Nxivm sex slaver Keith Raniere attended Waldorf Schools and consequently their fundamental teachings may be of some interest to readers in our study of the cult leader.
By AnonyMaker
The problem is, that some teachers and some Waldorf schools do teach some of the worst of Steiner’s Anthroposophist nonsense, or at least teach and treat children based on accepting or believing it.
They can never outright reject any of it because of the culty orthodox ideological adherence that prevents them from overtly acknowledging that their guru was ever wrong about anything.
Thus classrooms still have to be painted in the particular colors that Steiner originally specified rather than say a choice of calming pastels, and kids have to be held back in learning to read according to some largely uninformed theory laid down more than a century ago regardless of what the best modern research says about childhood development.
When it comes to racism, US Waldorf schools explicitly reject it – though one or two cases are questionable.
I did a quick check of the one that is perhaps most infamous, and its online photos are mostly full of white kids, in spite of its being located in a very diverse city.
The problem is, it’s a “yes, but” sort of situation.
Steiner’s more progressive statements can be taken to mean that he thought that non-Aryans could be educated and brought up to the same level as white people, but there’s still the underlying presumption, based on his explicit doctrines of karma and reincarnation by race, that such people have different origins and still-persistent differences.
This is the best that an official Waldorf defense/apologist site can come up with:
“In our own epoch the concept of race will gradually disappear along with all the differences that are relics of earlier times….We can still speak of races but only in the sense that the real concept of races is losing its validity.” https://waldorfanswers.org/ARacistMyth.htm (a pro-Waldorf site)
And it turns out that Steiner’s underlying belief in how that will come about, is through some sort of extinction of the other races, with the superior white race coming out on top:
Steiner said, “On one side we find the black race, which is earthly at most. If it moves to the West, it becomes extinct. We also have the yellow race, which is in the middle between earth and the cosmos. If it moves to the East, it becomes brown, attaches itself too much to the cosmos, and becomes extinct. The white (weiß) race is the future, the race that is spiritually creative.” https://sites.google.com/site/waldorfwatch/steiners-racism
Again, the problem is that there are contemporary reports of non-Aryan children being treated differently in Waldorf schools because of their race, based on Steiner’s philosophy, by at least some teachers.
And Anthrosopophists and Waldorf schools are too ideological and dogmatic to engage in rational analysis and winnowing of Steiner’s ideas and teachings, and admit that some were simply wrong, so instead they can only equivocate and engage in cult-like apologism, cherry-picking and hair-splitting.
There is a lengthy list of famous and successful people who attended Waldorf Schools found here.
Keith Raniere’s name is not on the list. Raniere was not known to be a racist. He would harm any individual equally regardless of race. He did prefer to harm woman, but was not adverse to destroying men.
Frank Parlato 
Janine Morrison 
J.J. O'Hara 
Richard Luthmann 
Marie White 
Paul Serran
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
Wow I landed on this site to further research into WS and his ties to Freemasonry. Wait till all of you arguing about race find out we are all ET’s!
Start doing some research! Please prove me wrong!
I suggest you go to DUCK DUCK GO for research!
Also GAIA Channel all eye opening content!
Please try not to bash people for their beliefs, or whatever!
The Satanic Cabal are trying to divide us with religion, politics, race, sex/gender crap.
Get out of the Matrix!
Love & Light
Sher
This is from Page 137 of “Soul Economy”, Rudolf Steiner’s lectures on Waldorf education:
“Please understand that a Waldorf school—or any school that might spring from the anthroposophic movement—would never wish to teach anthroposophy as it exists today. I would consider this the worst thing we could do. Anthroposophy in its present form is a subject for adults and, as you can see from the color of their hair, often quite mature adults.”
https://www.rsarchive.org/Download/Soul_Economy-Rudolf_Steiner-303.pdf
This injunction will have been taken deeply to heart by any teacher schooled in the Waldorf approach: teaching anthroposophy itself is “THE WORST THING” we could do. Anyone who breaks with this dictum, and starts teaching all the Steiner esoteric material in a Waldorf school, is either incompetent or is a deliberate stooge and provocation.
I highly recommended elsewhere that anyone wanting to make a first acquaintance with anthroposophy could start with “Knowledge of the Higher Worlds”:
https://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA010/English/AP1947/GA010_index.html
Steiner describes in this book how, as one progresses down the spiritual path, one becomes aware of group souls, nation souls, race souls, family souls, which all play a part in carrying human life forward. When you reach a certain point on the path of initiation, Steiner says, you are shown how these group souls have guided you thus far, and he teaches you to respect them and their traditions, even as you now take charge of your own destiny. However much you may want to feel part of “humanity as a whole”, he says, you need to understand your own particular origins and respect them.
Steiner really and truly was not a racist — I feel he treated each soul that came before him exactly as he found them — but he was deeply aware of the realities of different races, how these differences came about, and how they tend to evolve. No one who is scared of the truth should find anything offensive about his revelations in this regard.
I wasn’t aware of painting the walls of different classes in different colours, but here, really and seriously, Steiner is at his best and is worth taking very seriously. Check out the work of Theo Gimbel, who carried further Steiner’s ideas on colour therapy:
https://anneroselt.com/2017/05/08/the-link-between-colour-therapy-chakras-and-your-decor/
You can check out two case study cures by Gimbel here:
http://www.positivehealth.com/article/colour-therapy/case-studies-kindly-sent-in-by-theo-gimbel-of-the-hygeia-studios
Read “Soul Economy” and you’ll find the most detailed descriptions of how a child’s emotions, attention, energy and developmental focus change from year to year. If Steiner says that particular colours are suitable for a particular age, well, I’m not clairvoyant, and unless there is a strong contraindication, I would go exactly with what Steiner recommends.
Here is an anecdote, however. The last high school I ever taught at, in 1994, had a very erratic head teacher, a businesswoman with no degree or teaching qualification. She told me herself the following story: she was very angry one day, and decided that if she was angry, no one else should be peaceful. So she ordered the staffroom painted basically fire engine red (I was told the actual shade was “Coral Pink”, but believe me, it was flaming red). And I can assure you, it worked. I knew many rancorous staffrooms, with lots of conflict, but I never saw anything like that school. The school counselor painted her office walls soothing dark green, specifically as an antidote to the staffroom. I left that school after just a month, because of all the conflict there — kids were assaulting each other in the classroom in front of me. But the worst fights were in the staffroom.
I had a book by Theo Gimbel (unfortunately not to hand) in which he showed treatment of septic wounds that had not responded to antibiotics. He illuminated the wounds with red LED light of a specific frequency, and healed potentially fatal injuries that doctors had been completely unable to cure.
I am 100% certain, as antibiotic resistance spreads and superbugs flourish in hospitals, that colour therapy will come into its own, in the not-too-distant future; and anthroposophical medicine will lead the way. Someone was making fun of Steiner because he said the heart was not really a pump — he says it’s actually more of a dam. When they first created an artificial heart machine, to take over the pumping of blood during heart surgery, they found that by far the most immediate and important function they had to duplicate, was a damming effect, rather than a pumping one. Go check it out.
One thing about “Soul Economy”: it contains one of Steiner’s most important descriptions of how nerves function. He insists that there are no “motor nerves” as opposed to “sensory nerves”. He said that all nerves are actually sensory, only some of them are providing the brain with information on the internal systems of the body — how the muscles are acting, where the bones are — while others bring information about the outside world. The actual impulses that drive bodily motion come from the “will” system, which is entirely autonomous of the nerves.
Now, this has exactly been borne out by contemporary neuroscience and MRI scans. They find that the supposedly conscious decision-making region of the brain only lights up AFTER you’ve moved your finger. Some people (the Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams springs to mind) have taken this scientific finding as absolute proof that we don’t have free will — we only make up some excuse after our instinctive system has made us do something. In fact, this phenomenon is pointing to the true autonomy and independence of the will; but you need to interpret the results correctly. Of course, Western medicine has absolutely no clue about any of this, and the idea of an autonomous “will” system that acts throughout the body is rejected without thought.
