Why is racialism wrong and immoral

Status
Closed

Menshevik

Ad Honorem
Dec 2012
8,832
The People's Republik of Kalifornia.
Exactly, to talk of a culture as though it were (or could be) fixed or preserved is a bit unhistorical, cultures change all the time for many reasons, immigration or demographic change is only one.
From a UK point of view, the massive changes in the 'culture' over the last few centuries weren't driven by population change, yet (fortunately) bull-baiting is gone , child labour, locking up homosexuals, unthinking deference to the so-called socially superior - etc etc etc.
There has been a good deal of immigration in my lifetime (since 1950), though not as much as some people think, but the biggest changes I see in the way of life come not from that but from the universal American influence.

Is that a good thing, in your opinion? And what specifically is it that's changing?
 
When speaking of racism or racialism. I am speaking of the general idea that Japan should remain 99 percent Japan, or a British arguing in the 50s that Britain should remain 99 percent British, and that only whites should be considered British, or his American or Australian counterpant arguing in 1950 that America should remain 90 percent white. Or that an Australian arguing in 1950 should not allow immigration of any more non Europeans. Why are these ideas considered immoral?
Americans and Australians have no right whatsoever to demand the make up of race in their societies considering its stolen land and they imported their workforce and populace, the very notion is irony at its worst, hypocrisy at best and yes in that circumstance its out and out racism.

Regarding Japan or Europe, the thing is if these countries were to stay as you say "99% British" how would you enforce that, that answer leads to some very dark paths.

Deport everyone who's not white, take a woman's baby away from her if she birthed a mixed race child? where does it end? because that in every scenario ends up with "Hitler".

This world is global now, people are going to have to start accepting that fact because the idea of 1950's England is gone.

You don't invite thousands of Indians and West Indies people, get what you want then tell them to go home, England brought them over in the first place.

All large societies throughout history had immigration, Rome, America etc the reason is simple, large developed societies want an injection of populace to fill jobs, military personnel, labour work force, increase in taxable adults etc etc

What's the point of having a big society that's half empty? this is why politicians refuse point blank to curve immigration, that's the truth of it.

Better get used to it because its not going to change, if Hitler and the Nazi's failed who else is willing to go that far to do it? and if they do they deserve the same fate.

Another side note is the International bankers won't have it either, nothing is a greater threat to them than an independent, mobilized European state, there is a lot of unspoken or brushed under the carpet history about Hitler and his views and dealings with the banks i.e Rothchilds and their ilk who as we know are also Jewish.
 

Menshevik

Ad Honorem
Dec 2012
8,832
The People's Republik of Kalifornia.
Americans and Australians have no right whatsoever to demand the make up of race in their societies considering its stolen land and they imported their workforce and populace, the very notion is irony at its worst, hypocrisy at best and yes in that circumstance its out and out racism.

Regarding Japan or Europe, the thing is if these countries were to stay as you say "99% British" how would you enforce that, that answer leads to some very dark paths.

Deport everyone who's not white, take a woman's baby away from her if she birthed a mixed race child? where does it end? because that in every scenario ends up with "Hitler".

This world is global now, people are going to have to start accepting that fact because the idea of 1950's England is gone.

You don't invite thousands of Indians and West Indies people, get what you want then tell them to go home, England brought them over in the first place.

All large societies throughout history had immigration, Rome, America etc the reason is simple, large developed societies want an injection of populace to fill jobs, military personnel, labour work force, increase in taxable adults etc etc

What's the point of having a big society that's half empty? this is why politicians refuse point blank to curve immigration, that's the truth of it.

Better get used to it because its not going to change, if Hitler and the Nazi's failed who else is willing to go that far to do it? and if they do they deserve the same fate.

Another side note is the International bankers won't have it either, nothing is a greater threat to them than an independent, mobilized European state, there is a lot of unspoken or brushed under the carpet history about Hitler and his views and dealings with the banks i.e Rothchilds and their ilk who as we know are also Jewish.
Do tell....
 
Likes: bboomer
Oct 2018
655
Adelaide south Australia
"If that's all you people have to offer as "culture", then I pitty you".
I wasn't referring to my own culture though. I was talking about 'culture' in general


It doesn't matter to what you were referring. The statement is an 'ad hominem' attack. EG

From the Latin, meaning 'to the man'"

Please try to keep up, there's a good chap.------- Now THAT is a pretty good ad hominem; it patronises you while implying you are stupid. (which you obviously are not).


