What is the end game for race realist?

That's because blacks are uplifted by whites; blacks are a net fiscal deficit, for instance. How do whites benefit from a black population other than having rappers and basketball players?

 

Fact.

Maybe because the "whitest" countries on Earth tend to have a lot of things that others don't. For example, most white countries aren't in or on the verge of internal strife and civil war, unlike a lot of African and Asian nations, and they also enjoy a lot more freedoms because they're democracies or close to it, unlike countries with much more limited freedoms. I picture a black person being more likely to move to New Zealand or Finland because its pretty safe and stable, as opposed to say, the Congo or Syria. Though to be fair, the average person is not gonna live in either of those places at the moment.

Technically, they still do. Europe as a whole and Australia do count. Lot of different ethnic groups, sure but still.

I should ask, if you had the chance to move to another country from the U.S., where would you most likely go and why?

 

Why is that? Why shouldn't white people have a place where their genetic traits are preserved?

No, people do not have "a right to live wherever they want". This isn't John Lennon's communist manifesto "Imagine". We live in a world of nations, who have laws that control who can, and cannot, live within their borders.

I could get behind the idea of whites having a homeland in Europe.

Things can change very quickly. We've only had 50 years of this Marxist experiment with radical racial egalitarianism (which is not egalitarian in the slightest). In the overwhelming majority of history people have generally stayed within their own racial and ethnic groups. And, keep in mind, only whites in white countries are trying to expand "diversity". Most minorities don't want it, and stay within their own group.

As society continues to collapse in the future, people will fall back on what human beings are naturally inclined to rely on in times of hardship... family, friends, culture, traditions, religion, with race falling right in the middle. It's no different than people grouping together in prison by race. It's a natural reaction. "Diversity" is a social experiment, and it has produced many problems since its introduction. The "mainstream media" is losing its influence slowly but surely, and people are turning to alternative forms of media more and more. Trump won in large part because he tapped into the frustration that many whites feel in this country seeing their country stolen from them by politicians. Hopefully more and more will gain a racial awareness and realize how stacked the deck is against them, thanks to left-wing politics.

 

No, Blacks are succeeding more now because they are no longer being oppressed by Whites with racist social policies like segregation. Why do Blacks need to benefit Whites in any way? I'm not here for your existence. We're all just people living our lives.

The only way Whites are going to cease to exist is if White people stop having sex with each other and producing children. That's simply not going to happen so you have nothing to worry about. Personally I don't care what people look like so I don't care either way but White people are not going to stop ceasing to exist if they don't form a country where only White people can live. That idea is just an excuse to be racist.

The people already living within those borders have a right to exist and they will fight for the right to continue living there.

Good luck convincing Whites in Europe to allow you to do that. I don't see it happening.

That day is gone. It's in the past. Technology has changed the world. We are communicating like never before and ideologies like racism are not going to be part of our future.

Hopefully Trump is the last hurrah for racism, bigotry and general stupidity. He's going to be a bad President. We've had bad Presidents before. He pulled an upset and White Nationalists are all excited about him but he's not their President. He's a con-artist. He's going to disappoint all of the uneducated Whites who voted for him. Hopefully he will be a one term President and we can get back to Liberal and Egalitarian politics with a new President and make some real progress.

 

Likely, you've never heard of Eugenics. It's been around a long time.

 

I have. I have whole books on the subject. Eugenics has been thoroughly discredited as has Scientific Racism.

 

Gosh, when I started this thread, I thought it was yet another thread to discuss the underpinnings of reparations. In any event, the question must be asked, who, if any, are actually asking for this as a political agenda? We see racial purity being discussed broadly, and uniformly around the globe. Certainly, this isn't a unique conversation to just the United States. Moreover, the real question then is why the posters here decided that it was necessary to create this flame bait thread in the first place.

 

Because race realist rarely ever talk without political undertones. Let's just keep things honest here.

 

Actually we hear all the time that blacks are still oppressed. BLM is a good example. Why aren't blacks succeeding in areas of the world where they are the majority race?

Whites aren't reproducing at levels necessary to fend off the massive waves of non-white immigration and reproduction that occurs in white countries. That's why whites are expected to no longer be the majority race in a few decades. There are a number of reasons why this is occurring.

I think true diversity should continue to exist in the future, which is why I don't want white genetic traits to be lost in a sea of brown.

