"Peter van Velzen" <pbamvv@worldonline.nl> wrote in message
news:7716bb89.0310111502.1d65daae@posting.google.com...

"Jerry Abbott" <j.n.a@frontiernet.net> wrote in message

news:<ceYhb.745$di3.638@news02.roc.ny>...

Social diversity and complexity can't be avoided either. Indeed,

for

many
of

us, it is the joy of life.

However, the complicating factors intrinsic to racial mixture can

certainly

be avoided. For much of history, they were avoided.

False.

True. By and large, and except at geographical crossroads, tribes

far

from multicultural. The rise of civilization, when it occurred at

crossroads, were partly the result of a military demand to keep

foreigners

at arm's length.

Interesting difference in point of view.
These factors were not purpusely avoided,
but they hardly ever occured due to geographical seperation.

During their periods of high culture, nearly all civilizations were
relatively racially homogeneous and kept foreign elements at arm's length.

The means by which the separation was enforced varied: ancient Aryan India
used an overt racial caste system, ancient Egypt kept the nubian slaves in
their places.

"Peter van Velzen" <pbamvv@worldonline.nl> wrote in message
news:7716bb89.0310111502.1d65daae@posting.google.com...

"Jerry Abbott" <j.n.a@frontiernet.net> wrote in message

news:<ceYhb.745$di3.638@news02.roc.ny>...

Social diversity and complexity can't be avoided either. Indeed,

for

many
of

us, it is the joy of life.

However, the complicating factors intrinsic to racial mixture can

certainly

be avoided. For much of history, they were avoided.

False.

True. By and large, and except at geographical crossroads, tribes were

far

from multicultural. The rise of civilization, when it occurred at such
crossroads, were partly the result of a military demand to keep

foreigners

at arm's length.

Interesting difference in point of view.
These factors were not purpusely avoided,
but they hardly ever occured due to geographical seperation.

During their periods of high culture, nearly all civilizations were
relatively racially homogeneous and kept foreign elements at arm's length.
The means by which the separation was enforced varied: ancient Aryan India
used an overt racial caste system, ancient Egypt kept the nubian slaves in
their places. Multiculturalism and multiracialism always occur immediately
before the fall of a civilization. So it was in Egypt, India, Rome and so
it will be here.

Racial mixture adds
nothing to society, since no one needs more than one culture to be
abundantly enriched.

Fallacy of exclusion.

That's a "quip" masquerading as a criticism. There is no "fallacy of
exclusion" in the logical sense that two alternatives are falsely

purported

to be exhaustive of the possibilities, though in fact others were

possible.

You think the rest of the world would be better of without the
achievements of secular humanism? I certainly disagree.
You think the rest of the world is better of without the achievements
of western style democracy? I certainly disagree.
Let each person make his/her own choice of the culteral advances that
have taken place in another part of the world.
Please.

What are the achievements of secular humanism? I don't mean to be picky
about semantics, but I don't want to chance that someone might get the idea
that, if you are a humanist, you suddenly get general-purpose enlightenment
that enables all sorts of positive creativity. You mean, rather, that
secular humanists have, now and then, achieved something, and, furthermore,
you assert that those things were good things. When you list examples of
what you consider to be such good things, we can begin to discuss whether
you are right about their goodness.

Democracy first appeared in a Western country, but it was limited and
exclusionary. And even then that limited amount of democracy caused
problems.

MASS democracy isn't "Western." It is a subversion of the Republic, and the
idea of "empowering the people" is usually an illusion, behind which a
small, hidden group of schemers imposes their will. A democracy can't work
when its "sovereign" citizens don't have the information needed to make good
choices, or when it becomes so large that regional disputes become
inevitable, or so "diverse" that racial factionalism becomes inevitable.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
Democracy is a utility company buying the favor of elected judges with
campaign contributions. Democracy is people tolerating their country
getting into debt, and then into more debt, and more debt, and thereby
putting their children and grandchildren into bondage. Democracy is media
bosses telling everybody what they should thing about democracy, and about
everything else, and being believed most of the time. Democracy stinks.
Democracy is a bad idea.

Enforced, continuous exposure to an alien culture does
not enrich: it unbalances and suffocates.

False.

My statement was correct.

No it was not.
The exposure does unbalance, as has been proven in all places where
western powers have suffocated local culture. But I do not think
people in the third world do not want the riches of western culture. I
think they want it very much.
We can't give it to them, without getting something back in return.

