Ask an African-American anything

[Crimson Guard]

African-American is Political correctness social construct/concept,it means nothing and is a misnomer obviously.

Black American would be more appropriate.

Halle Berry rides the Black Identity bandwagon,which is very popular for half breed entertainers and has its benefits...similiar problem/dilemma as you see when people go around claiming Amerindian ancestry.

[Agrippa]

eastanglian said:

I have nothing against National Socialism,

Oh dear. You can see nothing wrong with the genocide of a whole people

I need to get away from this forum, I didn't realise it was populated by nazis. And a mod aswell

First I spoke about people which I know and refer to themselvs as National Socialists.
Secondly I said I saw the mistakes, both of historical NS and of NS today.
Thirdly if I judge something I look at the pro and cons - there is no way to see the German extinction and European cultural and biological degradation in another system in a better light than a system which would have worked even if I dont agree with all its measures, might even highly disagree with parts of it, thats the main point.
Like two people (or regimes...) which are not right in every respect, neither of them, but one could have saved you, the other will kill you for sure on the long run.

You're right. The Chinaman, although culturally Greek, would still be considered "an other" by the vast majority of Greeks. I consider this an irrational attitude since a culture isn't developed as a result of inherent racial characteristics but by environment and historical factors.

Culture is not just an end in itself, its there to serve a people, to bridge the human instinctive insecurity of a group and give it a framework for a collective existence and a fulfilled, satisfied individual life. If a system doesnt achieve that or the culture even works against the biological base or majority of the individuals, its some kind of degeneration.

Both biology and culture are important in ethnic identity.

Someone is Greek for example, if he considers himself Greek and is considered by other Greeks to be Greek. This is a self-referencing definition which nonetheless does converge to a meaningful definition of what "Greek" is.

Both culture and biology are important determinants of how one person sees themselves and how they are seen by other persons. It is psychologically improbable for example that a Chinese person would ever develop a Greek ethnic identity in the sense of feeling Greek and not feeling Chinese, or that other Greeks would consider such a person as Greek and not as Greek Chinese.

Both appearance and culture matter in ethnic identity.

Personally, I don't consider anyone who doesn't have Greek ancestry to be ethnically Greek. I consider the offspring of Greek and foreign parents to be Greek as long as they have an exclusive Greek ethnic consciousness. I do, however, believe that it is psychologically improbable in most cases that such bi-ethnic offspring will develop an exclusive Greek ethnic consciousness at the expense of their other ancestry.

Can just agree with that. Not even another European can become a German himself, but his children might, after generations, especially if they get German blood, but in some cases even without if there is full integration, though thats unlikely, because if his children and grandchildren will finally be fully integrated, they would marry Germans most likely and get mixed grand-grandchildren - thats good if you want them to be integrated and bad if they are a foreign racial and cultural element.
I personally thought for a time not that "race oriented" though I was very interested in that issue - always and had collective-social goals and was pro-Eugenic. But I finally realised that kinship really matters in life and evolution and that even those non-Europeans with individually good features will never be fully integrated and with more of them group orientation and culture will be downgraded too. Its impossible to argue that you can allow the mass immigration of totally foreign, not fully integrable people into your country and your people will survive this or even benefit from it on the long run.
Most mixed people, even if accepted, tend to identify themselves with everything else but not with the real German identity anyway. Most are slaves to America though many have no idea of how its there at all...
But thats ok since they are no German anyway, the problem is that they are not just negative themselves but influence even full blooded Germans in a negative way too...

Race matters and being European is the No. 1 criterium both racially and culturally for POSSIBLE integration though I dont promote migration inside of Europe neither. Why reducing and destroying what was naturally grown and fits into the European context, substitute it with something which doesnt fit and just destroys every kind of higher communities...won't change the world or human situation in the world neither, even on the contrary...
There are so many arguments against the mass immigration of non-integrable elements, to mention them all would mean to write quite enormous book...

