Update: WE ARE BACK ONLINE! The Forum has been RESTORED! See announcement here. If there are any problems or issues, please report them in the announcement thread. Note: Unfortunately I was not able to import the posts made after the crash (on Sept 18) into the restored forum. However, I exported all the posts submitted after the crash into a Word file, so you can download it, find your posts and re-post them. Download the posts here. Thanks for your patience and welcome back everyone!
Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Monday nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE AFA Seminar! See locations and dates here.
View Active Topics View Your Posts Latest 100 Topics FAQ Topics Mobile Friendly Theme
Discuss racial, ethnic and multicultural issues. Warning: The topics here are likely to be taboo, so if you are easily offended, you are better off not participating here.
7 posts • Page 1 of 1
Whites, do you identify with this guy?
Every race has its share of morons. But can racism work, can a racially pure culture thrive? The answer is yes, in certain circumstances. There are two obvious examples of this, the English and Ashkenazi Jews. In both cases the circumstances were basically the same. Both were strictly monogamous and had strong survival pressure (high infant mortality rate) for an extended period of time. This resulted in superior genetics in both cases since the most responsible and intelligent were selected for.
Of course liberalism is highly dysgenic. Liberal cultures select for evil morons and any liberal culture will become an immoral idiocracy after several generations. But what about a non-liberal racist culture? This will also genetically decay without survival pressure, but slowly. Here there is no selection process for quality, so this group is simply subject to genetic drift which is mildly negative. In other words, the guy in the video above will remain in the group and reproduce, which is not a good thing.
Most successful cultures in history had a strong culture but were not racist. This includes Egypt, Athens (before decline), Rome, and early Islam. These cultures attracted good people from their neighbors who joined them and contributed to the culture and its genetics. This works best in a tribal world with frequent warfare where superior cultures are obvious. I am not sure how much this applies today.
So what is the best approach to creating strong cultures in the modern world? I believe that the answer is a strong non-racist religion. And the best example of this is traditional Anabaptists. They happen to be predominantly white, but the guy in the video above just wouldn't fit in to this group, so their religion effectively selects him out from the group. There is attrition for traditional Anabaptist children, so those children who tend to be genetically unsuited to the group simply leave. This is just effective as survival pressure for preserving the genetic quality of the group. Traditional Anabaptists welcome people of all races to join them, but very few do since they aren't suited for this lifestyle. But the few who do join introduce sufficient new genetic material to keep their genetic pool healthy.
I am not well suited to be an Anabaptist since I am naturally a skeptic and their culture requires strong faith. I would need a religion better suited for skeptics, so I organized one (Mikraite) with people who share my values.
In conclusion, racist cultures without survival pressure are subject genetic drift and slow decay. The only means for genetic improvement without survival pressure is a strong religion that selects for good people. Yet virtually nobody is using this approach. I guess genetic decay has already taken its toll and people today are too stupid to understand what really works, so humanity is generally doomed to genetic decay until the world falls apart enough so that survival pressure reasserts itself.
I would argue that the reason there is no religion that selects strictly for "good people" is because people aren't theoretical modular bricks that can be moved and reassembled however you see fit. People are tied to their lingo-geo-biological differences. Something as simple as language is a logistical difficulty. Even if Islam wanted to take over the west, most Americans would be too lazy or stupid to learn Arabic. Diet also isn't universal, eating some things kill people. How can you have meaningful festive rituals with this conflict?
I have only seen a couple examples of multi ethnic religions.
Jehovah's witnesses are multi-ethnic. They divide services along language, this effectively enables ethnic social groups inside a larger whole. They also print all their publications in every language in the entire world.
Eastern Orthodox break down along ethnic-lingo-geo lines. They go one step further than witnesses by having different autocephalous churches. Each church is insulated from each other, though not intentionally. Russian Orthodox obviously don't mix with Egyption Coptics. This is like an empire strategy.
Islam is multi-ethnic. When I visited a mosque a while back there were several white nordics from UC Berkeley who had converted. They were maybe 3 people out of 200. They were freaks and hardcore converts. These people embraced Arab culture. Obviously someone cannot switch to Islam without making some effort to study Arabic.
I have never seen a religion that is equally divided between every race/language/geo and I don't think I ever will. It is much better for good religions to be regionally adopted. This allows for local adaption while keep the integrity of the religious seed. The alternative of having a religion of a 100 people with each person being genuinely from a different ethnic-lingo-regional background would be very weak.
I would also point out that while the Old Testament shows examples of people coming from different ethnic groups, realistically these groups are not several continents or an ocean apart. We're talking about a much smaller difference in background for common absorption.
Ironically I think what you're suggesting is an anti-tribalist point of view. You are suggesting something that resembles progressive globalism except along religious lines. You want a rainbow colored religion that's unified on morality but divorced from everything else. I of course think this will fail. Has one religion ever succeeded globally?
No I don't think racism alone is sufficient for a strong religion, but I don't think unified morality alone is sufficient either.
A valid argument can be made for racist national immigration policy. But I don't think a similar argument can be made for racism in religion. A religion with clear requirements will be selective enough. The traditional Anabaptists are not racist at all, but are probably more purely white than any other group that I can think of.
Just because I could accept racist immigration policy doesn't change my basic position. At this point, I don't think nations matter much. Without a strong religion, a nation will fall apart anyway. And with a strong selective religion, a nation could base its immigration policy on religion even more effectively than on race.
I said "virtually nobody", not "nobody". I gave the example of traditional Anabaptists who select for good people (by their standard).
I doubt most muslim Malaysians or Indonesians study Arabic.
Both Christianity and Islam succeeded globally. And of course religion is much more than just morality, it is a shared narrative, shared rituals, and shared rules. The language, culture, and certainly race do not need to be shared.
Yes they select for good people but are homogeneous because no one wants to adopt their extraneous culture even if they agree with their moral standards.
I don't know the answer to this. I also don't know the case in Chechnya. I was of the assumption that Arabic is the preferred language for reading the Koran.
Only if your definition of globally means an arbitrary boundary of the ancient civilized world. Or only if you mean than the genome of each religion is globally present even if it's at a microscopic scale. In terms of 90%+ adoption world wide, no, never.
And each of those things break down along ethno-lingo-regional lines, the more removed from those lines the less meaningful they are. For example the children of the founders of America share the American narrative better than non-whites. You can't make up history about where your from. While I identify with the Old Testament the narrative of exodus doesn't have a emotional meaning to me. Rituals in the form of food, dance, music, communication, art all have local-regional flavors. Rules are the most concrete thing to share and I'm sure even rules tied to dates, weather, diet probably diverge by necessity.