My statement was correct. Many of the Third World countries do not, in fact,
want our riches; that is, they don't want what we've been taught to regard
as riches. They want their culture, as distinct from the materialism and
commercialism that have infested the West, and they don't want us
contaminating their national life with our foreign ideas. As to the
pathetic peoples in other parts of the Third World, whose lack of national
pride is such that they just want a handout, they should not get any such
thing. They, too, should be left alone, to rise or not, to develop or not,
as may be in their power on the condition that we leave them alone. If they
can replicate our successes, then they will have earned their riches. If
not, then they don't deserve them.

Racially mixed societies always bring with them interracial

friction,

and
to

suppress the violent consequences of having that friction the

government

must enact repressive "sensitivity" laws that were not needed

before.

Social friction is part of our nature. It has always been there.

Racially homogeneous societies do not require repressive sensitivity

laws.

Racially mixed societies do. Your statement that "social friction" is

part

of our nature is somewhat deceptive in that it obscures the question of
degree.

But they do. When Europe was still racially homogeneous, people would
be persecuted for having the wrong (or no) religion. Having the same
skin-color does not prevent that. Having a different appearance does
contribute something, but in fact the cultural differences are much
more important that this superficial biological differences.
There are serveral "alien" groups in Dutch society today.
Of those groups two are of a "white race" (turks and Morrocans)
and two are of a "black race" (from Suriname and from the Caraebian
Islands.
As always these newbies experience difficulties
(and therefore, does Dutch society) especially within the second
generation.
However there is a striking difference between Turks and Morrocans,
and also a striking difference between people from Suriname and those
from the islands)
"Race" does not seem to be the biggest issue.
Maybe it is not an issue at all, but for the fact that it is easily
spotted.

Race, as a source of social friction, is unique in one respect. Someone can
gain wealth or lose it--class mobility is possible. Someone can gain a
religious faith, or lose it, or change it. You aren't forced to profess the
religion your parents taught you. But, once born to a race, you belong to
it all your life. There's nothing that you can do about it. You can betray
your race, but you can't change your race.

Different appearance does not necessarily spawn a conflict based on them.
People don't divide themselves into mutually hostile camps because of
differences in height (stature). Neither do they divide themselves purely
because of differences in skin color. Skin color is a signal of the
broader, more general, more basic, more important difference of race.

One
thing a society steadily loses as the consequence of racial mixing

is

freedom.

You apparently advocate a separation of the races. This is a loss of
freedom.

I advocate a separation of the races. It is a limit placed on

individual

freedom in order to gain a higher freedom called national autonomy.

National Autonomy is a great loss of freedom for the individual.
Furthermore Nationality has nothing to do with race.
There are nations where 40% of the population would be of "the other
race"
In Israel being of a semite race does not prevent palestinians and
Israeli's from killing each other, while being an Ethiopian (and thus
a "black" jew)
poses a much smaller problem. (My guess is Palestinians might not even
target those people, even though they are much more "alien" to them)

Nationality is the same thing as race. Perhaps the biggest of our modern
political lies is that nationality means citizenship. That's how our
government uses the word: when it refers to "American nationals" what it
really means is "citizens of the United States." The U.S. government is
among those governments that understand that GOVERNMENT is less free--to do
whatever it wants--when it is restrained to act as the agent of the people,
and a racially homogeneous population can exert more of that restraint than
a (necessarily divided) multiracial population can.

Most countries are made by (and for) one race, and then another race moves
in and tries to take over, either by conquest or by a combination of
parasitism and trickery.

The Jews have only a trace of semitic blood and are much less semitic than
the Palestinians. The two peoples can be considered different races. The
Ethiopian ("Black") Jews were at first denied entrance to Israel on a
canard: some of the rabbis were claiming that they had "Christian" blood,
meaning that some of their ancestors had been Christians, which had somehow
tainted the Black Jews. Of course, this was merely Jewish racism finding a
pretext. The Israeli liberals used the courts to get the Ethiopians
airlifted anyway. Not that I care particularly about Jews, of course, but I
can see that the Ashkenazi Jews would have been better off if they had been
able to exclude the Black Jews. Religious similarity, in the long run, will
never compensate for racial difference.

National autonomy is the basis and a necessary condition for genuine freedom
of the individual. National autonomy makes racial illusions unnecessary and
enables honesty between a people and their government. The form of
government might not be democratic; maybe some people will have more rights
than others; but at least everyone may know where they really stand.

Sooner or later, giving "offense" (or somehow making members of a
favored racial group believe that offense was given) becomes the

ultimate

crime: more newsworthy than murder, more fit to be condemned than

treason,

and for the crime of giving offense, it sooner or later is decreed

that
it

is no defense that the offense-giver was just telling the truth.