Anthroposophy 101 teachers that the human has three completely autonomous systems that operate together: (1) Thinking; (2) Feeling; and (3) Willing. Separating these activities, so you can feel something without these feelings affecting your thinking about it, or your will to alter it, is the first part of esoteric training. If you undertake these exercises, you find the reality of what Steiner is talking about.
This threefolding is very characteristic of anthroposophy. It also finds expression in Steiner’s Threefold Commonwealth, his concept of how social life should be arranged so as to minimize conflicts and contradictions. For me, this is the absolute solution to the crises we are facing in social life across this planet, with contemporary politics completely unable to respond (witness the Yellow Jacket movement in France). With Frank’s permission, I will write an essay on this when I get time, because it’s the one aspect of Steiner’s approach that I’m really interested in bringing to the fore and defending. I honestly believe it’s the only possible solution to the manifold problems we face on this planet.
Again, Steiner foresaw all the problems of globalization in his World Economy lectures — he literally asks, when the world becomes one trading bloc, how will we balance our imports and exports, since we are not trading with Mars? And the solution is the Threefold Social Order, not as a programme, but as a sane and rational separation of powers into their appropriate realms. This has particularly deep implications for education, and you can’t understand what Steiner is pushing for in this realm, unless you broaden your vision to take in the whole of society.
White supremacy on display at the local Popeye’s chicken shack
https://leakreality.com/video/106741/popeye-s-security-vs-angry-dindu
This is the clown that Parlato says adds so much to his blog. He is quite simply an Islamic supremacist who is simply a brainwashed cultist in the Cult of Mohammed. Raniere had nothing on Mohammed.
The Anthroposophists in Waldorf schools have a deliberate practice of not teaching their ideology – just teaching and relating to students based on it. It is an occult system, based on initiatory groups like Freemasonry (an esoteric branch of which Steiner once led) in which inner beliefs and teachings are hidden by design. Thus teachers who follow Steiner believe in reincarnation and karma, but don’t teach those to children, and then may for instance not intervene in bullying (reportedly actually a common problem) because they believe the victims are attracting aggression due to past-life karma that they need work out (similar also to how Raniere blamed victims, and closely related to what goes on in Scientology as well).
That’s effectively the same as the compartmentalization we see in NXIVM, where there were outer works like The Source and exo/eso nominally unconnected to the group, and even DOS pretending to be unconnected to Raniere – though in NXIVM’s case, more typical of cults, the intent was to use them for recruiting and to bring as many people as possible into the general membership. But then there were things upper level coaches knew that most members didn’t, things that the sort of inner circle who lived in Clifton Park knew that even those relatively high up in centers elsewhere didn’t, things that members of Raniere’s harem knew that even those who lived in Knox Woods didn’t, and so on.
I don’t think we really know anything about Raniere’s views on race. It could be that, like Steiner, he thought he was playing a role in bringing inferior races to a better state – perhaps specifically by trying to have followers bear only children fathered by him. NXIVM was about as predominantly white as Waldorf schools, as we can see in pictures of both, though in both cases it’s possible that the major factor is just that the philosophy and practices appeals to a particular demographic that is mostly white and European (NXIVM Mexican members were mostly from that society’s light-skinned ruling class, some of whom are actually 100% Spanish).
It could be that virtually no Waldorf teachers are covert racists, but the problem is that we can’t know – their system is designed to keep any such operating principles secret, and because they are cult-like in their devotion to their guru Steiner they can never openly address the possibility that anything he wrote or taught was wrong, and instead are inevitably evasive and sidestep issues the same as if they were deliberately hiding something. Anthroposophy and Waldorf schools are effectively a type of mundane, but not entirely harmless, conspiracy, of just the sort that actually exists in the world.
Many religions believe in the concept of reincarnation, a concept which many find spiritually reaffirming. But if we arrogantly try to apply our own parameters to the concept (as L. Ron Hubbard did), we end up in dangerous territory. Trying to interpret how karma works leads to victim-blaming, which happened in NXIVM and Scientology.
Karma is only a concept or a theory, not actual fact. Steiner, Raniere, or Hubbard had no more knowledge of the meaning of life than anyone else, they only arrogantly believed that they did.
Well said, Flowers. Agree.
The thing is: there was a massive schism in the anthroposophical movement that fractured it right from the outset. This is one reason for the furtiveness and mystery. I don’t know much about the story, but you can read a very interesting account of it here, from the late British anthroposophist Stanley Messenger:
https://southerncrossreview.org/45/messenger.htm
Messenger suggests very strongly (at the end) that we need to recognise that anthroposophy has really failed to set the world alight the way it was supposed to. And he argues that we should release Steiner from the “tragic karma” of this movement, saying that Steiner himself has moved on to far different realms, leaving people trapped and floundering in a clearly incomplete structure. I really think there’s something to this argument.
However, I’ve been reading first-hand accounts of people who worked with Steiner. At a crucial stage, he threw everything into promoting the Threefold Social Order, trying to get it on the world agenda. He had a magazine of this name, wrote a book about it, gave innumerable lectures about it. His fantastic “Lectures on Lecturing” use the Threefold Social Order as a source of examples.
Someone said to him, “Why do you put so much energy into this idea, when it seems doomed to fail?” — and Steiner answered: Sometimes an idea is premature, but for that very reason, you have to try to put it out all the more strongly.
I’m certain that the time has finally come for the Threefold Social Order (TSO) to be put on the global agenda, it’s truly now or never, with all this chaos in the world. Where I would fault Messenger is that he doesn’t stress the Threefold Commonwealth, and for me, this is the big test as to whether someone really understands what Rudolf Steiner was about.
The thing about the TSO is that it applies at the very personal level, as well as at the level of nations. You have three separate identities: a political identity; an economic identity; and a spiritual or cultural identity. The first is governed by the idea of equality: we are all equal before the law, we all have an equal right to be heard on matters that affect us. Note: not freedom of speech rules here, but EQUALITY of speech.
In the economic realm, where we all have to work together to survive, the watchword is fraternity, the sense of being part of a family, an organic community, in which we all have duties.
And in the cultural realm, the watchword is freedom — the liberty to practise your beliefs and to educate your children the way you want.
Liberty, equality, fraternity: but each in its own realm, so that contradictions are avoided. You do NOT use the school system to enforce “equality”, for example, this is simply insane.
And you do not use the economic system to exert a political influence, the way the Marxists want. Yes, there is an administration of things and goods and services, the way Engels described it; but this domain is its entire concern, it doesn’t exert an influence over the schools, or over the political laws.
You can try threefolding yourself, right away. Insist on your equal rights within the political process. Be a positive and professional coworker and a conscientious consumer within the economic world. And in the cultural and religious realm, exercise your beliefs, without insisting on having “equal” representation, just as long as you are free to live your culture.
Can you imagine a Threefold Commonwealth in the USA: the economic parliament in Chicago, where Dow Jones is based and the real economic wheels turn, ask any gangster; the legislative parliament in Washington, DC, to maintain some use for all those fancy buildings; and maybe the cultural parliament in New Orleans, home of the one art form America gave the world, i.e. jazz. For its iniquities, I would say that New York has disqualified itself as either a financial or a cultural centre.
There’s a theory that the “threefold order” is actually the way the Illuminati rules the world, it’s divided into three autonomous sectors, Money, Military and Media — “military” including the entire political process, and “media” including all cultural affairs. Only they do it behind the scenes and in secret. If the democratic process was really threefolded, so it was all done in the open, well, we would have a completely different world.
However nuts you think Steiner was, you can look at this proposal of his, and you’ll see, it solves all the great problems of the day we are facing, by allowing them to be addressed in the appropriate forum. Don’t tell me it’s “impractical” — what we’ve got now is “impractical”, the wheels are coming off in a big way. You show me concepts that are adequate to the issues. Otherwise, look at the issues the TSO addresses, and explain how YOU would deal with them otherwise.
