Racial Superiority

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[i]Adolf Hitler had read some racial-hygiene tracts during his period of imprisonment in Landsberg Prison. The future leader considered that Germany could only become strong again if the state applied to German society the basic principles of racial hygiene and eugenics. Hitler believed the nation had become weak, corrupted by the infusion of degenerate elements into its bloodstream. In his opinion, these had to be removed as quickly as possible. He also believed that the strong and the racially pure had to be encouraged to have more children, and the weak and the racially impure had to be neutralized by one means or another.

The concepts of racist ideas of competition, termed social Darwinism in 1944, were discussed by European scientists, and also in the Vienna press during the 1920s, but how exactly Hitler picked up these ideas is uncertain. In 1876, Ernst Haeckel had discussed the selective infanticide policy of the Greek city of ancient Sparta. In his Second Book, which was kept unpublished during Nazi Germany, Hitler also praised Sparta, adding that this was because he considered Sparta to be the first “Volkisch State”. He endorsed what he perceived to be an early eugenics treatment of deformed children.[/i]

Still think eugenics has merit?

22

Action T4 anyone?

You can’t stop people from breeding, so logically this is the only option… right? Eugenics could never work without doing unspeakably evil things.

Not a good idea to try it.

23

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Action T4 anyone?

You can’t stop people from breeding, so logically this is the only option… right? Eugenics could never work without doing unspeakably evil things.

Not a good idea to try it.[/quote]

We will see genetic engineering in our lifetime and it will not mean the killing of the genetically handicapped, but the enhancement of perfectly normal people.

That might lead to problems but is hardly evil.

25

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Kind of like the question which dog breed is the best?[/quote]

This is somewhat easy to answer. Dogs can be rated along a scale which starts with wolves (the best “dogs”) and ends with pigs (the worst “dogs”). So, a German Shepherd or a Husky would rate pretty close to a wolf, and would thus be considered excellent dogs, whereas a Bulldog or Staffy would rate pretty close to a pig, and are thus rubbish dogs.

Obviously, not all animals can be rated this way. Some animals (foxes, cheetahs, for example) appear on the dog<->cat rating scale, with cats ranking higher than dogs.

26

Eugenics is a great idea. If you apply it as it’s meant to be applied and remove racism from it.

Basically the healthiest most intelligent and robust people, whether black, white, oriental etc would be encouraged to reproduce as much as possible. It really is good for the human species. But is also is very politically incorrect.

As far as races of people go, the current popular political brainwashing is that the race is irrelevant and it’s all climate and culture dependent. What they’re saying is if Aborigines were in Europe they would be the ones flying jets and helicopters. Thats untrue. This is based on a line of thinking of who’s better/smarter based on technology and basically vain achievements.

IMO, the human species are very diverse. Our race or the genes that makes us a part of a certain race also predisposes us to certain likes and dislikes, interests and disinterests. Some races of people are better at math, some much better at art and music etc…

There is a reason that with as many disadvantages as black people have had they still came out with a whole new world of music. Their music like “Jazz” that is the basis of most modern music today came from a mind that’s predisposed to such artistry. And it’s very relevant and present today too. Black people keep making new music and new music styles all the time. Look at the Evolution of rap and hiphop and vocals. Even forays into rock and metal. it’s more then just culture, such artistic mindsets are genetic gifts that come with your race package. Obviously there are exceptions, so lets not assume im speaking in absolutes.

Athletic talent is also obvious. There’s a reason beyond simple culture why black athletes can be so superior. It’s part of the genetic gift of what makes them black but again there are always exceptions.

27

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Whats race have to do with being strong militarily? If you have superior firepower, you are superior militarily. This is not based upon race.

You have to be able to get the firepower though. Not everyone did that.

What does firepower have to do with what race you are?

Read some world history, Europe was not always so strong militarily.

And when we talk about Europe, what race are we talking about here?

[/quote]

Yes they were. Europes military has always been very technologically advanced and ahead of it’s time. The tactics and metallurgy were and are very advanced. From the time of the Early Greeks they were unbeatable and are to this day. It’s an art of warfare they’ve been developing for several thousand years. One of the biggest challenges they had was from the east and the recurve? bow. But that would have only gone so far or not. Who knows, it’s all history.

And Europeans are considered Caucasians. Why would you even ask that? It’s like asking, when you say Africans which race are you talking about? Obviously black people, but that’s not to say there’s no white African citizens.

28

[quote]ninearms wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Kind of like the question which dog breed is the best?

This is somewhat easy to answer. Dogs can be rated along a scale which starts with wolves (the best “dogs”) and ends with pigs (the worst “dogs”).
[/quote]

It can only be subjectively valued. You can find qualities in some dogs that you prefer from other dogs; for example, I wouldn’t use a chihuahua to herd sheep.

29

Look at how many disabled people who contributed to the arts, science, etc, who would’ve been denied the chance of life if eugenics was adhered to.

The Paralympics was a friggin’ inspiration this year as well. Dudes with no legs and only half a stump of an arm winning medals in the swimming, ffs.

30

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ninearms wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Kind of like the question which dog breed is the best?

This is somewhat easy to answer. Dogs can be rated along a scale which starts with wolves (the best “dogs”) and ends with pigs (the worst “dogs”).

It can only be subjectively valued. You can find qualities in some dogs that you prefer from other dogs; for example, I wouldn’t use a chihuahua to herd sheep.[/quote]

Incorrect. The dog<->pig scale is 100% objective, supported by millions of studies, and is a highly reliable measure of dogness. If you want to rate a dog’s ability to work in the agricultural business a different scale is required.

