It is currently Fri Oct 19, 2018 6:42 am


"Racism"

  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Mike Sullivan

  • Posts: 186
  • Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 5:17 am

"Racism"

PostMon Nov 25, 2013 2:43 pm

Racism is a Europhobic epithet and conceptual framing in Trotskyist and especially cultural Marxist agitprop discourses. The term is meant to intimidate the person on the recieving end and disuade them from investigating the science of race realism, as well as the conclusions drawn from that. The primary functioning purpose of the epithet is part of a Jewish group evolutionary strategy to maintain hegemony by undermining and demonising their most able competitors, ethnic Europeans from organising for their own socio-political and cultural interests, completely independent of Jewish leadership, influence or ideology.

While some true believer race denialists are to be found amongst the useful idiots who parrot the line of "that's racist!", it is unlikely that the malicious, mostly Jewish, ideologues behind the epithet genuinely believe in genetic egalitarianism between the races. In its initial 1930 coining by Leon Trotsky,✡ a communist Jew and mass murder, the term "racists" is used in an arrogant sneer at what he calls "Slavophilism", the "messianism of backwardness" and also the "Teutonic jackasses". It is along this line, always attacking European self-determination specifically, that the phrase continued to be developed by various Marxist perverts such as Magnus Hirschfeld and the Frankfurt School.

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Racism (Marxism)
Last edited by Cosmotheist on Sat Nov 01, 2014 10:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Direct link not working-- redirect works from Racial Anthropology to Racism (Marxism) linked at top of article.
Offline
User avatar

Will Williams

  • Posts: 1807
  • Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 9:22 am

Race means subspecies

PostWed Oct 29, 2014 12:22 pm

http://theamericanmercury.org/2013/01/t ... pocalypse/

The Real Zombie Apocalypse

by H. Millard
Image

RACE MEANS SUBSPECIES. A subspecies is a group of organisms that has diverged from the species and which is on its way to being a separate species, usually no longer capable of bearing offspring with the old species.

We Whites are a subspecies. We are on our way to becoming a separate species. However, if we miscegenate with members of the old species, our highest possible destiny — specieshood — will be quashed and we will devolve back into the old species.

Miscegenation is the genocide of our subspecies and will blend to extinction those family lines of ours that engage in this great evil.

Spit when you see White miscegenationists and never accept them as friends. They are carriers of our destruction.

The genocidists know that the way to destroy White people and wipe us out is to make miscegenation seem normal and even desirable. It is neither.

We must stay separate and even isolated if possible from the infection of non-White genes.

Zombies? The current craze that few see as the metaphor that it offers.

The real zombies are the ones who can infect us with non-White genes and, when they do so, they create new zombies who in turn can create even more zombies.

It takes two Whites to make one new White child. This is the only way a child can receive the full 46 chromosomes and 20,000 or so genes containing the 3.1 billion DNA letters that make a White person.

It only takes one non-White mating with a White to produce a non-White child. This is so because such a child will only have 23 White chromosomes, 10,000 White genes and 1.5 billion DNA White letters. This child will not be half-White. It will be non-White.

If you mix a gallon of black, brown, yellow or red paint with a gallon of white paint, you will not end up with paint that is half white. You will end up with non-white paint. It is thus with the DNA code.

Don’t let the zombies get you. Stay White. Stay right. Don’t mix with the zombies. They can infect you and make you a zombie, too.

OK, so some will say that using zombies as a metaphor is over the top and that we’re all humans and it’s just natural to mate with other humans no matter their race.

Why, the fact that we can produce viable offspring with such mating must prove that there is no problem with such mating, right? Wrong. Just because something is possible does not make it desirable. As generations of parents have told their children, you can jump off a bridge if you want to, but that doesn’t make it desirable. it is the same with miscegenation.

To repeat what I wrote at the top. We Whites are a subspecies of the human species. We can become a new species, and we will become so if we do not miscegenate and if we remain separate and isolated and allow no gene transfer from the, ah, zombies (“See, there he goes again!” whine the anti-Whites).

Some of us believe that evolving into a new species incapable of bearing children with other types of humans is our highest destiny, and some of us further believe that this is also a command to us from on high.