Right now, Bernie Sanders is causing all hell with the Democrats, because working-class people are responding to a candidate who takes their concerns seriously. Take a look, and you’ll see that Steiner aimed his book on the Threefold Social Order straight at the working class, trying to get concepts into their heads that would take them beyond Marxism. This is still the issue of the day. Bernie is a sign of the times. But we need to go much further than his New Deal thinking, which is now so Old Deal. And nothing of any use will come from the left or the liberals, for sure. So it’s time for an idea from the far-out realms of the discourse, and I think Steiner may yet achieve the prominence he deserves.
Don’t get distracted by all the side issues with Rudolf Steiner. There’s one more perspective I’d like to give on him, his predictions of a truly dread Antichrist arising in America in our time, and then I’ll shut up about him, I promise.
The author has no idea what is being taught in any given school, by any given teacher.
Toni went to a Waldorf school I believe. So sweet and beautiful. Keith disgraced the schools.
Natalie is sweet and beautiful? LOL
Interesting if true – though not surprising.
I wonder if any of the other members of Raniere’s harem were Waldorf kids?
I believe Gas is wrong about Toni being a student of a Waldorf School. She dropped out as a senior from a public school, though she claims falsely that she dropped out at the 10th grade.
Could Natalie gone to a Waldorf school in her earlier school years?
I doubt it. It’s possible.
Are there any readers out there who knew Natalie when she was younger?
Yeah, there’s of course been that discussion of her high school career, as such. Maybe I shouldn’t have even entertained the possibility that one of the trolls could be right about something. Though a lot of religious – a category Waldorf arguably falls in to – school and homeschooled kids do end up going to public high schools, for a couple of reasons including that high school level classes like math and science are for amateurs (priests, nuns, parents, etc.) to teach well, what else we know of her background suggests to me she’s not a likely candidate.
I do still wonder if any of the others in Raniere’s harem were Waldorf kids, though. If Karen Unterreiner wasn’t herself, I bet she knew the others well enough to know if any were.
“Toni went to a Waldorf school I believe. So sweet and beautiful.” Gas /Gaston Porter/Nicki Clyne
Nicki:
If you think Toni is sweet and beautiful, you need a new pair of glasses.
I wouldn’t call people on that list “famous.” Most of them are unknown artsy types.
There is no such thing as a “white supremacist.” The very people accused of being one don’t use the term for themselves. The term is used by white liberals who hate themselves (which ever kind of white they are) and non-whites living in white countries who are jealous of whites and love to cry and play the victim card for benefits. Perhaps ‘nationalist’ but not ‘supremacist’. What kind of white? Irish? Greek? Italian? Finnish? Slovakian? Those are all different nations. Nationalists of those countries are interested in their own countries, not other countries that are also white. Europeans have been at war with each other for centuries for power. They did not all unite as one racial group to reign supreme. They are individual nations. Why would Italian nationalists care about Scotland? Why would Irish nationalists care about England? They don’t, they dislike the English. The Nazis were German supremacists. They went to war with the bulk of other white/European nations.
Jewish supremacists exist. There is a ton of video footage and writings of them out there, acknowledging their beliefs that they are superior to others. Jews can be racial supremacists as they are one basic group, but there are many different types of white, from Scandinavia, west Europe, Central Europe, Southern Europe and Eastern Europe, so there is no such thing as “white supremacist”, at most ‘Italian nationalist’, ‘Swedish nationlist’, French nationalist’ etc. Nationalists in Europe hate the European Union because the EU is globalist, not nationalist. They want borders for their own countries.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8RLpTZuzTw
Chinese commies are racial supremacists. It is their mind set. They see themselves as superior to everyone else. They are Chinese supremacists, not ‘Asian supremacists’ as not all Asians are the same as Chinese.
Muslims, especially the real believers, are supremacists, though Islam is not a race.
Generally, the most successful racial group have been whites, those with European blood. Nothing wrong with pointing that out. Most people prefer being around their own kind. It does not make one a “Nazi”. Criticizing other racial groups or aspects of them is also not ‘white supremacist’. Facts are facts.
Any snowflake who is triggered by this post is either a white liberal (ashamed of his/her race) or a non-white with an inferiority complex.
Good points. Many of us, especially in America, are combinations of various European/non-European ancestors, and all of us are, if you go back far enough.
There’s no ontological basis for race which is effectively a social construct.
It’s become a discriminatory one that isn’t even a rough measure for what human beings actually have: genetic diversity.
All human beings share in the same essence, i.e., we are rational animals.
Skin, hair, eye color, and other particular physical features, athletic ability, etc., are all accidental properties distinct from the human essence.
They don’t make someone less or more human. The so-called white “race” may be considered the most successful one in modernity if one considers materialist and cultural expansion as a success–though they did not live in isolation from exchange with other nations who are non-white–
but it is also probably considered the most destructive of others from their perspective.
Prior to modern history, there were many empires of different so-called “races” that had their historical turn.
The Chinese had many dynasties. The Mongols had Genghis Khan. The Muslim Empire lasted for over a millennium. The Persian Empire and Greek and Roman Civilizations too had their turns. So what? It’s a small step from someone considering their so-called “race” or whatever categorization better than others and falling into being a supremacist for it.
Attempting to wash whiteness out by further speciating it with “nationalist” supremacism doesn’t mean those who are white don’t consider their so-called race supreme to those who don’t share in their whiteness. Italian white supremacists can consider themselves superior to Slavic white supremacists who both hold that all African American and Chinese as inferior “races”. The same thing applies to any other speciation within a categorization, e.g., Japanese, Chinese, Muslims, Africans, etc.
No, race is not a “social construct”. Genes prove it. Generally, white means European, black means sub-Saharan African, yellow means East Asian etc. The genes vary in all these continents too. Italians and Slavs are genetically different. Chinese and Indians are different. Then, culture and history comes in and solidifies the differences.
“but it is also probably considered the most destructive of others from their perspective.“
Which “it” are you referring to? Scandinavians? Mediterraneans? Slavs? Did Europeans enjoy living under Arab Muslim and Turkish occupation and oppression for centuries? How about all those violated by the Mongols and Turkic invaders? At least the British and French Empires brought technological, economic, medical etc benefits to other races and granted independence to most. Ottoman Turks were a million times worse than the Brits and French. They were worse than Nazis. Not surprisingly, Turks sided with Germany in WW1 and didn’t fight the Nazis in WW2.
“Prior to modern history, there were many empires of different so-called “races” that had their historical turn.”
And none of them ever get criticised by non whites, ever. That’s considered “racist” and “white supremacist”.
“The Mongols had Genghis Khan”
The Mongols had the largest land Empire in the world, committing mass atrocities. They never get called privileged or evil.
“The Muslim Empire lasted for over a millennium.”
Muslims oppressed everyone. Ottomans were committing mass atrocities before, during and after the British Empire, which gets all the heat. Muslims started the African slave trade and expanded it by selling slaves to the Spanish, who themselves were under Muslim oppression for three centuries. The word “Slav” is where the word “slave” comes from. They were under Muslim oppression for centuries, both Arab, Turk and then Soviet communism. But they are “privileged” white people!
“The Persian Empire and Greek and Roman Civilizations too had their turns.”
Greeks and indigenous Romans (Italians) are white and the cradle of western civilisation. Greeks are still scarred, along with the Armenians, from what the Turks did to them and still do to them. Turks removed native Greeks from their homeland in Constantinople in 1955, invaded the Greek island of Cyprus in 1974, forcing Greeks from a third of their island and replacing them with thousands of Turkish settlers and so much more. Greeks also fought Persian invaders at home.
“So what? It’s a small step from someone considering their so-called “race” or whatever categorization better than others and falling into being a supremacist for it.“
But European/whites ARE the most successful. It’s not Africans, Asians, Arabs, South Americans or Aussie Aboriginals. And that’s when you combine all Europeans as opposed to seeing them as individual nation states, which they are. Wanting to preserve your genes, culture and identity in your own country with strong borders is nationalist, not supremacist.
“Attempting to wash whiteness out by further speciating it with “nationalist” supremacism doesn’t mean those who are white don’t consider their so-called race supreme to those who don’t share in their whiteness.”