-----------------------------------------------------------------0----------------------------------------------------------0-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



From Wikipedia, which also gives some pretty good examples. I strongly advise reading the entire article.. Understanding some basic logical fallacies will help you when arguing a position.


Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2] The terms ad mulierem[3] and ad feminam[4] have been used specifically when the person receiving the criticism is female.
However, its original meaning was an argument "calculated to appeal to the person addressed more than to impartial reason".[5]
Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is categorized among informal fallacies,[6][7][8] more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.

Ad hominem - Wikipedia
 
Without digging up a lot of research I did about 8 years ago................

The international banking's First family are all Jewish or of Jewish origin, Hitler as you well know is not a fan.

When someone comes to power particularly in Europe and rules with absolute power they will of all been faced with a stark reality ............ their money or the countries money is controlled by the Central bank.

So what do you think Hitler a man who despises Jews, declared war on the Jews is thinking when he and the Nazi party have to come to terms with the fact that Europe and the worlds finances are controlled by Jews.
Hitler was at one stage in control of at least 1/2 of Europe, that's a lot of economies controlled by what he sees are his enemies.

The research I did was about Hitler preparing or at least planning on how to over throw the Central banks, starting with Europe which along with America has the majority control over the worlds financial markets.

There was more to it than that, things like his relationship early with the Catholic church and how that broke down as well as other issues and factors, it may seem a bit conspiracy theory but if you think about it a man with his views and saw himself as Europe's new leader then this would be a natural conclusion.

..............he had already been bemoaning for years about Jewish influence in Germany.
 
Jun 2016
1,587
England, 200 yards from Wales
Is that a good thing, in your opinion? And what specifically is it that's changing?
Like, probably most changes, a mixture of good and bad. Bad (in my personal view - celebrity nonsense, soundbite news, maybe a bit too much public emoting though, on the other hand it has probably helped to break down traditional deference and snobbery, produced a bit more informality (50's Britain could be very strait-laced).
The point though is that it is a change that has affected the lifestyle and attitudes of most British people, far more than immigration/demographic change have done.
The most positive changes though (the reduction in homophobia, racism, sexism etc), isn't that a society changing with no single obvious influence, the zeitgeist picks up influence everywhere, and would change whatever happens to ethnicity.
 
Likes: bboomer

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
4,687
Is that a good thing, in your opinion? And what specifically is it that's changing?
As the Zen Master put it: "Too soon to tell."

It usually is.

Already the pre-Socratic pohilosopher Heracleitos observed that everything is constantly changing ("You cannot step in the same river twice"). Change is inherent.

The idea of managing and actively selecting it has merit. But so has the observation that ALL such managing and selection by its inherent nature HAS to be done on the basis of incomplete information. There is NO way of knowing if you're "getting it right", so to speak. But "getting it right" isn't just about end results (which are NEVER final either, due to change, anayway), since that depends on desired outcomes, and for whom, to what end. (It's also why allowing the end to justify the means rarely ends up anyplace good.)

Which is why ideology and politics matter. They define principles aside from managerial ideal of order and control, and they raise the important question about HOW we should decide what even constitutes desired outcomes, and for whom? Who are the people who literally matter for that? And since we can't actually KNOW what will work, perceptions about desired outcome as a basis for controlling processes of change actually matter a darn sight less than the political and social processes of deciding who society and its development is fundamentally FOR, and what kind of processes for deciding that we implement.
 
Oct 2018
655
Adelaide south Australia
Which is why ideology and politics matter.


Don't understand how that conclusion is valid, although I agree to a point about ideology and politics.

There is a real danger that ideological and political principles become dogmatic, and that is not desirable. Dogmatism can, and does, replace thought and tends to treat change as dangerous.

I've seen a lot of this kind of thing over a lifetime, first in religion, where principles are intentionally made into dogma. Also among the 'true believers' in any given political party. Especially obvious in dictatorships; Stalin and Hitler of course. In my lifetime, there was the terrifying spectacle of Mao worship in China, which reached its apex/nadir with the catastrophic cultural revolution. Currently there is a the appalling Kim Jong Un and his personality cult.


Ideology matters, so does politics, as long as they are capable of adapting as circumstances change. Best example I can think of is the Catholic Church. Always dogmatic, to the point of killing anyone who disagreed. It survived as an organisation because of its ability to change, slowly changing dogma , sometimes over centuries. The church also has the convenient ability to absorb beliefs and deities of converted peoples.. It is no exaggeration to say that Christians of say the Fourth century would not recognise Christianity today.

To paraphrase Jesus; ideology and politics are there to serve man, not the other way around.
 
Status
Closed