[dukeofpain]

crimsonguard said:

I read from a few places that Austrians do not like being called Germans.

Swiss though are mixed,I would not call them German.

Don't like to be called german? Call the next one you meet a schluchtenscheisser. See if they prefer it

[Ras-Xafun]

Agrippa has been shady since first I read his post, nothing new here imo. This guy is a pure Germanic superior race promoter. I noticed this after his continouse response on posts about "ethnics" and how he constantly associated everything primitivie with "Negrids" as he put it, even the neandérthal he compared to his "negrid". I'm not surprised at all about his Germanic theory! He lives in a different time dimension, something clearly made him miss the 1930s when his type were flourishing in Europe.

a non-European can never be a German - everything else is just a perverted idea which will lead to the destruction of the German folk and Europeans in general.

Whoa!

[Dienekes]

anodyne said:

You're right. The Chinaman, although culturally Greek, would still be considered "an other" by the vast majority of Greeks. I consider this an irrational attitude since a culture isn't developed as a result of inherent racial characteristics but by environment and historical factors.

Ethnicity is not defined by culture alone. It is a combination of culture (language, customs, etc.) and a sense of affinity, a component of which _is_ shared ancestry and similar appearance.

[One Humanity]

admin said:

Both biology and culture are important in ethnic identity.

Someone is Greek for example, if he considers himself Greek and is considered by other Greeks to be Greek. This is a self-referencing definition which nonetheless does converge to a meaningful definition of what "Greek" is.

Both culture and biology are important determinants of how one person sees themselves and how they are seen by other persons. It is psychologically improbable for example that a Chinese person would ever develop a Greek ethnic identity in the sense of feeling Greek and not feeling Chinese, or that other Greeks would consider such a person as Greek and not as Greek Chinese.

Both appearance and culture matter in ethnic identity.

Personally, I don't consider anyone who doesn't have Greek ancestry to be ethnically Greek. I consider the offspring of Greek and foreign parents to be Greek as long as they have an exclusive Greek ethnic consciousness. I do, however, believe that it is psychologically improbable in most cases that such bi-ethnic offspring will develop an exclusive Greek ethnic consciousness at the expense of their other ancestry.

Good definition.

[nockwasright]

admin said:

Both biology and culture are important in ethnic identity.

Someone is Greek for example, if he considers himself Greek and is considered by other Greeks to be Greek. This is a self-referencing definition which nonetheless does converge to a meaningful definition of what "Greek" is.

Both culture and biology are important determinants of how one person sees themselves and how they are seen by other persons. It is psychologically improbable for example that a Chinese person would ever develop a Greek ethnic identity in the sense of feeling Greek and not feeling Chinese, or that other Greeks would consider such a person as Greek and not as Greek Chinese.

Both appearance and culture matter in ethnic identity.

Personally, I don't consider anyone who doesn't have Greek ancestry to be ethnically Greek. I consider the offspring of Greek and foreign parents to be Greek as long as they have an exclusive Greek ethnic consciousness. I do, however, believe that it is psychologically improbable in most cases that such bi-ethnic offspring will develop an exclusive Greek ethnic consciousness at the expense of their other ancestry.

This assumes that the concept of Greek has a biological meaning, which is not.
The biological differences due to ancestry start having some statistical relevance at a much higher level than nationality.
The example made whith the Chinese wouldn't stand for an Albanian, Serb, Italian, Bulgarian ..., and nevertheless the Greek identity is defined in opposition to its neighbours, not with China. This to mean the concept of nation is almost only cultural.

This told, ethnicity is culture plus common ancestry in its formation, meaning that a group with common ancestry developes its own typical culture during its own history.

This doesn't mean that that culture is peculiar to the ethnic group for biological reasons and can't be shared by people of different ancestry.

The adopted african children in Italian schools are indistinguishable from the italians (except for looks obviously). The only reason why they could be prevented to be as Italian as anyone else is how others and themselves perceive their appareance. In other word a very shallow reason.