The fundamental processes of evolution will automatically propel us into specieshood if we avoid all gene transfer from other races, because these fundamental processes work in machine-like fashion, without emotion and without conscious human intervention. However, they are slow and they may cause divergence and specieshood in some ways that may not be best for us in the long run because they may cause specific adaptations rather than general adaptations.

Specific adaptations are what we see with koalas, for example. They will starve if they can’t eat a certain type of plant or if they can’t live in just the right conditions. General adaptations are what we see with cockroaches, who will eat just about anything and live under a wide variety of conditions.

To avoid going in the wrong evolutionary direction; that is to say, to avoid building in specific adaptations that will mean our eventual extinction when conditions change (and they always will change) we are best advised to will our own evolution along a path that will build in general adaptations that will allow us to be able to survive and prosper no matter what changes happen in the future. To go in the right direction, we must live consciously and we must mate right, and we must breed like cockroaches in order to bring forth the greatest number of mutations so that the right ones will occur to move us forward, and we must avoid all gene transfer from non-Whites to us.

If you’re a betting person, put your money on the cockroach surviving and the koala going extinct.

Let us be as the cockroach and let us also avoid zombification.

We are a different kind. Let us remain so and let us consciously increase the differences.

(© 2012 H. Millard)
Offline

Jim Pennington

  • Posts: 27
  • Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 1:53 am

Re: "Racism"

PostSat Jan 03, 2015 4:09 am

The Curious Beginnings of a Useless Word

Samuel Francis


The Oxford English Dictionary is a multivolume reference work that is one of Western scholarship’s most remarkable achievements – the standard dictionary of the English language on what are known as “historical principles.” Unlike most dictionaries, the OED also provides information on the first historical appearance and usage of words. The range of the erudition in the OED is often astounding, but for American Renaissance readers, one of its most interesting entries is for the word “racism.”

According to the second edition (1989) of the OED, the earliest known usage of the word “racism” in English occurred in a 1936 book by the American “fascist,” Lawrence Dennis, The Coming American Fascism. The second usage of the term in English that the OED records is in the title of a book originally written in German in 1933 and 1934 but translated into English and first published in 1938 – Racism by Magnus Hirschfeld, translated by Eden and Cedar Paul. Since Hirschfeld died in 1935, before the publication of Dennis’ book the following year, and had already used the word extensively in the text and title of his own book, it seems only fair to recognize him rather than Dennis as the originator of the word “racism.” In the case of the word “racist” as an adjective, the OED ascribes the first known usage to Hirschfeld himself. Who was Magnus Hirschfeld and what did he have to tell us about “racism”?

Magnus Hirschfeld (1868-1935) was a German-Jewish medical scientist whose major work was in the field of what came to be known as “sexology” – the scientific study of sex. Like Havelock Ellis in England and Alfred Kinsey in the United States, Hirschfeld was not only among the first to collect systematic information about sexuality but also was an apostle of sexual “liberation.” His major work was a study of homosexuality, but he also published many other books, monographs, and articles dealing with sex. He wrote a five-volume treatise on “sexology” as well as some 150 other works and helped write and produce five films on the subject.

It is fair to say that his works were intended to send a message – that traditional Christian and bourgeois sexual morality was repressive, irrational, and hypocritical, and that emancipation would be a major step forward. His admiring translators, Eden and Cedar Paul, in their introduction to Racism, write of his “unwearying championship of the cause of persons who, because their sexual hormonic functioning is of an unusual type, are persecuted by their more fortunate fellow-mortals.” Long before the “sexual revolution” of the 1960s, Magnus Hirschfeld was crusading for the “normalization” of homosexuality and other abnormal sexual behavior.

Hirschfeld was the founder of an Institute for Sexual Science in Berlin and helped organize “sexology” on an international scale. In 1922, he was physically attacked and almost killed by anti-Semites in Munich. In May, 1933, the Nazis closed down his “Institute of Sexual Science” and Hirschfeld fled to France, where he lived until his death in 1935.

