This thread is cool though, I didn't think people who felt this way still existed. It's like talking to someone who thinks like they are in the 19th century, fascinating.

__________________
Yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he’s president he’ll take on, and I quote, 'the old boys’ network in Washington.' I’m not making this up. This is somebody been in Congress for 26 years, who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign. And now he tells us that he’s the one who’s gonna take on the old boys' network,” he said. “In the McCain campaign that’s called a staff meeting!- Obama, 9/17/2008

It is my experience that is not always the case. It may be that since minorities have less money they can't afford the nicer places to live. I have also exerience that international students are more decicated since they had to work their way into the school rather than just getting in because their parents paid which is usually the case with white students and why more of them tend to quiet or flunk out since they use the opportunity for socializing rater than studies. Stereotypes do not always fit every situation which is an inconvenient fact for you.

__________________
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Beside, note that the "spanish" ethnicity is, statically speaking, less caucasian than the germans. The reason is that there is a lot of arabic genes in this ethnicity. But perhaps the arabic genes die of old age after a long time on european soil? That would explain why spain isn't a third world country, although people there are rather brown.

As a sidenote, it's very interesting to see you guys back to the good old "because whites are superior", when asked to justify your beliefs; even thought at first, you tried to look like you respected other races. So, white women are prettier than coloured ones; "white civilisation" is better than non-white civilisation; and brown people bring economic problems! It is now clear that your point is that the white race is the best one.

At least be honest; nobody censored philip for his displays of honesty in this forum, to my knowledge

__________________
Client: In six days, do you hear me, six days, God made the world. And you are not bloody well capable of making me a pair of trousers in three months!
Tailor: But my dear Sir, my dear Sir, look at the world, and look at my trousers.
(Beckett)

Well, you still have marxists and people that base their hole thinking on marx. Marx' ideas are very old. And you also have christianity and islam, neither of which are particularly new.

The people who describe them selfs as progressives and claim to have to have modern thoughts actually base their thinking very much on the good old karl marx.

A person who like nazism bases his thinking on newer thoughts than a communist.

But the point is not what is new, but what is true!

One interesting argument that has some serious truth to it comes from Dr. J. Phillipe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario...

Those objecting to the concept of race argue that the taxonomic definitions are arbitrary and subjective. Although critics are correct to point out that the variation within each race is extremely large, that there is disagreement as to exactly how many races there are, and that there is a blurring of category edges because of admixture, they are in error when they claim that classifications are arbitrary. For example, race-critic Jared Diamond, in the 1994 issue of Discover magazine, surveyed half a dozen geographically variable traits and formed very different races depending on which traits he picked. Classifying people using anti-malarial genes, lactose tolerance, fingerprint patterns, or skin color resulted in the Swedes of Europe being placed in the same category as the Xhosa and Fulani of Africa, the Ainu of Japan, and the Italians of Europe.

Jared Diamond's classifications, however, are arbitrary and nonsensical because they have little, if any, predictive value beyond the initial classification. More significantly, they confuse the scientific meaning of race, that is, a recognizable (or distinguishable) geographic population. In everyday life, as in evolutionary biology, a "negroid" is someone whose ancestors were born in sub-Saharan Africa, and likewise for a "caucasoid" and a "mongoloid." This definition fits with the temporal bounds offered by the best current theory of human evolution. Thus, since Homo sapiens first appeared in Africa about 200,000 years ago, branched off into Europe about 110,000 years ago, and into Asia 70,000 years after that, a "negroid" is someone whose ancestors, between 4,000 and (to accommodate recent migrations) 20 generations ago, were born in sub-Saharan Africa -- and likewise, for a caucasoid and a mongoloid.

Social definitions -- that is, self-identification and other-identification actually accord quite well with the physical evidence. Mongoloids, caucasoids, and negroids can be distinguished on the basis of obvious differences in skeletal morphology, hair and facial features, as well by blood groups and DNA fingerprints. Forensic anthropologists regularly classify skeletons of decomposed bodies by race. For example, narrow nasal passages and a short distance between eye sockets identify a caucasoid person, distinct cheekbones characterize a mongoloid person, and nasal openings shaped like an upside down heart typify a negroid person. In certain criminal investigations, the race of a perpetrator can be identified from blood, semen, and hair samples. To deny the predictive validity of race at this level is nonscientific and unrealistic.

SOURCE: J. Philippe Rushton: Race as a Biological Concept, November 4, 1996

Hmmmm...Who is white?

1)

2)

3)

4)

FRANK'S 'OPINION?'......ummmmm....lets see.... #1!

Now I am not inclined to get into another race debate with anyone around here as I have had several already and I am too busy with my blog to expend energy and effort in such a debate...

Now if you want to know my views on the existance of race etc...you may want to check the following threads out...

http://forums.uspoliticsonline.com/s...=12919&page=19
http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/foru...t=27755&page=5

There is some serious racism going on here. It's as offensive as it is dishonest.


WEB

You failed to adress the questions I asked you, which were: how can you draw a distinct line between races? And secondly: why do you suggests that there is unicity within "the white race"? (I would bet that some russian people have more in common with the asiatics than with the portuguese).
At least you're finally admitting that you're a white supremacist, frank. It's good that you came out of the closet.

I'm still reporting you for the usual insults.

__________________
Client: In six days, do you hear me, six days, God made the world. And you are not bloody well capable of making me a pair of trousers in three months!
Tailor: But my dear Sir, my dear Sir, look at the world, and look at my trousers.
(Beckett)

Creating and attacking strawmen are we? You would not recognise the truth if it handed you a notarised business card.

Actually fascism and communism are both statist and have more in common than differences. Others on the left are more of the libertarian-socialist types as many on the right are more inclined to American libertarianism the differences have more to do with if you think business should have any limitations. Their are so many dynamics that have nothing to do with Marx or fascism.

__________________
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Oh, so the white race isn't superior? Are you saying that it is purely by chance that while you showed (relatively) average white people in the picture, you only portrayed ugly or aggressive non-whites?
Or are you suggesting that being prettier is not being superior? Or that claiming to be at the origin of the best achievements of humanity doesn't suggest something?

But, just answer this one question. Are you a white supremacist?


Thanks for your constructive comments

__________________
Client: In six days, do you hear me, six days, God made the world. And you are not bloody well capable of making me a pair of trousers in three months!
Tailor: But my dear Sir, my dear Sir, look at the world, and look at my trousers.
(Beckett)

They only make themselves look stupid and ignorant. Most educated people understand that the racists are wrong.

Well since you demand an answer I would define white as the Caucasoid indigenous population of Europe and descendents of those peoples. Where is the line drawn? There is no distinct 100% drawn out line as there is no 'pure race' but classifications still exist which are reflected in forensic anthropology, psychological intelligence rankings and varying physical traits and differences in structure. It is not hard for a scientist to tell the difference between a Negroid, Mongoloid and a Euro-Caucasoid upon physical skeletal examination or a layman to tell the difference between the groups via observation.

Happy now?

Actually I am not! David Lane said 'In the final analysis, a race or species is not judged superior or inferior by its accomplishments, but by its will and ability to survive.' I agree with this because it is illustrated by nature!

Whites tend to lack the unity and ability to survive as a unit indefinitely...hence we are not superior! I agree with Kevin Alfred Strom's article which I am including below...

At this point, it seems clear that letting this discussion go on would be pointless. You've expressed several time in this thread how you despise non-whites, yet continue claiming that you are not a white supremacist. (as for your comments regarding races, they avoid mentionning the problems of people of mixed origins, and of the internal differences between races)

__________________
Client: In six days, do you hear me, six days, God made the world. And you are not bloody well capable of making me a pair of trousers in three months!
Tailor: But my dear Sir, my dear Sir, look at the world, and look at my trousers.
(Beckett)

Where have I expressed such hatred in this thread? If you are going to misrepresent what I say and even outright lie then you are correct this conversation is pointless which I thought it would be from the start!

If you bothered to read "The Race Card" thread I linked you would have noticed that I dealt with this specific hybrids blurring the lines issue in depth. The internal differences in races issue was addressed in the "Earth to Kruger" thread I linked...

I am simply not inclined to have this same debate yet again! I have dealt with these issues at least 4 times on this forum, read what I wrote in the past and what my opposition wrote if you disagree with me? FINE! WHO CARES!?