[Agrippa]

This told, ethnicity is culture plus common ancestry in its formation, meaning that a group with common ancestry developes its own typical culture during its own history.

Thats correct, but to change the racial base means to change its heritage, expression and direction and from a certain level on it means to destroy the natural unity and to substitute it with something new. In the case of modern Europe the result can just be a radical Liberalcapitalistic Americanised Europe without real group identity or on the long run the formation of new, racially mixed entities which would have to define themselves new.
But the old folks and races would have been extinct by an inhuman and unnatural ideology and social system which is, like I said, a corruption of the individual and its mind with surrogats for nothing but the profits of others and a pseudo-religious illusion of madness brought to us by the USA.

As I said, you could integrate a limited number of all races. I mean would I personally care about 1000 mulattoes in the German folk? Nah, I wouldnt, not even if all of them would live in my area - if I would know the same won't happen elsewhere!!!
But as things are, the same thing happens all over Europe and its the long term extermination of Europeans!

Go to Paris, go to London, go to Brussels, Amsterdam, Berlin, Stockholm and you see that this is the replacement of the people who founded the occidental civilisation, of the races which developed in this areas and who created the ethnic unities and communities which survived for so long - and all for a sick ideology and individual profits and corruption brought to us by foreigners. Europe would have never became that dunghill which it is today!

[Agrippa]

puntlander said:

Agrippa has been shady since first I read his post, nothing new here imo. This guy is a pure Germanic superior race promoter. I noticed this after his continouse response on posts about "ethnics" and how he constantly associated everything primitivie with "Negrids" as he put it, even the neandérthal he compared to his "negrid". I'm not surprised at all about his Germanic theory! He lives in a different time dimension, something clearly made him miss the 1930s when his type were flourishing in Europe.

Interesting, lets look at the details:

Agrippa has been shady since first I read his post, nothing new here imo. This guy is a pure Germanic superior race promoter.

Well, I want to PRESERVE Germanic racial base and identitiy, but where do I say that "Germanics are generally superior"? Never said that.
Furthermore Germanic is no race you know.

I noticed this after his continouse response on posts about "ethnics" and how he constantly associated everything primitivie with "Negrids" as he put it, even the neandérthal he compared to his "negrid".

Its not about single individuals or groups alone, its about traits, some traits are more, others less primitive, usually we find both in most races, just whats predominant determines whether I call a race "primitive" (archemorphic).

Negrids aren't the most primitive groups, but Australids and Tasmanids are/were. Negrids have a specialisation on their own which distinguishes them from the most ancient forms of the old sapiens stratum like we can see it both in modern Australids and ancient, unreduced Boskopids, the ancestors of Sanids.

I'm not surprised at all about his Germanic theory! He lives in a different time dimension, something clearly made him miss the 1930s when his type were flourishing in Europe.

I'm not as intolerant as you might think and I see the greatness in other people too, I just think on the developments in the whole of mankind and the preservation of my people first. If something happens which brings nothing good but destroys something good and naturally grown, its just logical to oppose it.

"Germanic theory" *lol*

I dont mind being criticised for what I said or am, its just awful to read things I never wrote nor had in mind or heavily distort what I said.

[eufrenio]

puntlander said:

Agrippa has been shady since first I read his post, nothing new here imo. This guy is a pure Germanic superior race promoter. I noticed this after his continouse response on posts about "ethnics" and how he constantly associated everything primitivie with "Negrids" as he put it, even the neandérthal he compared to his "negrid". I'm not surprised at all about his Germanic theory! He lives in a different time dimension, something clearly made him miss the 1930s when his type were flourishing in Europe.

a non-European can never be a German - everything else is just a perverted idea which will lead to the destruction of the German folk and Europeans in general.

Whoa!

Before you criticize Agrippa, tell me Ras-Xafun, would you accept a Chinese or a European as Somali, if one were to choose to settle in Somalia?