That's not what you said. You said the Earth doesn't belong to whites and that people have the right to live wherever they want. This is not true. If a country with a 95% white population wanted to, it could prevent non-whites from living in their country. Same goes for the countries of other races.

Right-wing groups are on the rise in Europe. Hopefully that continues and gains momentum. Western civilization depends on it.

You have no way of knowing the future. Communication is helping to highlight the failures of multiculturalism as well, which includes the disproportionately high levels of black crime.

Liberal politics is not egalitarian, unless you translate egalitarian to mean whatever benefits minorities at the expense of whites. Hopefully Trump does well and gets more of the white vote. Either that, or the US will continue to balkanize and each respective group will be more tribalistic. The latter is actually better for my agenda.

 

Define "success". There are black people who "succeed" in their own country. Aliko Dangote is a multi billionaire, worth 15.7 billion dollars. That's nothing to sneeze at. He's not American, he's Nigerian. And the list of multi millionaires out of Africa is pretty astounding as well.

Now one would argue if these countries are world powers or not. But that's an entirely different argument. Clearly there are successful people within the African continent. And let's be real, a lot of white only nations aren't so hot either. Places like Bulgaria are essentially third world countries and are super poor.

So again when you use these arguments it's a double edged sword.

Also just so you know, BLM wasn't started by black people. White people fund it pretty heavily, and isn't a movement managed by anyone black. There are a few key figures who are black, but it's mostly run by white liberals because they supply all of the funding and media coverage.

It would be interesting to hear the actual reasons for this. And this isn't really anybody elses fault but white people's anyway. As are most "white problems". Diversity exist because you decided to bring all these other groups over, when you thought you could exploit and make money off of their labor. Now that you have to compete directly with them, now they're scum.

I don't really believe in egalitarianism. It think it's silly. People just aren't the same on an individual level (I don't believe in group differences) So everyone won't have the same income. I think trying to legislate egailitarianism actually make things less equal for minorities. Because honestly white people actual benefit a ton from the idea of diversity and egalitarianism moreso than minority groups. They make the most money as a result of it.

 

Sorry, perhaps you thought more about this than you wrote, but this doesn't either address my questions, or answers topical questions raised.

First, I'd say this. "Race "realists" what ever that is supposed to mean, seems a remarkably elusive conversation. Are they racists from only one race? If so, why? I pointed out that there are racial purity strains around the globe within every racial group. The question is which race then becomes the "voice" for this in our country? I see more racist content being developed by groups like BLMs for example, than I see from other racial purity groups. Certainly, they get more press. When mr Obama laments for an hour how he feels the country hasn't been able to "move beyond" slavery, I have to ask, why? Does he not appreciate the very expensive lifestyle he enjoys? Can he not appreciate just how hypocritical his remarks now are?

Evidently, not. He seems way more interested in continuing and being combative about this "realism" as he sees it. What end then does he see? Clearly, he won't ever accept that there is substantive equality. Without the assertion of inequality, his livelihood is threatened. Perhaps he should simply slink away, so his record can be quickly forgotten, and leave the nation to actually find the peace he would otherwise destroy.

 

Egalitarianism is a moral philosophy that people should be treated fairly under the law regardless of differences. Egalitarianism is a fundamental value of American democracy. Civil Rights activists pushed for the egalitarian principles to be extended to everyone. Everyone benefits in an Egalitarian society. The only people who really oppose it are bigots who don't want social equality.

 

So let's take a step back and define "race realism", just to make sure we're working with the same definitions.

I don't care about partisan BS involving Obama or BLM, so I won't address it.

Race realism can find it roots in 1994's The Bell Curve co-authored by Charles Murray. It was a book that went out to study the differences in IQ among different racial groups. The book is pretty big and bloated, and has a lot of statistics and jargon in it. But basically states at the bell curve the is a standard deviation of 15 points between black and whites. He also says native Americans have a low IQ. The book has been mainly discredited, plenty of followup books have basically discredited majority of the content in the book. However there are a still fringe people who live and breathe by it.