I'm sorry you are having troubles adjusting to modern society.

Fortunately,

you can change.

An honest person believes what he can, not what he wants. I have the
option, fortunately, of trying to change modern society, and, in a small
way, that's what I hope to do.

It seems to me, you want to get rid of modern society.
Having a global society does not allow for much seperation.

What merit does the word "modern" impute to society? None. What benefit
does "global" imply? None. Nobody needs "the world." He needs the means
of survival and the naturally amicable cooperation with the people of a
small town or village. Larger goals require the organization of larger
numbers of people, but unless the peoples are sorted by race, a beneficial
organization will not be possible.

None of that happens in a racially homogeneous society.

You keep asserting that "race" is a real category rather than an

imagined

one.

That's because race is a real category and is not an imagined one.

No it is not.
The main reasons for social unrest, are social differences.
If a "black" man behaves "white" he is generally accepted by "whites"
(do called an "uncle tom" by black activists)
By keeping "races" divided you also keep them in the different
cultural and social environment that is the cause of all the trouble.
Of course if - for instance - all "blacks" remain poor - it is easy to
point the finger at any "black" as being a "communist" and an
agitator.
It does however not solve the problem, of poverty and the following
social unrest.

Race is a real category.
The main reason for social differences are racial differences.
That's why Black men (by and large) don't behave as White men do.
Culture grows out of a race in the same way that your nails grow out of your
fingers; i.e., culture depends on the man, not conversely.
Poverty isn't the cause of social unrest. Race is. Poor Whites are not
nearly as violent (by and large) as poor Blacks.

Furthermore, even if it were true (usually, it is not) that, to a

White
man,

a Black neighbor is just as good as a White neighbor, the reverse

would
also

follow, namely, that a White neighbor is just as good as a Black

neighbor.

That is, nothing is lost by having a racially homogeneous society;

or,
to

put it differently, nothing is gained by having a racially mixed

society.

False.

My statement is correct.

If the only result of a racial homogeneous society was the color of
your neigbour, your statement would be right.
But the result would also mean that people of a different skincolor
would be dumped into a special social class, and that would be a great
loss to the individual. Especially for those who end up in the less
fortunate part of the world.

Not so. I don't care one way or the other about which social class they are
"dumped" in, as long as they get dumped there in another country. I don't
argue in favor of segregation by social class. I argue, rather, in favor of
complete national segregation: two races necessarily imply two countries.
And the Blacks can sort out amongst themselves which of them will be in
which "social class." Nobody White would have anything to do with it.

The phrase "the less fortunate part of the world" is deceptive. Africa is
among the world's most generously blessed parts of the world in terms of
natural resources. It's the quality of the people that has made the
difference in the cultures.

But, in fact, much is lost in a racially mixed society, relative to

a

racially homogeneous society, simply because tribal identities

continue
to

exist in humans (who are primates), and this part of human nature

becomes

frustrated in the racially mixed society, whereas it had been at

ease in
the

racially homogeneous society.

But there are other kinds of complexity that serve only a

special
interest.

Did you ever read law books?

Law is necessary complex. Your basketball bounces over the fence

into
your

neighbor's yard? Who owns the basketball? What if your apple tree

hangs
over

the fence and apples drop to the ground in his yard? Who owns the

apple?

When law becomes so complex as to micro-manage relations between

neighbors,

This is nothing new. Have you read the Justinian codex? Or Roman law?

Roman law did become oppressive. And the more multicultural it got, the
more oppressive it became. You were right that the trend in our laws

has

occurred before. You evidently did not realize that it is my argument,

not

yours.

If you mean that a lawbook that ignores any "racial" differences would
be more simple, you are right. If you prefer a law that does that
however, there is no way - no way at all - that you can seperate the
"races".
OK I like that!

On the contrary. I would make references to race in most laws unnecessary
by mandating a complete exclusion of all races, except the national race,
from the population of the country. Thus, below the constitutional level,
there would be no need for any law to refer to race: only one race would be
affected by those laws. Other races, being in other countries, would have
to make their own laws.