[Agrippa]

eufrenio said:

Before you criticize Agrippa, tell me Ras-Xafun, would you accept a Chinese or a European as Somali, if one were to choose to settle in Somalia?

Very good question, I might add that "one" is too small, that would be even ok to me, think about hundreds of thousands and millions of people settling between your people, living totally different, claiming things which belong to your people and taking away the pride of a nation by helping elements which work against old structures and social unity with there sheer presence as well as with their actions. Causing problems in the social, economic, cultural field - not to forget they have higher birth rates and the influx doesnt stop, but more and more are still coming while the own community is breaking up, loses its mind and getting corrupted in the process of "pluralisation" and loses every sense for the own identity and survival.

I dont even blame the immigrants in the first place, its a systemic fault in before everything else.

And then this foreigners and mixed people want even to claim that they are "German" - well only in the corrupted sense of the word, in a sense which would be rather an insult, in the sense of this degenerated society!

What would I have against single immigrants which behave correctly and dont speak of "being Germans"? Nothing, even if they would be Aborigines or Pygmies - if they would be there as individuals and guests. But thats not the case - its a mass which will lead just to a mess in Europe and things are obvious for everybody who is able to see and think.
Only brainwashed blame for the results in France and elsewhere only the "intolerance of Europeans", the "multicultural ideology" of weaklings and the pluralistic Liberalcapitalistic society was the mistake in the first place.

[annienormanna]

agrippa said:

eufrenio said:

Before you criticize Agrippa, tell me Ras-Xafun, would you accept a Chinese or a European as Somali, if one were to choose to settle in Somalia?

Very good question, I might add that "one" is too small, that would be even ok to me, think about hundreds of thousands and millions of people settling between your people, living totally different, claiming things which belong to your people and taking away the pride of a nation by helping elements which work against old structures and social unity with there sheer presence as well as with their actions. Causing problems in the social, economic, cultural field - not to forget they have higher birth rates and the influx doesnt stop, but more and more are still coming while the own community is breaking up, loses its mind and getting corrupted in the process of "pluralisation" and loses every sense for the own identity and survival.

I dont even blame the immigrants in the first place, its a systemic fault in before everything else.

And then this foreigners and mixed people want even to claim that they are "German" - well only in the corrupted sense of the word, in a sense which would be rather an insult, in the sense of this degenerated society!

What would I have against single immigrants which behave correctly and dont speak of "being Germans"? Nothing, even if they would be Aborigines or Pygmies - if they would be there as individuals and guests. But thats not the case - its a mass which will lead just to a mess in Europe and things are obvious for everybody who is able to see and think.
Only brainwashed blame for the results in France and elsewhere only the "intolerance of Europeans", the "multicultural ideology" of weaklings and the pluralistic Liberalcapitalistic society was the mistake in the first place.

So I take it your not into this whole interracial dating scene, then.

[Agrippa]

annienormanna said:

So I take it your not into this whole interracial dating scene, then.

I'm in a long term relationship anyway
I dont care for "interracial dating" if it doesnt happen in Europe and most important - without results which would live here. That might be only bad for the moral, but again, not as much if it doesnt influence Europeans.

Other groups must decide that themselves, I'm concerned about the Neoeuropeans around the world too though. The face the same threat as the European heartland.

[harri]

Ok, question: What exactly is Nubian about your "Nubian queens"?

[annienormanna]

agrippa said:

annienormanna said:

So I take it your not into this whole interracial dating scene, then.

I'm in a long term relationship anyway
I dont care for "interracial dating" if it doesnt happen in Europe and most important - without results which would live here. That might be only bad for the moral, but again, not as much if it doesnt influence Europeans.

Other groups must decide that themselves, I'm concerned about the Neoeuropeans around the world too though. The face the same threat as the European heartland.

While I'm not too sure about the German nation (is any one? ;D), I wouldn't disagree about European civilization. A sense of consciousness is necessary, but does seem to exist. The only problem is the concept about Neoeuropeans. Who are they?