I can't pint point when the term race realism was born or who coined it. But the reason why the term "race realism" was invented is because many opponents of race realism have generally stated that there isn't really a such thing as "race". "Race" in case you don't know is a mostly social term. Many biologist have said that when we see outer appearances like skin color or hair texture, it is something called pheotypic traits, or cellular mutations as a result of years of evolution where people adapt to the environment. Hence many scientist have concluded that how we socially view race is mostly not a scientific reality. Now genotypic traits can have some correaltion between phenotypic traits, but as to how much remains unknown. This small variable has given race realism room to breathe.

Now race realism is a purposely vague term. It has basically been amended to say "a Race realist is anyone who believe in group differences". Now by "group" they usually mean "race". By this definition most people are "race realist" because most people believe that there are differences between races. However how discrete these differences are probably varies between people. Race realist believe that the social definition of race is accurate, and many things we see in society are a result of genetics. They do not believe in the idea of "free will" and are philosophically determinist.

Race Realist could be of any race or political background. But in general they're "conservative" (note the quotes, because they're not really conservative) and white males (mostly). They're generally considered the intellectual wing of white nationalism. They generally try to separate themselves in public from more radical and activist wings of white nationalism like neo nazi and the KKK. However they don't really denounce it either. In general race realist, due to the vagueness of the term, love to play dumb whenever the many overlaps between white nationalism and "race realism" occurs. Vowing to use the BS of "we're just being scientific".

One would argue if race realism is all that immersed in science at all. For the most part they cite studies that are at least 2 decades old, have a pretty poor understanding of economics, and seem to really not know much about world politics or history. Their commentary of Africa and Asia is something right out of an elemetary school lesson, and they seem to be pretty clueless about modern day Europe as well. They generally have many people in the scientific community in their ranks, mostly social scientist, psychologist, biologist, geneticist, etc. They will generally accept anyone who can come up with some BS anecdote explaining why whites are better than everyone. They generally spend about 90% of their time putting down blacks. They generally have yellow fever, mostly fetishsizing asians and asian culture. But a few hardcore ones admit Asians have higher IQ but are still inferior to whites at everything else. They also say assine things like "well we're only saying we're more intelligent, not that we're superior to blacks". Then proceed to talk about black low impulse control and genetic predisposition for violence. It just wreaks of a political movement just using science as a means to justify it's politics.

 

Blacks are uplifted from living amongst whites as evidenced by lower lethal shootings from white compared to black police officers, black students performing better in whiter schools and blacks in white nations compared to black nations. Black diversity disadvantages whites as whites do worse in black schools and blacks are net fiscal deficits and rely on whites for welfare and the advantages of infrastructure and employment. Additionally, black owned banks are less likely to loan to blacks than are whites owned banks.

By numerous measures, blacks are better off from white diversity but black diversity is a tremendous burden to whites.

So, why would whites want black diversity in their living space anymore than they'd want nuclear waste?

 

Now is egalitarianism and equality the same in your book. I would argue that the USA is not built on any ideas of equality or any egalitarian society. Nor should it be. That's essentially communism. What USA should be built on is meritocracy (which is currently not built on completely). I feel egalitarianism, while it does sound nice is a step in the wrong direction.

 

Whites are less likely than minorities to have children they can't afford just to get a bigger welfare subsidy. Whites are more likely to only have the number of kids they can afford. If they can't afford them, they do not have them, or they have less of them. This is largely a function of unemployment. In most states in the country, a single mother with 2 kids collects more in welfare benefits than she would if she worked full time in a low wage job. Since minority women are more likely than white women to be unemployed, they take advantage of this at a higher rate.

Minorities are significantly more likely than whites to have children out of wedlock.

People who have more education typically have less children, and whites have higher education levels than minorities.

(Asians are the exception to the aforementioned points. I'm referring to black and brown)

Now, all of this isn't to say whites are not to blame for part of the problem. Many whites have chosen materialism and comfort over having children. Some have embraced Marxism, which is a nihilistic ideology that delegitimizes the role of the family unit. Some have avoided having kids because the future of the country is not theirs, and doesn't represent their values.

It's not really about competition. Whites and Asians as a group are outcompeting blacks and Hispanics. The issue is whether this is good for the country or not, and many of us don't think that it is.

And, by the way, "diversity" really got started when we built a welfare state.

 

Funny how you only addressed those 2 points. Not the points that I thoroughly debunked

 

Let's make no mistakes. You're not competing with black people, because if you were you would have already lost. We do not have a totally free market, and we have a government heavily involved in economics that pics winners and losers. Whites just have the luxury of being picked as the "winner".