It’s not washing out whiteness. It’s stating whites are all different, genetically, culturally and historically. Also, no nationalist, in the history of nationalism, has ever called their nationalism “nationalist supremacism”. Stop making up terms.
“Italian white supremacists can consider themselves superior to Slavic white supremacists who both hold that all African American and Chinese as inferior “races”. The same thing applies to any other speciation within a categorization, e.g., Japanese, Chinese, Muslims, Africans, etc.”
Most Chinese would consider themselves superior to Africans. Most Indians would consider themselves superior to Australian Aboriginals. But neither gets called “supremacist”, yet all whites are the hated ones, irregardless of nation. Indigenous Swedes are shit on in their own country for being white. Non whites in any white country love to insult the indigenous white people of those countries. Chinese will call Germans privileged in Germany, but not themselves. Arabs would call Italians privileged in Italy, but not themselves. All under this guise that being numerically higher in number in your own country is “privilege”. Chinese in China are not called privileged. Nor are Arab Muslims in the Middle East who persecute Christians, Druze, Yazidis and others. White nations who have done nothing to any non white nation or people are hated. Scandinavians did not start or profit from African slavery or colonialism. Most white nations did not have colonies. Those who did were not as bad as the Ottoman Turks and Muslims by any metric measure. Where are the loud hateful whinge bag black Americans calling out Muslim and Native American slavers of African people? They are too busy being racist to any generic white person, Irish, Italian, Greek, Welsh, etc that’s where.
Well said, “White” is Awesome
–No, race is not a “social construct”. Genes prove it.
Obviously you understood nothing I wrote. Yes it is. It’s a categorization of ontological genetic variation based on arbitrary accidental attributes possessed by the human being, none of which makes a person less or more human. What makes a being a human is its composite of matter and form conforming to a particular essence–that of a rational animal–possessive of qualitatively formal powers such as an intellect and those that “flow” from it like speech and language, and having a structural form demarcated into two biological sexes with particular features that distinguishes it from other animals that have their own essences based on their speciation within the categorization of animal. There is no blue eye color “race” or a brown hair color “race”. So why is there a white skin color “race” or a black skin color “race”? All human beings descended from a single pair of ancestors. What “race” were they?
As for the rest of your comment, it goes into some digressive rant about the white “race” being hated on more than other “races” and has nothing to do with anything I discussed.
Seriously buddy, of course nobody with any sense understood what you wrote. It is propaganda. I have read both yous and his comments and you have been schooled but chose to stay in your cocoon of blissful ignorance.
“Obviously you understood nothing I wrote.”
Yes I do. You are wrong.
“Yes it is. It’s a categorization of ontological genetic variation based on arbitrary accidental attributes possessed by the human being, none of which makes a person less or more human.”
No. When a group of people have ancestral bloodlines going back thousands of years on a particular stretch of land, their genes are different from others. They might look the same as others, particularly their neighbors, but they are genetically different. Similar to their neighbors, but different. Golden Retrievers and Pit bulls are both dogs, but genetically different. When you have individuals with thousands of years ancestry in a particular place, shared genetics with their compatriots, shared history with their compatriots, shared culture and more, the differences are there. It all starts with the genes first and shared genes in their ancestral lands. The culture and history comes afterwards. You cannot ever erase these facts.
“What makes a being a human is its composite of matter and form conforming to a particular essence–that of a rational animal–possessive of qualitatively formal powers such as an intellect and those that “flow” from it like speech and language, and having a structural form demarcated into two biological sexes with particular features that distinguishes it from other animals that have their own essences based on their speciation within the categorization of animal.”
It’s not a debate about what makes a human. It’s that among human beings, their are different races of human, with each race originating from a certain location on Earth. Physical characteristics come afterwards.
“There is no blue eye color “race” or a brown hair color “race”.”
No one said their was. Those are physical characteristics. Some are more common in certain races then others. Generally, blue eyes are most commonly found in Europeans. That is why racists call whites “blue eyed devils”. Not all whites have blue eyes. Also, ‘male and pale’ is stupid. Some whites, many from Southern Europe have an olive tint.
“So why is there a white skin color “race” or a black skin color “race”? All human beings descended from a single pair of ancestors. What “race” were they?
The race is not determined by their skin tone you vegan’s fart. As stated already, white is a generic term for Europeans, black is sub-Saharan African etc. The physical characteristics come after genetics and where on Earth you originate from. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
“As for the rest of your comment, it goes into some digressive rant about the white “race” being hated on more than other “races” and has nothing to do with anything I discussed.”
It was not digressive and I don’t care what you discussed. The term ‘white supremacist’ is used against any kind of “white” nationalist by racists and lefties, but no other race gets criticized, ever. Nobody ever calls other racial groups racial supremacists for wanting exactly the same thing in their own countries. Look at the anti immigrant behavior in South Africa recently against Nigerians and the deadly riots in India against the prospect of allowing other foreign brown people to be granted Indian citizenship. Those Indians consider themselves superior to black Nigerians. No one will call them ‘Indian supremacists’.
I suspect you are not a self loathing white liberal, but a self loathing brown person in a white country. I can just, tell.
–Yes I do.
No, you obviously don’t.
–No.
Yes.
–When a group of people have ancestral bloodlines going back thousands of years on a particular stretch of land, their genes are different from others.
Genetic variation is induced by the environment and so-called “random” mutations. When groups of people live in the same location in isolation from other groups of people, the genetic variation from the environment is effectively taken out the equation–unless the environment itself changes–and it can only come from “random” mutations which are rare. Therefore, the genetic variation is minimal within an isolated group of people. Only if the environment is significantly different between groups of people–which may also induce different types of “random” mutations–will the genetic variation be greater between them.
–They might look the same as others, particularly their neighbors, but they are genetically different. Similar to their neighbors, but different. Golden Retrievers and Pit bulls are both dogs, but genetically different. When you have individuals with thousands of years ancestry in a particular place, shared genetics with their compatriots, shared history with their compatriots, shared culture and more, the differences are there.
You’re not going anywhere with this except proving my point. No one denied that the genetic differences are there. What do you think genetic variation is? That’s not the point. Men and women are also genetically different. Does being genetically varied prevent humans from interbreeding with each other? Not at all. That means it doesn’t make one group of people less or more human than the other. In fact, it increases the chance of survival for the species. If some genetic disorder is common to a group of people, then interbreeding within the group will likely propagate it their descendants. If the group of people interbreed with another group of people that doesn’t possess the disorder, then the destructive genetic variation will eventually be weeded out. Like I said, “race” is an arbitrary categorization of of accidental attributes possessed by a human being like skin color, or due to a shared culture or location which is exactly a SOCIAL construct.
–It all starts with the genes first and shared genes in their ancestral lands. The culture and history comes afterwards. You cannot ever erase these facts. It’s not a debate about what makes a human. It’s that among human beings, their are different races of human, with each race originating from a certain location on Earth. Physical characteristics come afterwards.
Lolwut? All human beings come from a single pair of ancestors. They initially shared the same genes and culture initially. When groups of their descendants shifted to different areas of the Earth, genetic variation was induced because of the causes previously mentioned. Only after thousands of years of microcosmic evolution did their accidental physical characteristics and culture change.
–No one said their was. Those are physical characteristics.
Lolwut? What do you think genetic variation induced? A change in accidental physical characteristics of human beings which aren’t part of the human essence.
–The race is not determined by their skin tone you vegan’s fart. As stated already, white is a generic term for Europeans, black is sub-Saharan African etc. The physical characteristics come after genetics and where on Earth you originate from. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
I’m not vegan. Nevertheless, thanks for further emphasizing my point. If race is not determined by different physical characteristics which is what is induced by genetic variation, then it is only determined by shared location and culture, which is exactly a SOCIAL construct.
–I suspect you are not a self loathing white liberal, but a self loathing brown person in a white country. I can just, tell.
This is just another irrelevant digression.
“No, you obviously don’t.”
