When Ethnicities/Races/Cultures Collide

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest
Post Reply
teriyaki taryaki
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 1:27 am

Re: When Ethnicities/Races/Cultures Collide

Unread post by teriyaki taryaki » Fri Aug 02, 2013 5:12 pm

hoi.polloi wrote: Since you yourself are a raving racist with very little cultural sensitivity, your whole post of this article stinks of trying to say the failures of idealists to create a better world are what makes idealism stupid. Whereas you are the one mixing your criticisms of the system with a terrible zeal for the flower pot out of which are present problems arose. Your demons are imaginary. Please stop trying to justify your hate and bigotry and saying people taking offense at your bigotry is somehow you being victimized. That's sincerely twisted and psycho.
Are you actually trying to say that you object to all 'hate' or just irrational 'hate' ? What to me is rational action, coming from an individualist/natural rights/free choice perspective is to any-and-all die-hard collectivists and willing violators of the individual, only 'rationalizations' and 'justifications.'

Do you differentiate between different levels of dislike ? What level has to be operational before it qualifies for the all-encompassing smear of 'hate' ?

What really is this thing called 'hate' that's supposed to be so much worse than a preference for the good or the mere dislike of what is 'bad for you,' that everyone is entitled to ? Here's a short anecdote to illustrate a point:

A football player went to his coach and told him "I hate that guy over there, he's a real jerk." The coach replied "If you hate him, why don't you kill him then ?"

"What do you mean, kill him ? I can't kill him ! " said the player, astonished.

"Well, if you could kill him and get away with it, would you do it ?," asked the coach.

After thinking for a few seconds the kid said, "No, I would not."

"Well, if you're not willing to kill him even if you could get away with it, then you don't hate him, you only dislike him."

So, to you, I'm trying to 'justify my hatred and bigotry,' whereas to me, I'm only giving clear reasons, facts and statistics for preference and dislike, my right to free choice and dislike of anyone I choose for those given reasons. Cultural differences and racial differences are not a valid reason for dislike to you, even if they coincide with complete stupidity (since you can point to this or that individual who is not infected with that cultural malaise), whereas to me they are.

The right to defend yourself as an individual against any and all initiated violence by groups, be they from homogenous racial or cultural origin or not, be they from Jewish-government-mafia-protected 'minority groups' or not, is what the right of a group of individuals who think alike to defend the sovereignty of their collective free-choices is derived from. The initiators of violence in the name of 'morality' are the real 'haters' and 'bigots' and intolerants, not the ones defending their free-choice, preference and right to dislike against this 'democracy racket.'

Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: When Ethnicities/Races/Cultures Collide

Unread post by lux » Sat Aug 03, 2013 12:50 pm

teriyaki taryaki wrote:
Less than 5% of all whites in the Southern states ever owned black slaves and these were almost all rich plantation owners.
What percentage of Jews engaged in the wrongdoings you've mentioned and in what economic strata were/are they?

teriyaki taryaki wrote:...I'm only giving clear reasons, facts and statistics for preference and dislike, my right to free choice and dislike of anyone I choose for those given reasons.
We've heard about the groups you dislike. Which groups do you prefer? That is, which groups do you feel have not committed the wrongdoings you ascribe to Jews and the others you've mentioned?

Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm

Re: When Ethnicities/Races/Cultures Collide

Unread post by brianv » Sat Aug 03, 2013 9:23 pm

This poster is becoming one of the reasons I don't visit cluesforum as much as I used to. Perhaps he might like to start his own hate blog somewhere else!

Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: When Ethnicities/Races/Cultures Collide

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Tue Aug 06, 2013 2:56 am

teriyaki taryaki, as of this post, you are banned from this board. Your last several posts of bile, personal opinion and vitriol against users whom you've disgusted, embarrassed and made ashamed of you have been removed entirely.


1. initiated deeply insulting and incredibly racist terms of engagement: you claimed everyone must accept your racist insults (based on your quotes and endorsements of various authors/media entities) or your rights were somehow being infringed upon by Jews
2. blamed outmoded, obsolete and often stupid thinkers - at their worst - for what you claim were your beliefs
3. claimed ad hominem attacks were not justified in exposing your individual culpability for your own bloody opinions when you ignored multiple admins taking you to task on taking responsibility for your hate
4. when finally acknowledging your own racism, defended it by calling it 'dislike' rather than 'hate'
5. continually and aggressively posted your personal 'dislike' (hate of various cultures) of the vast majority of the human race
6. attempted to get "personal" with me and other users (as some kind of defense?) indicating your complete ignorance about why this forum exists - which has as little as possible to do with the personalities of the researchers and is for general information dissemination

Since you revealed to everyone that you apparently think this forum is some kind of Facebook for your own personal (and incredibly insulting) hate of cultures, yet you are so focused on linking user names to real personal opinion, all I can say is that I highly pity you and what you have attempted to communicate about yourself.