Until we remove all regulation from the economy, you're not actually competing. But when we do start really competing, you better bring your A game. Trust me on that one.

 

Egalitarianism is not communism. Egalitarianism is not in conflict with meritocracy. Being treated fairly under the law is a concept any sensible person can understand and it is a founding principle of American society it was just practiced hypocritically because of bigotry and racism. We are far closer to an Egalitarian society now than we were a few decades ago and that is absolutely a good thing in my book.

 

How is that not oppression?

So what kept black countries from developing culturally to the point of Europeans or Northeast Asians?

This simply isn't going to happen so long as Whites continue to reproduce so it's not a real issue.[/quote]

Their genetic traits will become rarer and rarer as time goes on. For your argument to work, whites will have to reproduce only with whites, which would require rejecting the race-mixing propaganda that is also disseminated by the left.

True, which would be completely fine.

There's plenty of reason to believe they will rise to power, given their rising support in Europe.

The cowardice of the mainstream media is not really the issue. They will continue to push left-wing agendas until their support base dries up.

I'll worry when the left starts liking Trump. As long as they despise him at current levels, he will most likely be a good thing for this country, and the right.

 

This isn't basketball we are talking about. We are talking about the sciences, inventions, manufacturing, entrepreneurship, business, economics, education, and more. Blacks have never done better than whites in any of these fields. Now, I'm sure you have plenty of excuses for that, but it's still a fact.

Would that be Obama's government? Why isn't he picking blacks to be winners? Maybe whites are just doing better in school, getting better jobs, etc?

There will never be the complete removal of "all regulation from the economy", and that's mostly due to the left-wing politics that calls for more and more regulation. Conservatives are the only ones calling for a free market. Not the left.

And blacks in general have a lot of issues to overcome in their community before they could really start competing with other races. They'll have to worry about competing with Hispanics first before whites.

 

Oppression is when the government systematically discriminates against you. BLM is opposing social injustice.

Geography. Some parts of Africa were also more developed at different points than all of Europe so race is clearly not the reason.

What race-mixing propaganda? Who is actively telling people to have sex with people of a different race? Last time I checked it was a choice.

There's no reason to believe they will have any meaningful political power and certainly won't reach a point where White Nationalist ideology is enforced by law.

I fully expect progressive and egalitarian principles to become more common with time. Trump is a minor set back.

There's no way he will be good for the country. Good for its decline in every important way perhaps but he will be a bad President. He will probably actually be good for Democrats in the long run just as Bush was good for the campaign of Obama.

 

Law enforcement is a function of the Government, so if they are protesting "racist" law enforcement by the Government, how is that not oppression?

When was sub-Saharan Africa more developed than all of Europe?

Choices are influenced by propaganda. The media is full of examples of race mixing propaganda.

You have no way of predicting that. We are seeing white Europeans pushing back hard against immigration in Europe. I hope that continues. Western civilization depends on it.

We will see. Perhaps society has to fail even more under progressive and egalitarian principles before it comes to its sense. By the way, isn't it interesting how it took the mass importation of the Western hemisphere's poorest and least educated immigrants in order to secure a win for those progressive and egalitarian principles?

The left has been wrong the entire 2016 election season. I think they should take a break from the prediction game for a while. They suck at it.

By the way, did they ever find the real killer of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman?

 

Their primary concern appears to be racist cops and biased juries letting cops get away with murder. You can call that injustice but hardly call it oppression.

I said certain parts of Africa. Specifically Northeast Africa. Ancient Egypt and Nubia.

Like what? What media influence is encouraging people of different races to have sex with each other? Where is the evidence that this is deliberate? I think you are calling it propaganda because you don't like race-mixing not because there is a systematic effort to get people of different races to have sex.

Can you give examples? I'm not psychic but I can see trends and I see no evidence that White Nationalism has a chance of being taken seriously.

When did that happen?

Polls have been reliable in the past. Trump winning was indeed a shock. Actually being a good President is going to be a challenge. I predicted Bush would be bad. He was. I predicted Obama would be good. He was. I predict Trump will be bad because he has no policy recommendations that could seriously help America.

I don't see what that has to do with anything. If OJ Simpson did it they did a good job of setting him up and locking him behind bars for other crimes.

 

Man Egalitarianjay is such a n00b when it comes to debating.