Yes, I do. You are an idiot who cannot win an argument. You are from a different race from others. You are not the same as other Asians either, like the Japanese, but you are still Asians. Asians can be brown or yellow. You are brown. Your genetics are different from Japanese. Both your bloodlines go back thousands of years in different parts of Asia. That is why you both look different. Your browness is similar to other brown people in Asia, but not the same.
”Yes.“
No.
“Genetic variation is induced by the environment and so-called “random” mutations. When groups of people live in the same location in isolation from other groups of people, the genetic variation from the environment is effectively taken out the equation–unless the environment itself changes–and it can only come from “random” mutations which are rare. Therefore, the genetic variation is minimal within an isolated group of people. Only if the environment is significantly different between groups of people–which may also induce different types of “random” mutations–will the genetic variation be greater between them.”
You idiot. A paki can be born in Germany. He will never be a German or European for that matter. Or, to use the standard term, “white”. He will always be a paki. He could impregnate another paki, move back to Kashmir, raise the kids there and genetically, nothing is different. It’s as if he himself never left his mud hut. Do you wish you had done that instead of stalking a television actress? If he breeds with ANOTHER RACE, that kid will be MIXED RACE.
“You’re not going anywhere with this except proving my point.”
No, I have thoroughly beaten you with logic and you can’t stand it. I have disproven your idiotic ”point”.
“No one denied that the genetic differences are there. ”
You did. You deny race, pretending it’s been invented. The genetic differences is what separates the races, followed by a shared bloodline in the same place, ie their country of origin. Culture is just the decoration.
“What do you think genetic variation is? That’s not the point. Men and women are also genetically different. Does being genetically varied prevent humans from interbreeding with each other? Not at all. That means it doesn’t make one group of people less or more human than the other. In fact, it increases the chance of survival for the species. If some genetic disorder is common to a group of people, then interbreeding within the group will likely propagate it their descendants. If the group of people interbreed with another group of people that doesn’t possess the disorder, then the destructive genetic variation will eventually be weeded out. ”
You idiot. When people share the same race and country of origin, it does not make them related like siblings. They are of the same race but unrelated by blood. Their bloodlines however can be traced to their joint place of origin. They can both be Swedish, with Swedish bloodlines, but not related with the exact same blood. Their blood is still Swedish.
“Like I said, “race” is an arbitrary categorization of of accidental attributes possessed by a human being like skin color, or due to a shared culture or location which is exactly a SOCIAL construct.”
NO IT IS NOT. Europeans can be identified as Europeans by their genetics. They can even be pinpointed to the specific parts of Europe they originate from. Same as all other races. And like I said, skin color, does not determine the race, it’s just a physical characteristic of that race and I specifically said shared culture and history comes AFTERWARDS. A European can be born and raised in China, he will never be Chinese, ever. You might not know anything about living as a paki, but you are still a paki. Your genes and bloodline don’t change. It is not the skin tone that determines race. It’s just a bi-product. Germans and French are both white. They are not the same. They originate from different places and their genes prove it. They are white. They are Europeans. But they are different.
”All human beings come from a single pair of ancestors. They initially shared the same genes and culture initially.”
And then race developed as humans went their own separate ways. Bloodlines developing over thousands of years in the same place. How far back do you want to go? In that case, forget the human part and just use the word ‘ape’.
”When groups of their descendants shifted to different areas of the Earth, genetic variation was induced because of the causes previously mentioned. Only after thousands of years of microcosmic evolution did their accidental physical characteristics and culture change.”
That generic variation is called RACE. Simplistically, all the European groups are European, the African groups are African, the Asian groups are Asian, all with their own differences. Genetics going back thousands of years, influenced by environmental factors, disease etc solidifies that racial group. Actually, sub-groups. Clusters. The different nations have their own genetic lines similar to, but different from others on their continent. You are an idiot.
“Lolwut? What do you think genetic variation induced? A change in accidental physical characteristics of human beings which aren’t part of the human essence.”
Hang on Spanky. You are a Muslim. You don’t believe in “accidental physical characteristics“ do you? Didn’t Allah-Spank plan everything to the tiniest detail? Whatever caused differences between the races, whatever those differences are, you can differentiate two groups along racial lines. First by way of ethnic genetics. Often you can guess the race or country of origin by physical characteristics, language, religion and culture. But the genes come first. Your paki genes make you a paki. You being a muslim, physically being the color of beef jerky and whatever else comes afterwards. But your bloodline and genetic history makes you a paki.
“I’m not vegan. Nevertheless, thanks for further emphasizing my point.”
I did not call you a vegan. I called you a “vegan’s fart”. A particularly unpleasant thing. And once again, I did not emphasise your psycho babble, I defeated it.
“If race is not determined by different physical characteristics which is what is induced by genetic variation, then it is only determined by shared location and culture, which is exactly a SOCIAL construct.”
You are putting the cart before the horse. Physical characteristics are influenced by genetics, but it does not matter what those characteristics are. It’s the shared genetics, going back thousands of years in the same country. Shared location over thousands of years, means the same group of people, together in their country of origin going back thousands of years. That is not a social construct. That is people existing in the same land for thousands of years, breeding there, raising their children there and just living. They didn’t plan or construct that, nor did their ancestors. A social construct is what feminists and ”transgender” freaks are trying to do. Construct some bullshit and force it on everyone. Going against human behaviour that has evolved for survival purposes over thousands of years. Trying to redefine what being a man and woman is.
“This is just another irrelevant digression.”
No. It was a valid point that put a lid on your schooling.
-Yes, I do. You are an idiot who cannot win an argument.
No, you don’t. And you don’t “win” arguments. You either prove them or deconstruct them.
-You are from a different race from others. You are not the same as other Asians either, like the Japanese, but you are still Asian. Asians can be brown or yellow. You are brown. Your genetics are different from Japanese. Both your bloodlines go back thousands of years in different parts of Asia. That is why you both look different. Your brownness is similar to other brown people in Asia, but not the same.
Every person’s genes are different from every other person’s except for identical twins. So fucking what? “Race” is an arbitrary categorization, crudely drawn along large geographical lines due to common characteristics of particular physical features of the people in those areas, which are the result of thousands of years of micro-evolutionary changes induced by the environment, and the shared culture that developed due to groups of people living in isolation, which is by definition, a social construct. It is irrelevant except to racists, because these physical features are accidental to the human essence and they don’t make anyone less or more human, as I already expanded upon previously. The term “accidental form” in scholastic metaphysics means that which is not part of being’s essence or “substantial form”, i.e., what defines a being and makes it what it is. If the substantial form of a being were to change, it would no longer be that classification of being. If the accidental form of a being changes, it doesn’t impact the substantial form of the being, and so it remains what it is. Michael Jackson’s “black” skin fading to “white” does not make him a non-human being because skin color is an accidental form of the human being. So is eye and hair color, big lips, slanted eyes, etc. So it is whatever form your typical racist thinks makes them superior to other “races”.
I have Indian, European, Arab, and East Asian genes. I have olive skin color (not beef jerky) and have green eyes, which is supposedly the rarest eye color in the world. What “race” am I?
–And then race developed as humans went their own separate ways…How far back do you want to go? In that case, forget the human part and just use the word ‘ape’.
What a stupid, racist idiot you are. You go back as far as the first pair of human beings. An “ape” isn’t a human being and can’t breed with one.
“No, you don’t. And you don’t “win” arguments. You either prove them or deconstruct them.”
Yes, I do. Thoroughly. And now you deny winning or losing an argument. No wonder Kristin Kreuk’s vaginal juices are not on your little brown willy. What an insufferable yeast infection you are. News flash: proving oneself correct is winning the argument. Deconstructing the bullshit claimed by a moron (you) is also winning the argument (me).
“Every person’s genes are different from every other person’s except for identical twins. So fucking what?”
Irrelevant. Groups of people, thousands, million, billions of them living in the same land their ancestors walked on for thousands of years, with genes traceable to that region is RACE. You lose.