Racism is largely devoted to a highly polemical “refutation” of some of the main racial ideologies and theories of the 19th and 20th centuries. The writers whom Hirschfeld criticized, aside from his favorite target of the National Socialists themselves, were figures like Arthur de Gobineau, Vacher de La-Pouge, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, and others generally denounced today as “pseudo-scientists.” In fact, that is an inappropriate term. Some of them were not trying to write as scientists at all but rather as political theorists, while others are better described as pre-scientific writers on race who worked with inadequate information, concepts, methodology, and terminology. While Hirschfeld may have been correct in rejecting their more egregious errors, his sneering at them for these mistakes is rather like ridiculing Copernicus and Kepler because they continued to accept some erroneous ideas from medieval astronomy.

Even when Hirschfeld is right in his critique of the early race theorists, it is often because he has chosen easy targets. His “refutation” of “racism” is largely centered on irrelevant common-places that even extreme exponents of racial differences might readily acknowledge – that all human beings are part of the same species and can interbreed, that blood transfusions can take place between races, that “there is no such thing as a pure race,” that the races are identical in the vast majority of physical characteristics, that cephalic index is not a meaningful measurement of intelligence or character, etc. Yet his “scientific” evidence is often merely anecdotal or simply his own opinion asserted as unquestioned truth.

In another section, he recounts the names of those he considers the 70 most outstanding figures in world history and announces that “all such lists, when made without bias, will show that persons of genius and persons of outstanding talent are not set apart from the ruck by any colour of their eyes, by a peculiar shape of the skull or the nose, by any ‘ethnological’ characteristics whatever. What is decisive in human beings is not race but individuality.” It does not seem to occur to Hirschfeld that all but about 8 or 9 of the 70 world-historical figures on his list are white Europeans. There are no Negroes and only two Asians (Confucius and Sun Yat Sen).

It is interesting that for all his contempt for “racism,” Hirschfeld never once mentions IQ studies or the considerable psychometric evidence about race and intelligence that was already available even in the 1930s. Most of Hirschfeld’s polemic is aimed at the proponents of intra-European racial differences (Nordics, Alpines, Mediterraneans, Dinarics, etc.) and not at differences between whites and other major races (though he steadfastly denies such differences as well). Curiously, he never cites the work of Franz Boas and his disciples against “racism,” though that work was available in Europe at the time, nor does he invoke the ideas of the Frankfurt School, though Hirschfeld’s own claim that “racism” is rooted in fear, loss of self-esteem, and other social and psychological pathologies resembles the ideas the Frankfurt School was formulating.

Nor, despite Hirschfeld’s own Jewish background and the Nazi threat to Jews, does he seem preoccupied with anti-Semitism; in one or two passages he criticizes Jews themselves for their own ethnocentrism and faults Zionism for having created a new “race hatred” between Jews and Arabs. Moreover, Hirschfeld is a stout defender of eugenics, though not on racial lines, and he even has a brief chapter exploring a distinction he calls “Gobinism or Galtonism” – that is, attacking the ideas of French “racist” Arthur de Gobineau and defending those of Francis Galton, who coined the word “eugenics” and pioneered its development. Today most critics of “racism” would lump Galton and Gobineau together rather than distinguish between them.

As a serious critique of the view that socially significant natural differences between the races exist, Hirschfeld’s book is a failure, and even as a polemic against some of the more politicized and unverified claims about race made a century or more ago, it is weak. The importance of the book is not so much its content, however, as what it tells us about the word “racism” and how the enemies of white racial consciousness have developed and deployed it for their own purposes.

Hirschfeld describes his own political ideals as “Pan-Humanism,” a version of political, cultural, and racial universalism. The Pauls themselves write, “we think that the readers of Racism will detect a very definite orientation to the Left... [Hirschfeld] was one who fully realized that sexual reform is impossible without a preliminary economic and political revolution.”

In Racism, Hirschfeld offers what is essentially a definition of “Pan-Humanism”: “The individual, however close the ties of neighborhood, companionship, family, a common lot, language, education, and the environment of nation and country, can find only one dependable unity within which to seek a permanent spiritual kinship – that of humanity-at-large, that of the whole human race.” With one exception, he is unsparing in his denunciations of the ethnocentric loyalties of nations, races, and cultures: “Always and everywhere, except in Soviet Russia, xenophobia, xenophobia, xenophobia.” Later, he informs us, “It may be too early to speak, but perhaps the problem of nationalities and races has already been solved on one-sixth of the land-surface of the globe [i.e., Stalin’s Russia].”