Furthermore, since you want to get personal, I would "feel" for you whomever or whatever you really are if you also represented yourself as such in the flesh; I would feel upset about your misunderstanding of the Vicsim Report (which I am embarrassed that you claim to have appreciated), your lack of affection, and your fear of evil Jews forcing you to be racist (or not racist enough) to "defend yourself". And while you certainly are not facing any threats here (though you keep typing like you are facing threats everywhere, from all sides) this isn't your posting board for hate. And you can't take out your life frustrations on us any more.

brianv is right; you should try to build some self-confidence and self-esteem elsewhere. Try Rense, God Like Productions, the David Icke forum, Twitter or Blogspot. Hell, there's flickr, Photobucket, Wordpress and MySpace. There's plenty of room for your "I have the right to hate and blame everyone that doesn't look-think-act-fuck like me" nonsense out there.

As an environmentalist, I am a bit concerned where exactly I am flushing you and who will next have to take responsibility for your toxic presence. But you are no longer permitted to amplify your vitriol with our tools. So wherever it is you end up, may it slightly lessen your terrible wrath to give your homophobic White Supremacist ego an invigorating Sieg Heil! (and Tschüs!)

Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: When Ethnicities/Races/Cultures Collide

Unread post by lux » Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:46 am

Thank you, hoi.

Posts: 401
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 1:29 am

Re: When Ethnicities/Races/Cultures Collide

Unread post by MrSinclair » Thu Aug 08, 2013 2:50 am

Thanks Hoi for eliminating this vile and tedious distraction.

Posts: 670
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:59 am

Re: When Ethnicities/Races/Cultures Collide

Unread post by Dcopymope » Fri Aug 09, 2013 9:45 pm

What I found interesting about this teriyaki taryaki guy is the fact that in one of his posts of which I can no longer find for some reason, he uses eugenics, which came by reason of evolutionism to justify his racist mindset. After pointing out evolution as the root cause of the widespread institutional racism that broke out in the 19th century, this teriyaki taryaki character pops up doing exactly the thing I described in the link below. Who would have thought this synchronicity would have happened hey?

Link: http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f= ... n#p2385640
Evolution and Modern Racism
by Henry Morris, Ph.D.

Some people today, especially those of anti-Christian opinions, have the mistaken notion that the Bible prescribes permanent racial divisions among men and is, therefore, the cause of modern racial hatreds. As a matter of fact, the Bible says nothing whatever about race. Neither the word nor the concept of different "races" is found in the Bible at all. As far as one can learn from a study of Scripture, the writers of the Bible did not even know there were distinct races of men, in the sense of black and yellow and white races, or Caucasian and Mongol and Negroid races, or any other such divisions.

The Biblical divisions among men are those of "tongues, families, nations, and lands" (Genesis 10:5,20,31) rather than races. The vision of the redeemed saints in heaven (Revelation 7:9) is one of "all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues", but no mention is made of "races". The formation of the original divisions, after the Flood, was based on different languages (Genesis 11:6-9), supernaturally imposed by God, but nothing is said about any other physical differences.

Some have interpreted the Noahic prophecy concerning his three sons (Genesis 9:25-27) to refer to three races, Hamitic, Semitic and Japhetic, but such a meaning is in no way evident from the words of this passage. The prophecy applies to the descendants of Noah's sons, and the various nations to be formed from them, but nothing is said about three races. Modern anthropologists and historians employ a much-different terminology than this simple trifurcation for what they consider to be the various races among men.

Therefore, the origin of the concept of "race" must be sought elsewhere than in the Bible. If certain Christian writers have interpreted the Bible in a racist framework, the error is in the interpretation, not in the Bible itself. In the Bible, there is only one race—the human race! "(God) hath made of one, all nations of men" (Acts 17:26).

What Is a Race?

In modern terminology, a race of men may involve quite a large number of individual national and language groups. It is, therefore, a much broader generic concept than any of the Biblical divisions. In the terminology of biological taxonomy, it is roughly the same as a "variety", or a "sub-species". Biologists, of course, use the term to apply to sub-species of animals, as well as men.

For example, Charles Darwin selected as the subtitle for his book Origin of Species the phrase "The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". It is clear from the context that he had races of animals primarily in mind, but at the same time it is also clear, as we shall see, that he thought of races of men in the same way.

That this concept is still held today is evident from the following words of leading modern evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson:

"Races of man have, or perhaps one should say 'had', exactly the same biological significance as the sub-species of other species of mammals." 1

It is clear, therefore, that a race is not a Biblical category, but rather is a category of evolutionary biology. Each race is a sub-species, with a long evolutionary history of its own, in the process of evolving gradually into a distinct species.