”“Race” is an arbitrary categorization, crudely drawn along large geographical lines due to common characteristics of particular physical features of the people in those areas, which are the result of thousands of years of micro-evolutionary changes induced by the environment, and the shared culture that developed due to groups of people living in isolation“
Thanks for genuinely proving my excellent unbeatable point Hasan! Race is indeed connected to geographical lines, common characteristics of physical features of the people who have been there for thousands of years, genes that evolved in those regions, shared culture (that comes after the genetics) and living in isolation, so that the only genes in that region are indigenous. Thank you for arguing my point so well Hasan. You took the words right out of my mouth! Also, “arbitrary” is not a construct either. Arbitrary is defined as something that is determined by judgment or whim & not for any specific reason or rule, with an example of an arbitrary decision being making the decision to go to the movies, just because you feel like it. Nobody constructed their arbitrary features or constructed their genetics, or chose to
stay in a particular environment so that they would evolve a certain way. You lose.
“which is by definition, a social construct.”
And then you go and spoil it Tariq! The people did not construct anything. They did not plan to create geographical lines, they did not construct their shared genes and physical characteristics, they did not construct thousands of years of micro-evolutionary changes induced by the environment they lived in, they did not plan to spend thousands of years living in isolation in their lands, or anything else. They didn’t make anything up, or construct anything you mentioned. Culture, religion and language comes afterwards. They could move to another continent and stay there forever, their race remains the same.
“It is irrelevant except to racists, because these physical features are accidental to the human essence and they don’t make anyone less or more human, as I already expanded upon previously.”
“Racists” is a term white liberals and non whites in white countries use to attack those who don’t go along with obvious nonsense. And you know it’s nonsense. People of two different races can have “human essence”, they are still different on racial lines. I did not imply in any manner that acknowledging the existence of different races makes any less or more human. They are just different. Pakis and Italians are different from each other on racial lines. Pointing that out does not make one less or more human. Though Italians are so obviously better. No one would choose to be a paki if they could start again from scratch.
“The term “accidental form” in scholastic metaphysics means that which is not part of being’s essence or “substantial form”
An accident or unplanned thing cannot be a social construct, nor is pointing out an accident or unplanned thing.
“what defines a being and makes it what it is.”
Boring. One is white, one is brown, because they are different.
“If the substantial form of a being were to change, it would no longer be that classification of being.”
Like these “First Nation” bullshitters who are genetically more white with only a tiny bit of indigenous blood, still pretending they are Indian. They have changed and are now no longer real Indians. Mixed race is a better term. The culture still exists, but the genes have faded away, like an above mentioned vegan’s fart in a tornado. But, Indian genes are Indian genes. Different from the white genes. That is why they are often mixed race. They didn’t stop being human. They stopped being real Indians on racial lines.
“If the accidental form of a being changes, it doesn’t impact the substantial form of the being, and so it remains what it is. Michael Jackson’s “black” skin fading to “white” does not make him a non-human being”
Well done Apu! “Accidental” is not a construction. I didn’t say skin color determines if you are a human being, less or more so. He is still black. He is still human. His genes are still black. He didn’t become “white”, he didn’t become another species. His ancestry is African. His race is African. We call that “black”.
“because skin color is an accidental form of the human being. So is eye and hair color, big lips, slanted eyes, etc.”
Well done Hamza! A+ for proving my point again! Accidental is not a construct. Unplanned is not a construct. Physical characteristics determined by race is not a construct. You take yourself to the freezer, pull out some halal Ben & Jerry’s and dig in. You’ve earned it!
“So it is whatever form your typical racist thinks makes them superior to other “races”.”
It’s not about being superior to other races. The races exist and are different, whether you are aware of it or not. Some races are better than others, across the board. Putting Somalians on par with Europeans is spasticated. Usually, we consider races superior based on historical achievements. Europeans have the greatest combined histories. As for genetics, things that cannot be helped, because genes are NOT constructed, some races are better looking then others. All across the world, whites are considered the most attractive. Nobody constructed that. In East Asia, they get eye lid surgery, nose jobs to look western, they bleach their skin and use mixed race and lighter skinned models in advertising. Blacks try to make their hair look European, bleach their skin etc. No white person would encourage this self loathing behaviour. By the way, when they do mutilate themselves, their race does not change. They are trying to construct something, but nature prevails. It’s cool, ain’t it!?
“I have Indian, European, Arab, and East Asian genes.”
My condolences.
“I have olive skin color (not beef jerky)”
So do a lot of South Europeans. They are clearly Europeans. You are clearly from Asia.
“and have green eyes, which is supposedly the rarest eye color in the world.”
A lot of pakis and Afghans have green eyes. They still don’t look white. Whites can have brown eyes. So?
What “race” am I?
Asian. Predominantly South Asian. You can have Arab blood, but primarily, your blood is Asian with the bulk of your ancestry from the Indian sub continent. You didn’t grow out of the ground, your ancestors migrated and converged in Kashmir, of all places. Sad. Afghans have mixed blood. They are generally central Asians. Horrible cunts. You can break races down into smaller chunks, but general continental/regional definitions are best.
“What a stupid, racist idiot you are.”
Hey! You smelly skid mark, mud hut dwelling, female genital mutilating, pedophile worshipping, turban wearing fart under the covers!
“You go back as far as the first pair of human beings.”
And then human beings went their separate ways. Get your daddy to write it out in crayons for you.
“An “ape” isn’t a human being and can’t breed with one.”
Humans are related to apes as primates, just like pakis and Europeans can both claim to be human and primates. Humans evolved from apes. From there, humans evolved further into groups, RACES. They evolved. Accidentally. Not by construct. Then those human beings evolved further, splitting into very different racial groups, influenced by their environment, diseases and other factors. Their physical characteristics developed over thousands of years in their lands. Not constructed. Not Allah-spank. Just going with it. Humans cannot breed with other primates, but pakis do have coitus with goats.
And that, Hussein and Fatima, is how one wins an argument, proving oneself correct and deconstructing the bullshit of cockwombles.
Go for a jog Spanky and burn off all that halal Ben and Jerry’s!
Sorry, but I’m not going to read through your boring, repetitive, obfuscating, irrelevant, digressing, racist trash. Here’s a layman’s explanation of the science for you:
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/
These are some snippets from it:
“In the biological and social sciences, the consensus is clear: RACE IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT, not a biological attribute. Today, scientists prefer to use the term “ancestry” to describe human diversity (Figure 3). “Ancestry” reflects the fact that human variations do have a connection to the geographical origins of our ancestors—with enough information about a person’s DNA, scientists can make a reasonable guess about their ancestry.”
“Though these physical differences may appear, on a superficial level, to be very dramatic, they are determined by only a minute portion of the genome: we as a species have been estimated to share 99.9% of our DNA with each other. The few differences that do exist reflect differences in environments and external factors, not core biology.”
So basically you’re a discriminatory, exclusionary fucking idiot because micro-evolutionary changes due to environmental differences in isolated groups of people–not even something people fucking control–resulted in a genetic variance of only approximately 0.1% of the genome.
But you’re not a white “supremecist” because such a concept doesn’t exist–but race does!–even though you think whites are the best at everything! If dictionaries had pictures of people who best represented a particular term, yours would be right next to “sophist”.
Ha! You know you have been defeated with logic you cannot beat. You cannot argue with my excellent points. You resort to the easy “racist” “white supremacist” slurs because they don’t require intellect. I could just call you a prick, which you are, but I can also defeat you with intellect.
After reading the first sentence of that absolute nonsense, rejecting biology, I cannot and will not read the rest, written by either a white liberal or non white racist, who says what you want to believe. I know all the arguments and can beat all of them.
“So basically you’re a discriminatory, exclusionary fucking idiot”
Pointing out genetic and other differences along racial lines is not discriminating anyone and I am not excluding anyone from anything. Chinese will never call you Chinese. Call that discriminatory and exclusionary. You are a fucking idiot.
“because micro-evolutionary changes due to environmental differences in isolated groups of people–not even something people fucking control–resulted in a genetic variance of only approximately 0.1% of the genome.”