31

[quote]ninearms wrote:
Incorrect. The dog<->pig scale is 100% objective, supported by millions of studies, and is a highly reliable measure of dogness. If you want to rate a dog’s ability to work in the agricultural business a different scale is required.
[/quote]

I thought this thread was about the superiority of breeds…?

32

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ninearms wrote:
Incorrect. The dog<->pig scale is 100% objective, supported by millions of studies, and is a highly reliable measure of dogness. If you want to rate a dog’s ability to work in the agricultural business a different scale is required.

I thought this thread was about the superiority of breeds…?[/quote]

It is. Some breeds of dog are superior to others because they achieve a higher dogness rating, but the scale only rates dogness and not any other features or abilities. For example, beagles fall somewhere towards the centre of the dogness scale, but towards the top end of the excellent snooker player<->terrible snooker player scale.

33

Good day all!

It’s not as clear cut as some of you make out. When it comes to military strength for example, Eastern armies had weapons and armour made of Damascus steel at a time when the West had relatively poor quality steels. Lt. Gough of the British Army writes that the “Tulwars (curved sword) of the ‘seeques’ (Sikhs) have the ability to cut our finest Shefield steel swords clean in half.” (from Memoirs from the 1st Anglo-Sikh wars).

The Chinese and Indians were using gun-powder and firework-like projectiles long before these were exported to the West.

The Russians were beaten by the Afghans not too long ago and we shouldn’t forget Vietnam or the hasty exit from Somalia either.

The biggest claim to fame for the ‘East’ however, was the discovery of 0 (zero). First documented in ancient Indian texts and inscribed on the walls of a temple dedicated to science, this was one of the most important discoveries of all time. No zero, no mathematics as we know it, no computers etc…Their musical system is incredibly complex as well, and exists till today.

You just need to compare buildings from the 1400 - 1600s to see how advanced Eastern cultures were compared to Europe.

The Egyptians did ok for themselves for a while.

The Indians also made a relatively accurate calculation of the Earth’s circumference and distance to the moon at a time when Europe thought the Earth was flat and was the centre of the universe.

These civilisations declined over time but seem to be rising once again.

When it comes to modern times though, the West developed much faster than the rest of the world, much of it fuelled by technological advances during World Wars 1 and 2.

When it comes to sport and athletics, I think genetics does play a part, but culture and environment play a bigger part. If a black kid in the US wants to take up athletics, chances are his family will support him. In places like India or even some African countries, he’d probably get a few slaps, unless it was cricket in the case of the Indian kid.

If generations of your family have run and hunted at high altitude in East Africa, chances are you have the right muscle and body type to be a good distance runner. It’s not worth anything unless you train hard though - look at the Chinese and weightlifting at the last Olympics - the results prove that training is more important than genetics.

34

[quote]Gregus wrote:
Yes they were. Europes military has always been very technologically advanced and ahead of it’s time. The tactics and metallurgy were and are very advanced. From the time of the Early Greeks they were unbeatable and are to this day. It’s an art of warfare they’ve been developing for several thousand years. One of the biggest challenges they had was from the east and the recurve? bow. But that would have only gone so far or not. Who knows, it’s all history.

And Europeans are considered Caucasians. Why would you even ask that? It’s like asking, when you say Africans which race are you talking about? Obviously black people, but that’s not to say there’s no white African citizens. [/quote]

Yeah, technologically advance? How come we lost the Crusades? The Chinese had rockets and used gun power centuries before the Europeans did.

Unbeatable? The Turks overran half of Europe, the Moors took over Spain. European influence was driven from the middle east, Africa and Central Asia by the Muslims.

It was only after the Eastern Civilization declined that the West gained in militarty strength.

Improvements on existing weapons makes one tactically, but not racially superior.

35

[quote]Simba wrote:
Good day all!

It’s not as clear cut as some of you make out. When it comes to military strength for example, Eastern armies had weapons and armour made of Damascus steel at a time when the West had relatively poor quality steels. Lt. Gough of the British Army writes that the “Tulwars (curved sword) of the ‘seeques’ (Sikhs) have the ability to cut our finest Shefield steel swords clean in half.” (from Memoirs from the 1st Anglo-Sikh wars).

The Chinese and Indians were using gun-powder and firework-like projectiles long before these were exported to the West.

When it comes to modern times though, the West developed much faster than the rest of the world, much of it fuelled by technological advances during World Wars 1 and 2.
[/quote]

You said it better than I did.

36

Why did I ask which race? Maybe I should have asked which ethnic group? One poster mentioned the Irish. Not technically a race if everyone in Europe is a Caucasian, right?

37

Ok why is it that the most powerful nations right now consist of the Asian and European races. Yet the Latin and African Nations are poverty nations. Why is this?

38

[quote]orion wrote:
We will see genetic engineering in our lifetime and it will not mean the killing of the genetically handicapped, but the enhancement of perfectly normal people.

That might lead to problems but is hardly evil.[/quote]

Well, if you put it like that…

Sign me up.

39

[quote]jre67t wrote:

Ok why is it that the most powerful nations right now consist of the Asian and European races. Yet the Latin and African Nations are poverty nations. Why is this?[/quote]

Jared Diamond, “guns, germs and steel”

40

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Whats race have to do with being strong militarily? If you have superior firepower, you are superior militarily. This is not based upon race. [/quote]

You have to be able to get the firepower though. Not everyone did that.

You said that superior firepower, led to superior military. Superior military for all intents and purposes of this argument would lead to a superiority situation. Certain races throughout history have had superior weapons capability by using their available resources. Hence, one could claim that they became “superior” through their use of resources in order to create superior weaponry. So firepower and race are related in that certain races can be attributed (or connected) to certain types of weaponry, historically. For example, Aztecs used animals skins for armor, and I believe wooden clubs/stone weaponry.

Who mentioned Europe?

I thought we were talking on a global scale?