As applied to man, this concept, of course, suggests that each of the various races of men is very different, though still inter-fertile, from all of the others. If they continue to be segregated, each will continue to compete as best it can with the other races in the struggle for existence and finally the fittest will survive. Or else, perhaps, they will gradually become so different from each other as to assume the character of separate species altogether (just as apes and men supposedly diverged from a common ancestor early in the so-called Tertiary Period).

Most modern biologists today would express these concepts somewhat differently than as above, and they undoubtedly would disavow the racist connotations. Nevertheless, this was certainly the point-of-view of the 19th century evolutionists, and it is difficult to interpret modern evolutionary theory, the so-called neo-Darwinian synthesis, much differently.

Nineteenth-Century Evolutionary Racism

The rise of modern evolutionary theory took place mostly in Europe, especially in England and Germany. Europeans, along with their American cousins, were then leading the world in industrial and military expansion, and were, therefore, inclined to think of themselves as somehow superior to the other nations of the world. This opinion was tremendously encouraged by the concurrent rise of Darwinian evolutionism and its simplistic approach to the idea of struggle between natural races, with the strongest surviving and thus contributing to the advance of evolution.

As the 19th century scientists were converted to evolution, they were thus also convinced of racism. They were certain that the white race was superior to other races, and the reason for this superiority was to be found in Darwinian theory. The white race had advanced farther up the evolutionary ladder and, therefore, was destined either to eliminate the other races in the struggle for existence or else to have to assume the "white man's burden" and to care for those inferior races that were incompetent to survive otherwise.

Charles Darwin himself, though strongly opposed to slavery on moral grounds, was convinced of white racial superiority. He wrote on one occasion as follows:

"I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit.... The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world."2

The man more responsible than any other for the widespread acceptance of evolution in the 19th century was Thomas Huxley. Soon after the American Civil War, in which the negro slaves were freed, he wrote as follows:

"No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out by thoughts and not by bites."3

Racist sentiments such as these were held by all the 19th century evolutionists. A recent book4 has documented this fact beyond any question. In a review of this book, a recent writer says:

"Ab initio, Afro-Americans were viewed by these intellectuals as being in certain ways unredeemably, unchangeably, irrevocably inferior."5

A reviewer in another scientific journal says:

"After 1859, the evolutionary schema raised additional questions, particularly whether or not Afro-Americans could survive competition with their white near-relations. The momentous answer was a resounding no.... The African was inferior—he represented the missing link between ape and Teuton."6

The Modern Harvest

In a day and age which practically worshipped at the shrine of scientific progress, as was true especially during the century from 1860 to 1960, such universal scientific racism was bound to have repercussions in the political and social realms. The seeds of evolutionary racism came to fullest fruition in the form of National Socialism in Germany. The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, a contemporary of Charles Darwin and an ardent evolutionist, popularized in Germany his concept of the superman, and then the master race. The ultimate outcome was Hitler, who elevated this philosophy to the status of a national policy.

"From the ‘Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life’ (i.e., Darwin’s subtitle to Origin of Species) it was a short step to the preservation of favoured individuals, classes or nations—and from their preservation to their glorification…. Thus it has become a portmanteau of nationalism, imperialism, militarism, and dictatorship, of the cults of the hero, the superman, and the master race … recent expressions of this philosophy, such as Mein Kampf, are, unhappily, too familiar to require exposition here."7

However one may react morally against Hitler, he was certainly a consistent evolutionist. Sir Arthur Keith, one of the leading evolutionary anthropologists of our century, said:

"The German Fuhrer … has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution."8

With respect to the question of race struggle, as exemplified especially in Germany, Sir Arthur also observed:

"Christianity makes no distinction of race or of colour: it seeks to break down all racial barriers. In this respect, the hand of Christianity is against that of Nature, for are not the races of mankind the evolutionary harvest which Nature has toiled through long ages to produce?"9

In recent decades, the cause of racial liberation has made racism unpopular with intellectuals and only a few evolutionary scientists still openly espouse the idea of a long-term polyphyletic origin of the different races.10 On the other hand, in very recent years, the pendulum has swung, and now we have highly vocal advocates of "black power" and "red power" and "yellow power", and these advocates are all doctrinaire evolutionists, who believe their own respective "races" are the fittest to survive in man’s continuing struggle for existence.

The Creationist Position

According to the Biblical record of history, the Creator’s divisions among men are linguistic and national divisions, not racial. Each nation has a distinct purpose and function in the corporate life of mankind, in the divine Plan (as, for that matter, does each individual).

"(God) hath made of one blood, all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation: That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after Him, and find Him" (Acts 17:26,27).
No one nation is "better" than another, except in the sense of the blessings it has received from the Creator, perhaps in measure of its obedience to His Word and fulfillment of its calling. Such blessings are not an occasion for pride, but for gratitude.
Source: http://www.icr.org/article/55/

Post Reply