Ha! Checkmate! You copied and pasted absolute trash claiming “in the biological and social sciences, the consensus is clear: RACE IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT, not a biological attribute” and then try and win by bringing up biology! Micro-evolutionary changes (not a social construct), due to environmental differences (not a social construct), in isolated groups of people (not a social construct), to quote you, “not even something people fucking control”, (not a social construct), “resulted in a genetic variance of only approximately 0.1% of the genome” (not a social construct). Everything you just said, everything, proves my point wonderfully. You used biology, which you and your quoted source reject regarding race, to ‘prove’ it’s not biology, but a ‘social construct’, which people can control, like Islamic oppression and whatever the PC-brigade try to force down people’s throats.
Also, if you are a true believer of Islam (simply, why?), you would have to reject evolution, as if “Allah” made everything the way it is. Why did “Allah” make so many different races?
“But you’re not a white “supremecist””
That is not how you spell SUPREMACIST.
“because such a concept doesn’t exist–but race does!”
Now you get it Ishmael. Also, which kind of white? Please specify. Take a wild guess. Also, are there any races you consider historically less successful then those from the Indian sub-continent? Any who are less moral compared to your own? Would you be happy for open borders in Pakistan? Would you want to become a minority in Pakistan? Do you have the grapes to honestly answer? Are you a ‘brown supremacist”? How about a “paki nationalist”? “Islamic (not a race) supremacist”?
“even though you think whites are the best at everything!”
The things that matter, yes. Not everything. That is not “white supremacist”, that is honest observation. Whites are awesome. The Italian Renaissance, the Greeks, western Europe, the technology, the sciences, everything! That is why the white liberals are cancer. Like a cancerous tumor on your nut sack. Kenyan and Ethiopians tribesman and women seem to be the best marathon runners. Afghans are good at being ugly. Chinese are very good at endangering many species of wildlife for retarded Chinese ‘medicine’ that is less than useless compared to western medicine. Arabs and pakis are very good at not letting their females do anything. Whites can be assholes too. They are liberals. They are very much hated. Feminism, gay, tranny, gender pronoun bullshit, open borders, Islam is peaceful, anti-Christian, anti-white, “happy holidays”… yuck.
If dictionaries had pictures of people who best represented a particular term, yours would be right next to “sophist”.
“Sophist”, an excellent word from the Greeks. A significant part of western civilization. However, that word would not be accurate for my good self. More like “sophisticated”.
You’re just not very smart, are you?
Race is an arbitrary categorization of the human being in the sense that it gives undue importance to superficially dramatic physical differences of groups of people, and this is typically used as a means of discriminatory isolation from other groups based on it. The fact is, the “five” groups of races was first classified in the 1700s by a German based on this superficial observation. No one said there wasn’t a biological basis to it you ignoramus. This fact was referenced in my very first comment. The point is, those physical differences are caused by less than 0.1% of our DNA, which is insignificant. Not even remotely quantitatively large enough to isolate human beings from each other due to another biological fact: the ability to breed between the so-called “races”. Gawd you’re just an awfully obtuse human being, as many racists are since they base their worldview on an ignorant view of metaphysics and science. That means that the isolation is largely due to shared constructs such as a shared culture and superficial physical characteristics that they had no part in creating, because the latter were small scale genetic variations induced by a particular environment that happened to be at least non-harmful and often beneficial for survival in it. As for my religion and Allah (which is al-lah, where “al” is the Arabic definitive article “the”, and “lah” is Arabic for “god”, so Allah is “The God”) when it comes to “races”, the Qur’an is quite clear:
“O mankind, We surely created you of a single male and a female, and We have made you into NATIONS AND TRIBES so that you may COME TO KNOW ONE ANOTHER. Surely the most honorable among you in the sight of God are the most God-conscious; God is the All-Knowing, the All-Cognizant.” Q[49:13]
That’s why you see Indian, Arab, Black, European, Asian, etc., Muslims, adherents to the religion of Islam from all of the different so-called “races”.
You’re just so ignorant.
“You’re just not very smart, are you?”
Significantly smarter then you Abdullah
“Race is an arbitrary categorization of the human being”
Arbitrary is not socially constructed. Arbitrary and constructed are not the same thing. Human beings can be categorized in different ways, race being one of them. And you are repeating yourself again because you are stupid (and wrong).
“in the sense that it gives undue importance to superficially dramatic physical differences of groups of people”
Not undue importance, simply importance. It’s a huge part of people’s identities. It’s not about the physical differences. It’s where people come from. Irish were discriminated against in the US, despite looking the same as the whites already there.
“and this is typically used as a means of discriminatory isolation from other groups based on it.”
No and only white people are accused of this. Explain how in India, they are having deadly riots because their government wants to grant citizenship to other brown people from neighboring countries, including fellow Hindus. Explain how black South Africans have been rioting against black Nigerian immigrants, damaging their property and forcing them to flee the country. Many more examples. They all look the same physically (not a social construct), but get discriminated by each other. Black tribes still killing each other. Indians and pakis killing each other after Independence. You are the SAME thing. Same people, same bloodlines, same ancestry (those on the Afghan border slightly different), different religions. Journalists who were present at both Auschwitz and in India said what they saw in India was worse. Irish Republicans and loyalists, who are the same people, still hate each other. Russians and Ukrainians, who are very similar genetically hate each other. If you look different, it means you are from somewhere else. If you are disliked and not welcomed, it is because you are genetically different and foreign. Your physical appearance just makes it obvious.
“The fact is, the “five” groups of races was first classified in the 1700s by a German based on this superficial observation.”
It’s not superficial at all. When police put out descriptions of suspects, they bring up race as it’s an effective way of identifying individuals.
“No one said there wasn’t a biological basis to it you ignoramus.”
Oh yes you did Raj. And so did the twat you quoted in the first sentence: “in the biological and social sciences, the consensus is clear: RACE IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT, not a biological attribute”
“This fact was referenced in my very first comment.”
Not a fact and I disproved it.
“The point is, those physical differences are caused by less than 0.1% of our DNA which is insignificant.”
Chimpanzees share about 98.6% of DNA with human beings. 1.4% Difference, enough to be two very different species. Similarities among the races, with differences too. Still humans, but different.
“Not even remotely quantitatively large enough to isolate human beings from each other due to another biological fact”
Yes it is. A brown person stands out like a spot on a domino in a white country. A DNA sample from any anonymous person can easily identify the race. If you, Spanky, rape a woman in Finland, you can be easily identified as a brownie through DNA, even if the woman does not describe you by race, which she would, because it is not superficial at all, is it Rasheed? Your DNA would present you as someone genetically from a very particular place on Earth and your physical appearance will naturally come up. They would not say “south Asian male, culturally Finnish”. Culture is not race. It’s the culture of the race.
“the ability to breed between the so-called “races””.
Nobody is saying the races are different species. Lions and tigers, both felines can breed. The offspring are called ligars or tigons. A French poodle and a pit ball, both canines can breed. Genetically very similar among the breeds and strongly genetically related to wolves. Culture does not differentiate them. Their genes do. And their physical characteristics are influenced by their genes. Selective breeding, yes, but two pit balls can breed to make more pit balls. If a pit ball breeds with a poodle, the dog is mixed breed. Humans have selectively bred different breeds of dogs for behavioral and physical appearance reasons. Humans themselves were not bred selectively. Not socially constructed or planned. They spent thousands of years surviving and thriving in their own lands for thousands of years. People + similar bloodlines beyond immediate families + shared land going back thousands of years + environmental factors of their land + evolving together over thousands of years on that land = race. Continental and regional, or continental and nation states. Culture came afterwards. All the races are human but not all humans are of the same race.
“Gawd you’re just an awfully obtuse human being”
No, I am an acute human being, having and displaying a perceptive understanding and insight beyond your sub-par abilities.
“as many racists are”
You can’t win an argument so drop an “ist”. Boring. If race was not real, you non-whites wouldn’t moan about a “lack of representation” on television and in movies in white countries. You wouldn’t complain about some place being “too white”. If physical appearances based on genetic differences were ‘superficial’ like you have claimed (and I disproved), non-whites would not go on and on and on and on about “we need more blacks and Asians in ‘X Y Z'” They embrace the culture of the host people but still moan because they are not white in appearance. Sad.
