself (which simplifies the explanation, though at the expense of creating misunderstandings).

---

---

And what is the significance of that?  

---

---

A few people aren't a problem - when the number rises, they tend to remain individual.

As I've stated before, around here culture clashes.

---

So you're saying that large waves of migrants tend to retain their own cultures within the overall culture, and they're more or less able to simply because they have enough numbers to exclude themselves from the rest of society?  And through this, there are cultural clashes between this isolated group, other isolated groups, and society at large?

It would make sense, but again, why not just argue for their assimilation?  If they want to come live here, why shouldn't they just assimilate and you be happy with that?  The second and third generations usually do abandon this community at some point and join the mainstream society after all.

---

Because if nonWhites adopted White culture, their culture would die out.

If White and nonWhite culture mixed, the dominant would overtake and the other would, henceforth, die out.

---

And what would the problem with this be?  We're talking within the US only, not worldwide.  It's not as if the culture of their home country would disappear if they decided to move and assimilate into the US.

---

Yggdrasil:
It is a long list. Burdensome racial preference schemes in hiring, racial preference schemes in university admissions, racial preference schemes in government contracting and small business loans. Beyond quotas there is the denial of rights of free speech and of due process to Whites who are critical of these governmental policies. We have special punishments for assaults committed by Whites if the motives might be racial. In addition, Whites pay a proportion of the costs of the welfare state that is disproportionate to what they receive in benefits.

---

So because minorities tend to be poorer than usual, receive welfare more, and affirmative action is in place, you argue for having a society free of minorities?

Why not just denounce affirmative action, welfare, and all that, and push for greater integration so that these minorities aren't stuck in such low socioeconomic positions in society?

---

But the most exploitative aspect of the situation is that neither the racial quotas, the business preferences, the loss of freedom of speech, nor the disproportionate contributions to the welfare state have managed to sate the appetites of non-Whites living in the United States.

---

If you grow dependent on the government and aspire for nothing more believing that you can't achieve anything more because you're of whatever race, what would you expect?  Greater integration (which isn't forced) would lead to an end of that.  

---

The more Whites sacrifice, the more non-Whites demand. Many Whites are beginning to believe that no amount of tribute, other than mass suicide, would satisfy the non-White demands.  

If our presence stirs up that much hatred in the hearts of non-Whites, then the only sensible course of action is to separate ourselves from them.

---

Nah, the most sensible course of action is to separate the white individuals of today from the whites of the past.  Whites today are not guilty because whites in the past enslaved others, engaged in imperialism, passed discriminatory laws, etc.  Most minorities I've known do this, but there are quite a few, and whites too, who don't.  If you really oppose this, then you'd enlighten them to that fact as opposed to simply running away from the whole thing.

---

Assimilation = loss of individuality.

---

There is no loss of individuality by assimilating into a new culture.  You're still an individual who exhibits individual characteristics.  You still have your origins in a foreign place.  You just simply live in a new culture.  Same person, different circumstances.  No loss of individuality - it's merely just a change.

---

If someone wants to experience Mexican culture in the USA, they shouldn't approve of the illegal immigration, but visit Mexico and see the real deal.

---

That I'll agree with.

---

If everyone mixed, people would be more similar than if everyone was different.

---

Which would lead you to believe that they'd seek out their differences between each other more in terms of individual differences as opposed to collective differences (like race), no?

---

Why shouldn't it exist?

---

I asked you first.  At our present state, it'd be far more convenient to simply have everyone in the US to assimilate into one culture with each individual adding his or her own piece of their culture into that mix and integrate.  You clearly need to establish and prove some kind of significance and why the benefits would be greater than the costs if what you suggest is to ever work out.