When races are mixed, a uniform legal standard does not government everyone
equally. Racial differences make it impossible not to favor one group or
another with the laws. Some races will respect a legal code because of a
theoretical recognition that everybody benefits when everybody helps make a
just society. But certain other races need practical, convincing, and
repeated demonstrations that breaking the laws will get them hurt. When was
the last time a big mob of White rioters careened through a major US city
and left a trail of burned-out buildings and looted stores? It's been a
while. But Blacks do this frequently, and the only thing that will stop
them from doing it again is if our police respond to riots the way the
Israeli army would respond to an Arab riot in Tel Aviv--i.e., by killing all
the rioters.

it has come to take the place of voluntary social behavior. It

would be

better for antagonistic neighbors to fight over the possession of

the

basketball, or the apples, if that is what they wanted to do.

<snip racist "justifications">

First you advocate some sort of legal/social separation of the races,

but

then you want people to settle their own disputes. Do you want

draconian

race laws or do you want anarchy?

I want each race to have its own place in the world. I want each

country to

have only one race in it. I recognize that races will be better

governed

when each of them can live under the laws that are best suited to its
special nature. So, to implement the separation, I advocate any

necessary

degree of force, centralized or not. Once the separation has been

effected,

each race may, within its jurisdiction, do whatever it likes.

I want each individual to have his/her own place in the world.
Putting him/her into a "race" denies him/her to make his/her own
choice.
I loath that!

You _can't_ choose your race. Neither can you prevent individuals from
being distinguished by race. We can't always have what we want, especially
when Nature has preempted the possibility of making choices. The rights of
individuals must be subordinated to the rights of races. Once racial
separation has taken place and a generation or two gone by, nobody will miss
multiculturalism. News archive footage about "racism" in the old days of
multracial states will seem surreal, impossible, weird. How could people be
so stupid as to want to live among racially foreign peoples?

Besides that, every race will have the laws that are best for them. There
will be no "racism" because there will be no provocation for it. Each
country will be a little world in which life was much as it would have been
if the national race were the only race ever to have evolved.

It is very sad when the myth of racial differences is used to justify

social

policies that do nothing to help solve society's problems, indeed,
unnecessarily increase friction in society. Your own personal loss

through

your blindness is profound, as well.

It's even sadder when people deny the truth about racial differences,

avoid

the facts, pretend that society's problems don't stem in part from

racial

differences and in part from deniers who avoid recognizing them. My

vision

is not in question here; yours is.

There is no, and has never been, a world of racial purity and harmony.

There has never been a "world" of racial purity and harmony, as you say.
There can be such a world, and that world would be a very good world.

It

does not mean that there would be only one race in that world; rather,

it

means that each race would live in its own countries, without any of the
racial hostilities that can occur only when races are in contact.

Forget it!
Hostilities will only arise because people - like you - discriminates
between people upon superficial looks rather that upon the personality
of the human being, and anyway I love Kesinee Daengprasert, and I
won't tolerate you coming between us!

Hostilities arise because of the tribalism natural to all primates,
including humans. You can't teach it out of someone. You can change the
natural by deception and by threats, but these modifying influences must be
eternally maintained. If ever people learn about your propaganda tricks, or
if the money runs out for paying the federal policemen, then Nature will
resume its normal course with a settling of old accounts. Until then, love
whom you want.

Jerry Abbott

"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:LLednQVRyqToE-2iXTWJhg@io.com...

"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0309230803.4dc0a314@posting.google.com...

Why do so many science teachers in America promote mindless, chance
evolution as fact?

Because the only alternative is an infinite regression of designers, and
that's just stupid.

not true...

fnci@comcast.net (Frank J) wrote in message news:<38c5d0dd.0309241508.33996377@posting.google.com>...

"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message news:<LLednQVRyqToE-2iXTWJhg@io.com>...

"JaBrIoL" <

Why do so many science teachers in America promote mindless, chance
evolution as fact?

Because the only alternative is an infinite regression of designers, and
that's just stupid.

Evolution says nothing about whether there is or isn't a designer, so
the alternative (testable scientific explanation) would not either.

However evolution is the theory that atheist would use to disaprove a
designer, and to put forth their agendas that an alternative to the
origin of man not be used in the american public school system.

fnci@comcast.net (Frank J) wrote in message news:<38c5d0dd.0309241508.33996377@posting.google.com>...

"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message news:<LLednQVRyqToE-2iXTWJhg@io.com>...

"JaBrIoL" <

Why do so many science teachers in America promote mindless, chance
evolution as fact?

Because the only alternative is an infinite regression of designers, and
that's just stupid.

Evolution says nothing about whether there is or isn't a designer, so
the alternative (testable scientific explanation) would not either.

However evolution is the theory that atheist would use to disaprove a
designer, and to put forth their agendas that an alternative to the
origin of man not be used in the american public school system.