“Racism,” therefore, is a term originating on the left, and has been so defined and loaded with meanings the left wants it to have that it cannot now be used by the supporters of white racial consciousness for any constructive purpose. Anyone who uses the term to describe himself or his own views has already allowed himself to be maneuvered onto his opponents’ ground and has already lost the debate. He may try to define the word differently, but he will need to spend most of his time explaining that he does not mean by it what everyone else means. As a term useful for communicating ideas that the serious supporters of white racial consciousness wish to communicate, the term is useless, and it was intended by those who developed it that it be useless for that purpose.

But understanding the origins of the word “racism” in Hirschfeld’s polemic also makes clear the uselessness of the word for any other purpose. No one seems ever to have used the word to describe his own ideas or ideas with which he agrees; its only application has been by the enemies of the ideas it purports to describe, and hence it has no objective meaning apart from its polemical usage. If no one calls his own ideas “racism” and its only application is to a body of ideas considered to be untrue and evil, then it has no use other than as a kind of fancy curse word, the purpose of which is simply to demonize anyone who expresses the ideas it is supposed to describe.

It is clear that Magnus Hirschfeld himself harbored deep ideological, professional, and personal animosities against those to whom he applied the word, and those animosities may have extended to the entire society that throughout his career he associated with sexual repression and which he wanted replaced by a kind of global communism under the label of “Pan-Humanism.” Whatever the flaws or virtues of his polemic against “racism,” his own opposition to racial consciousness was neither entirely rational nor disinterested. It is time that the enemies of racial, national, and cultural consciousness like Hirschfeld and the Frankfurt School cease to be able to claim a monopoly on rationality and sanity and that the obsessions and motivations that seem to shape their own ideologies and political behavior be subjected to the same scrutiny they apply to the societies and peoples whom their thinking could destroy.
Offline

jack

  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2015 2:04 am

Re: "Racism"

PostMon Jan 05, 2015 2:14 am

As it's used today, “racism” is a bastardized term. Our media refer only to the negative aspect of racism. In fact, thanks to our gallant journalists, most people associate racism with slavery, lynchings, discrimination, name calling and hate. I have never heard a member of the press or a show host recognize the positive aspect of racism—the stupid and the criminal are put aside. They never mention the higher intelligence, creativity and ability of abstraction of racially European folks. To them, such recognition would be a terrible social sin... and they must remain “pure” or their bosses will fire them.

When someone tells you not to go into a “bad neighborhood,” what does that person really mean? I would challenge the bleeding-heart liberals who talk so sanctimoniously to the rest of us—but live in gated communities—to move into one of those neighborhoods. How would they like to be robbed or to have their daughters and wives raped and murdered by the nobel savages of the inner city? Well, that's exactly why I don't want to have anything to do with those brutes. Observation and experience tell me that the further away I keep from the uncivilized, the better my life will be (if I'm lucky). That separation is one positive aspect of racism.

The liberal media holy persons are also the well-paid mouthpieces who hammer into our heads continuously that Social Security is going to run out of money. Do they ever consider that Welfare funds could run out too? Behold, I say to you: When the non-productive races become a majority, both Social Security and Welfare will surely run out of money.

Except for those silly “peace laureates,” I don't recall ever seen a negroid person earning a Nobel price. How much have the Blacks—or the mestizos for that matter—advanced any of the sciences, the arts or literature. When was the Bell Curve last discussed in public?

As of today, we're a decadent people.
Offline

ajaxcleanser

  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 12:56 am

Re: "Racism"

PostTue Jan 06, 2015 7:39 pm

"Racism", You know, for all of the hundreds of thousands of words written defining "Racism", the reality is really very simple, and quite surprising, i.e.:
"Racism, and Racist behavior, is simply the "preferential" treatment of a person, or persons, based on their ethnic and/or genetic heritage". That is not very difficult to understand, and its the Truth. It turns out I prefer to treat White, European-Americans, differently than Black, African-Americans.
Best regards,
Ajax Cleanser

Return to Lexicon

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron