"conservationist" racists?

[Lark]

What do you think about racists of the sort which adopt "conservationist" trappings or rhetoric? Like those who suggest that certain ethnic groups are "endangered" and all ethnicities or races are entitled to some kind of "preservation"? I dont know what this would involve, I dont hold this sort of ideology personally, although I've heard of it as a third position to racist seperatism and racist supremacy.

Dont automatically think of white nationalists or supremacists for the purpose of this thread, there are black nationalists and seperatists from as far back as Marcus Garvey and they still exist today and those people can be as militant as any white variant, and as violent, there's also asian and other nationalist or ethnonationalist camps too.

 

[muir]

Whats the context for this? You've presented the opening question in a loaded way which is perhaps not the best way to begin a debate/discussion

if we look at history we see that the imperialism of white people has had a massive cultural effect around the world

You could take any of countless examples. You could look at how aboriginal children were taken from their communites and raised by white families in australia to anglicise them or you could look at the slave trade from africa or you could look at the people of bikini attol who were removed from their islands so that the US could test nuclear weapons; some the babies born after these tests were so affected in the womb by the radiation left over that they were born, like jellyfish, without skeletons....meditate on that for a moment if you want to understand what imperialism is

The inhabitants of various islands have been kicked off by the imperialists for example the island of diego garcia

If you look into the mindset of the people behind imperialism you often find racism which is used to justify the cruelties they want to perpetrate. To oppress a people they must first dehumanise them in their minds....the ''it doesn't matter that we are kicking these people about they are little better than vermin anyway'' kind of mindset

Many of the people behind the british empire for example were eugenicists and still are in fact

The fabian society which drew heavily from the british aristocracy has a lot of influence over global affairs and they are essentially eugencists (see article below)

So if some people are talkking about protecting some groups from such actions is that wrong? Who is to say that the culture imposed by the imperialists is the best one?

http://redicecreations.com/article.php?id=30190

H.G. Wells, G.B. Shaw and the Parlour Room Blood Lust of The Fabian Society

​

​

By the end of the Great War of 1914-1918, one organisation that was very influential on the global stage and whose actions and implementations directly led to the rise of the totalitarianism of both Fascism and the Bolsheviks was the Fabian Society. Based in London and formed in 1884, and which still exists and remains influential in global politics to the present day, this think-tank was and still is essentially an aristocratic cult out of which formed the British Labour Party, the London School of Economics and the influential New Statesman journal, as well as having a huge influence on the creation of the League of Nations in 1919.


The Fabian ideology is driven by incremental social Darwinism and scientific socialism, and until the 1940's did nothing to hide their totalitarian psychopathic agenda. In fact, they openly boasted about their horrific agenda which, today, is now hidden behind a façade of celebrities and climate change fronts. The same aristocratic families which championed the ethos and rise of both National Socialism and the Bolsheviks are very much still moving the Fabian rudder and maintaining their utopian course behind the scenes just as much as they ever have as you read these very words.


The Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw was a Fabian who openly called for scientists to develop gasses to murder races and groups who did not want to be controlled within the Fabian utopia. Later, IG Faben would cater to his wishes with their 'pesticide' Zyklon B; poured upon European Gypsies, in an attempt to eliminate the last non-controlled indigenous people in Europe. Shaw also demanded a system whereby humans were to sit in front of a committee and justify their existence to a panel of civil servants who had the right to decide a person's fate. If people could no longer demonstrate that they were productive before this panel of bureaucrats, they would be 'humanely murdered' according to George Bernard Shaw.


The influence that the Fabians had on the creation of National Socialism and the Bolsheviks cannot be downplayed, as they were significant in generating a degree of acceptance of totalitarian regimes among intellectuals and academics in the years leading up to 1919. Hitler and Stalin could not have risen to power without the social conditioning of the Fabians; that a cold, scientific control of humanity was the only method of government for the 20th century. The Fabian Society was ruthlessly atheistic and scientific, and this was perhaps what made them so very dangerous, in that they assumed that human existence is nothing more than chemical and electrical bodily functions, and that humanity has no soul or spirit.




DARK THINGS TO COME

​

Among the more psychopathic–if not psychotic–members of the Fabian Society who used his popular influence to sow the seeds of the totalitarian scientific oppression in the name of reason, was the British author H.G. Wells. Known mainly for using his science-fiction novels such as The Time Machine and Things to Come in order to future-proof the expectations of present generations towards political objectives (which is why sci-fi remains a core aspect of the Psychopathic Control Grid to this day), Wells and his warped philosophy played a huge part in the creation of both Hitler and Stalin in terms of their acceptability among more scientifically inclined thinkers in the decades leading up to 1919.


Wells was perhaps the most perfectly pre-formed National Socialist who wasn't a German. Like so many of the intelligentsia of his day, he took the Darwinian 'survival of the fittest' concept to a completely literal level, in that some humans were just not fit to live in the scientific and reasoned New Order of the 20th century that he and the other Fabians had envisioned. Wells, carrying the ethos of the Fabians into a literary narrative, declared that 'The Base' of humanity was unfit to live because, culturally and intellectually, their need to be free and have free will had to be removed from society as 'congenital invalids', as they only represented 'an antagonism to the State organisations.' His solution, as was also that of the Fabians, was for the Utopians to eliminate 'The Base'.


This was to be achieved by means of mass starvation and robbing these people of both their ability to survive and their will to live. Precisely the same methods used by the Nazis with the Nuremberg Racial Laws and which led to the 'silent holocaust', whereby Jews and others declared unfit to live in the Reich chose suicide in their countless thousands as they were shunned, made unemployed or mocked and chased out of schools and universities. The Nazis adopted these methods directly from H.G. Wells and the other British intellectuals of the Fabian Society. There is no difference at all between H.G. Wells' 'congenital invalids' and Adolf Hitler's 'racial tuberculosis'. The same use of weaponised black magic language was being unleashed to create pre-formed opinions in the minds of their audience, while at the same time serving notice to the victims that 'the hunt is on'.



H.G. Wells' elimination of 'The Base' classes included forbidding the undesirables from building boats, as islands off the coast were to be used as concentration camps while the Utopians arranged their extermination. Just like the Nazis, Wells and the Fabians demanded that malformed children and disabled adults should be murdered, as they would affect the finances of the state and may contaminate the bloodlines of the Utopians with malformed strains. Wells (on behalf of the Fabian Society) demanded uniformity of attire and uniformed clothing, that all marriages be arranged and decreed by the state with total bureaucratic control of family diets and recreational facilities.


As incredible as it seems, this was the prevailing mindset of the British and Anglo-American establishment in the first half of the 20th century, and without fully understanding this period of history, whereby the Scientific Materialists proposed their own form of National Socialism for the world and then unleashed everything from Eugenics to Gerrymandering, we cannot begin to grasp why the Anglo-American establishment became so enamoured with Adolf Hitler and the Nazis during their rise to power. In many ways, Hitler was the Fabians' ideal leader in Berlin, just as much as Lenin and later Stalin were their ideal leadership culture in Moscow. This happened because the imperial powers following the Great War–even if only by fostering a culture of acceptability–created the means for it to have happened.

 

[Eventhorizon]

I think racism goes both ways. Affirmative action is racist. Treating anyone differently than you normally would because of anything "different" about them is bs.

We live in the 21st century for craps sake. Oh, that person is smaller than I am, that person has a different skin tone. That person was born in that country. Seriously? I mean SERIOUSLY? F'ing human race is a joke. Lets start witch trials again.

 

[muir]

I think racism goes both ways. Affirmative action is racist. Treating anyone differently than you normally would because of anything "different" about them is bs.

We live in the 21st century for craps sake. Oh, that person is smaller than I am, that person has a different skin tone. That person was born in that country. Seriously? I mean SERIOUSLY? F'ing human race is a joke. Lets start witch trials again.

I'm still unclear exactly what's being meant here in this discussion....should the big corporations plow through the rainforest in the name of capitalist progress even though it might decimate a previously isolated group? Is it racist for protestors to protest against the decimation of that community and their absorption into the homogenised mcdonaldisation culture of the west?

The rainforest is an interesting example because not only does it house plants that have beneficial effects but it also houses people with shamanic knowledge of how to use those plants

 

[j654dgj7]

I think racism goes both ways. Affirmative action is racist. Treating anyone differently than you normally would because of anything "different" about them is bs.

We live in the 21st century for craps sake. Oh, that person is smaller than I am, that person has a different skin tone. That person was born in that country. Seriously? I mean SERIOUSLY? F'ing human race is a joke. Lets start witch trials again.

We white people are super into saying that systematic injustices to other races were a long time ago. "Let's move on, already!"

The problem is that black people and their communities are in such a poor state of repair that they need to be lifted out of it if we are ever to be equal again. I think we should be OK with that after 300 years of (very recent) slavery and the ongoing systematic racism inherent in white cultures. Let's give them a chance. It will most likely make society more equal and less violent.

Edit:

But I digress!

It's racism and not an issue at all. White people are fine and black people are fine. If we were all mixtures then that would be fine. It's just rhetoric there to stir up disagreement and to make problems where there are none.

 

[muir]

We white people are super into saying that systematic injustices to other races were a long time ago. "Let's move on, already!"

The problem is that black people and their communities are in such a poor state of repair that they need to be lifted out of it if we are ever to be equal again. I think we should be OK with that after 300 years of (very recent) slavery and the ongoing systematic racism inherent in white cultures. Let's give them a chance. It will most likely make society more equal and less violent.

I'm not sure people need to be lifted i think they just need to not be held down

 

[Eventhorizon]

We white people are super into saying that systematic injustices to other races were a long time ago. "Let's move on, already!"

The problem is that black people and their communities are in such a poor state of repair that they need to be lifted out of it if we are ever to be equal again. I think we should be OK with that after 300 years of (very recent) slavery and the ongoing systematic racism inherent in white cultures. Let's give them a chance. It will most likely make society more equal and less violent.

Edit:

But I digress!

It's racism and not an issue at all. White people are fine and black people are fine. If we were all mixtures then that would be fine. It's just rhetoric there to stir up disagreement and to make problems where there are none.

Unfortunately I recognize that in some parts of the country racism is being allowed to flourish still. It 5aints the whole ideal of moving on.

 

[Lark]

I think some of you guys are talking about racialism rather than racism, racialism and power equal racism, most of the time the racism of people who have been historically oppressed, enslaved or abused because of their race is based upon interpersonal power, ie going to rob/kick/rape you're cracker ass, but that's a little different from controlling education, resource allocation, swiss bank accounts etc.

The thing about historical racism and its legacies though is that the right wing are probably correct about wanting a "write down" of it, ie an endgame, although the people theorising it, who are not always the same people who experienced it or experience any of the legacies, resist that because it could jeopardise their livelihood as grievance manufacturers and maintainers.

Most of the aggrieved groups if there was a "write down" made in terms of material compensation, possibly including lands for resettlement, and an adjustment made for all welfare programmes and monies or goods and services made available to date wouldnt be doing that well out of the deal, at least not for more than a single generation or more.

I read a PKD book once, it was about reality altering drugs so this was just a brief side note, in which an approach had been taken towards africian americans which was one of seeking to value and preserve and support them to the greatest possible extent, they were effectively made a protected species, the consequence was that the population last all self-reliance what so ever, I mean didnt know how to safely cross the street anymore, and shrank to just a few remaining individuals who would die and the ethnic group would consequently be extinct.

 

[just me]

What is racism?

We have tried to obstruct the way things are. We have stopped slavery in the US. I have personally visited where slaves used to live on Cumberland Island. They were treated so well and loved where they lived so much, the government made the property owners burn their homes so they would leave. There are many sides to this, and we have both progressed and digressed over the years. Haters gonna hate, they say. That holds true everywhere you are. As the population continues to grow, we continue to have problems taking care of everyone. In my beliefs, there is no racism. We are all people.

 

[muir]

What is racism?

It's a belief that one group is superior to another

However that perhaps needs to be qualified

For example humans have adapted to their environment. So you could say that an eskimo is better able to cope with the cold than a bedouin whilst a bedouin is better suited to the hot

In general terms they have superior qualities to the other in different situations but does that make a person racist to say so?

So perhaps a better way of looking at it would be in terms of validity. Each human is equally valid....each has equal right to existence and to life, freedom and resources

if however you begin to look at the world that way you see that the behaviour of governments is often inherently racist in deciding that one group of people have a greater right to life, freedom and resources than another

Even within countries under, government control, we see stratification where money allows some, from birth even, greater degrees of life, freedom, resources, choice, opportunity, health, education etc

 

[just me]

Sorry, muir. I edited on you.

 

[muir]

I'll get over it

 

[Matt3737]

I read a PKD book once, it was about reality altering drugs so this was just a brief side note, in which an approach had been taken towards africian americans which was one of seeking to value and preserve and support them to the greatest possible extent, they were effectively made a protected species, the consequence was that the population last all self-reliance what so ever, I mean didnt know how to safely cross the street anymore, and shrank to just a few remaining individuals who would die and the ethnic group would consequently be extinct.

What sort of nonsense is this? The implication that benefits or luxuries somehow override natural instinct? Any comparison to groups of nobility and wealth at any point throughout history is enough to show that this is blatantly false.

It boils down to an accusation of genetic disposition towards luxury, i.e. wealthy people are born to be wealthy and poor people are born to be poor because it's in their blood.

 

[ZcM4xzkjgzCjytBc]

I am discouraged to reply in such threads being verbose and all over the place

 

[muir]

I am discouraged to reply in such threads being verbose and all over the place

You should tighten it up with some straight talk

 

[just me]

Fifty senators tell the NFL to change the name of the Redskins. Racist or stupidity?

 

[Lark]

What sort of nonsense is this? The implication that benefits or luxuries somehow override natural instinct? Any comparison to groups of nobility and wealth at any point throughout history is enough to show that this is blatantly false.

It boils down to an accusation of genetic disposition towards luxury, i.e. wealthy people are born to be wealthy and poor people are born to be poor because it's in their blood.

Am I right that you thought this was nonsense and then wrote a reply long enough for me to ignore everything you wrote after "what sort of nonsense is this?"?

I think I am.

 

[Lark]

I am discouraged to reply in such threads being verbose and all over the place

You shouldnt be discouraged, posting or just generally, but do what feels right.

 

[ZcM4xzkjgzCjytBc]

What do you think about racists of the sort which adopt "conservationist" trappings or rhetoric? Like those who suggest that certain ethnic groups are "endangered" and all ethnicities or races are entitled to some kind of "preservation"?

Individuals have a right to breed within their own race if that's what they choose.
No person can decide for others.

The end.

 

[Matt3737]

Am I right that you thought this was nonsense and then wrote a reply long enough for me to ignore everything you wrote after "what sort of nonsense is this?"?

I think I am.

It is indeed nonsense.

I take it that you actually hold some iteration of that view if you are somehow offended at me referring to an anecdote that you provided as nonsense.

If you do not hold such a view, then what would be the issue? Would you not be in agreement with me then?

Methinks you doth protest too much. Whatever makes you feel better about yourself.