“since they base their worldview on an ignorant view of metaphysics and science”.
No. We know what we are. Who our ancestors are. Our origins. Your ancestors. Your origins, etc.
“That means that the isolation is largely due to shared constructs”
No. Spending thousands of years together (NOT A CONSTRUCT), evolving genetically together (NOT A CONSTRUCT), being influenced by the same environmental factors of our lands together (NOT A CONSTRUCT), creating families together etc (NOT A CONSTRUCT), developing shared physical characteristics with each other (NOT A CONSTRUCT), while other RACES were doing the same is why.
“such as a shared culture”
Culture comes AFTERWARDS. Thousands of years later in fact. Romans and modern Italians are connected by blood and history AND GENETICS, but are now culturally different from each other in many ways. New culture has emerged. Genes still the same. French and Italian are both white. Two very different cultures. Different genetics too, but somewhat similar, as both located within Europe. Can be different in appearance, but not as different as those from foreign lands where they have very alien genes, like in China.
“and superficial physical characteristics that they had no part in creating”
Again, not superficial. If Kristin Kreuk caught you going through her garbage cans, she would describe you to the police as a brownie, or at least, not white, black or Chinese. That would allow the cops to narrow their search. And once again, physical characteristics are not a social construct either.
You state race is just physical characteristics and shared culture and that physical characteristics are accidental (NOT socially constructed). If race is just physical characteristics which are accidental, then that part of race cannot be a social construct, if it’s based on something which is accidental and unplanned, as you cannot socially construct something by accident and without planning to do so. For something to be a social construct, it cannot be an accident or unplanned.
As for race being shared culture, that is bullshit because embracing a culture from another continent, where your genetic ancestry does not lie, will not change your race. If race was about a shared culture, then you must believe embracing a different culture and forgetting your own means you have changed your race! What a moron.
Chinese living in Germany can be culturally German, but they are not real Germans who are white. They are still Asians embracing another race’s culture. Their race is not white/German, but Asian. You believe embracing another race’s culture is essentially changing your race, irregardless of being genetically foreign, no shared ancestry for thousands of years, no creating families together for thousands of years, not evolving together over thousands of years to look the same, etc. Checkmate.
“because the latter were small scale genetic variations induced by a particular environment that happened to be at least non-harmful and often beneficial for survival in it.”
And you can differentiate the races by these genetic variations, induced in a particular environment over thousands of years. They could have no culture whatsoever, they will still be their own race, connected to some genetically, but not others, e.g, European clusters, Sub-Saharan African clusters, North African clusters, East Asian clusters etc. The clusters are their own, but connected to a larger group, before culture, language and politics even come into it.
“As for my religion and Allah (which is al-lah, where “al” is the Arabic definitive article “the”, and “lah” is Arabic for “god”, so Allah is “The God”)”
Ewwwww
“when it comes to “races”, the Qur’an is quite clear:”
“O mankind, We surely created you of a single male and a female, and We have made you into NATIONS AND TRIBES so that you may COME TO KNOW ONE ANOTHER. Surely the most honorable among you in the sight of God are the most God-conscious; God is the All-Knowing, the All-Cognizant.” Q[49:13]”
And you actually believe that do you? You believe in Islam because you are a paki. If you were born to Indian parents, you would believe in Hinduism. If you were born to Russian parents, you would be Russian Christian Orthodox.
“That’s why you see Indian, Arab, Black, European, Asian, etc., Muslims, adherents to the religion of Islam from all of the different so-called “races”.”
There are also Arab, Black, European and Asian Christians. So? Islam is an ideology, not a race. Communism has been followed by different RACES. Communists have been Asian (Chinese, Vietnamese, Cambodian), white (Russian, Greek), racially mixed (Cuban, Bolivian).
“You’re just so ignorant.”
Another term white liberals and non-whites use because they cannot win with intellect. Another annoying word is “uninformed”. Yuck.
Yes, you’re very ignorant. I’m done wading through hundreds of words of digression, obfuscation, goal-post shifting, whataboutism, straw-men, bigotry, and the constant “shouting down” of someone, to discuss it. You haven’t even provided a clear and precise definition of what race is first to prove that it even exists. People more knowledgeable than me on the subject have said otherwise, and so they’re surely more knowledgeable than you.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2014-08-human-biological-reality-cultural-delusion.amp
“You haven’t even provided a clear and precise definition of what race is first to prove that it even exists.”
Yes I have. A large grouping of people, made up of smaller clusters, with shared or similar decent by blood, dating back thousands of years to the same general geographical continental location. Race is basically applied as a taxonomic grouping, based on biological similarities within groups. There are several of them. Think North American gray squirrels and the Eurasian red variety.
Regional differences exist, Western European groups being a cluster with regional genetic differences and South European groups being another cluster with regional genetic differences, i.e, Greek/Italian and German/French.
When all the various clusters from the same continental places on Earth share the most common ancestry together, combined, they form a race or breed. It is more generic than specific.
Example:
Swedish person (ethnicity), part of Scandinavia (cluster), Scandinavia part of Europe.
Spanish person (ethnicity), part of Southern European (cluster), Southern Europe part of Europe.
Lithuanian person (ethnicity), part of the Baltic region (cluster), the Balkans part of Europe.
The Swedish, Spanish and Lithuanian people are genetically different, from three different clusters, that are all part of a larger group, the European group. That large group, with it’s many clusters forms a race, a generic umbrella term for combined clusters. It’s not hard.
It does not dismiss any race of his or her humanity. All races belong to the same species, capable of breeding with each other (mixed RACE, or ethnicity), but that does not make all groups of people biologically of the same breed.
Yorkshire Terriers are a breed of dog. They are from the Terrier “cluster”. Terriers are part of the dog species. All terriers are dogs, not all dogs are terriers.
Ethnicity is a better word as you can be more specific to exactly what region and people you are speaking of.
As I said very early on, race is a generic term. White/European, Black/African, Yellow/East Asian, Brown/South Asian etc. It is not specific enough.
This is why ethnicity is a better term. With ethnicity, you can discuss individual groups, which today, generally make nation states. These white nation states are being flooded by foreigners, from different ethnic clusters, that form different races. Europe is turning into Eurapia. Ethnicity takes into account the biological part, then the cultural and other parts, in that order.
Herodotus was the first person to state the main characteristics of ethnicity, with his famous account of what defines the Greek identity. He listed kinship (“of the same blood”), language (“speaking the same language”) and cults and customs (“of the same habits or life”).
This is what I said, that as an example, Italians and French belong to the same umbrella grouping, or RACE, but are not the same ethnicity. Both genetically and culturally. Though there is the genetic link, putting them into the same general racial category, European and white.
—–
“People more knowledgeable than me on the subject have said otherwise, and so they’re surely more knowledgeable than you.”
There are a ton of people more knowledgeable than you who are also dumb.
–When all the various clusters from the same continental places on Earth share the most common ancestry together, combined, they form a race or breed. It is more generic than specific…Ethnicity takes into account the biological part, then the cultural and other parts, in that order.
In other words, it’s effectively a social construct, just like I said in my very first comment. Isolated groups of people living together for long periods of time who *socialized* and bred together *constructing* languages, villages, cultures, etc. The 0.1% genetic variations induced by uncontrolled exogenous factors, i.e., a specific environment, that manifested in superficially dramatic physical differences along largely separated geographical lines ignoring the various gradations of those differences among the human population, are simply used as a crude biological clue to ground the group isolation due to social constructs in something natural. Human beings all came from a small group of ancestors in Africa. They were all one genetically similar species and they still are with 99.9% of their DNA identical, more so than any other mammal on the Earth.
If you travel from South to North on the Indian subcontinent, you’ll witness this genetic variation first hand. You’ll see Indians in the South as dark as the black-skinned Africans with dark brown eyes, to Indians in the North in places like Kashmir as white as the white-skinned Europeans with green and blue eyes.