Any social darwinists around here?

[IlluSionS667]

I have my own ideology, based on social darwinism and the orriginal national socialism. I am anti-racist, but I do believe that races should be seperated.

For more info on my ideology, go to http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/6908426/ .

Are there other people out here with a similar ideology?

In case you wonder what my religion is, go to http://www.comparative-religion.com/...2056#post12056

[Avinash]

Originally Posted by IlluSionS667

I have my own ideology, based on social darwinism and the orriginal national socialism. I am anti-racist, but I do believe that races should be seperated.

Namaskar,

Important parts of your ideology were already tried out in Nazi-Germany, the Soviet Union and South Africa. Don't you feel any discouragement considering the failures these ideologies met with?

[IlluSionS667]

Originally Posted by Avinash

Namaskar,

Important parts of your ideology were already tried out in Nazi-Germany, the Soviet Union and South Africa. Don't you feel any discouragement considering the failures these ideologies met with?

I do not see anything of my ideology in South-African history. The only comparison lies with the seperation of cultures. But I also do believe no culture should rule over another and that all cultures should have an independent economy and political freedom. This is a very important aspect of my ideology. This is completely missing in the former South-African situation.

The sovjet union was indeed a cooperative state, but was seriously flawed in some specific areas : people were paid per hour and not for the amount of work they did, there was no competition between companies, state leaders were not always competent enough, they never passed the temporary fase of repression, ... Also missing is an ideological foundation, as the Marxist ideal was rather different from the implementation.

National Socialist Germany did not fail. It was still in it's temporary repressive fase, when it was attacked by Great Britain and France, but was still evolving in a positive way, when it was defeated by these states. They attacked Germany, because they were afraid their countries would follow Germany's example or Hitler and because of zionist pressure. With France, there was another reason : it feared retalliation from the war it won from Germany in 1918.

My ideology mostly resembles the one of NS Germany, however there are some ideological differences. By the ideology of NS Germany, I mean the real ideology of course, and not the lies that have been told about them to demonize them and make them look like monsters.

[alexa]

[quote=IlluSionS667]I have my own ideology, based on social darwinism and the orriginal national socialism. I am anti-racist, but I do believe that races should be seperated./QUOTE]

Darwin belived the diversity of species is important for the entire process of evolution.

You proclame yourself as no anti-racist, but the 1st link you gave us prove the contrary. And you contradict yourself in the 1st paragraph also !

[IlluSionS667]

Originally Posted by alexa

Darwin belived the diversity of species is important for the entire process of evolution.

There is enough diversity amongst the people in one culture. And I clearly say culture, because I believe seperation should be based on culture. Because culture and race are often a unit, I mentioned seperation by race. But I should have said seperation by culture. I was a bit too quick in submitting Culture to me is a much more important divider of people than race.

Originally Posted by alexa

You proclame yourself as no anti-racist, but the 1st link you gave us prove the contrary. And you contradict yourself in the 1st paragraph also !

I did not contradict myself. My ideology are based on social darwinism and the orriginal national socialism, which have nothing do do with racism. The reason why I believe in seperation of race/culture, is because I believe this is the best way for each race/culture to develop. By mixing races and cultures, you're destroying some things you can only find in some races/cultures and the depth of a culture is lost. The American society is a perfect example of the latter. I do not believe one race is superior to others. I actually opose this, which is why I also believe that no race/culture has the right to rule another.

[alexa]

Originally Posted by IlluSionS667

There is enough diversity amongst the people in one culture. And I clearly say culture, because I believe seperation should be based on culture. (...) But I should have said seperation by culture. (...)
By mixing races and cultures, you're destroying some things you can only find in some races/cultures and the depth of a culture is lost. The American society is a perfect example of the latter. I do not believe one race is superior to others. I actually opose this, which is why I also believe that no race/culture has the right to rule another.

I'm a Canadienne and mixing races and cultures is normal for me. I do not belive another culture/race could destroy mine. All we have to do is to learn from each other and evoluate togheter.

What do you understand by culture ? This is a large term. Even the culture evoluate and not always in a better direction. I would like to see nowadays another Michelangelo or Da Vinci, but I have to accept the modern art, as result of evolution.

[Mus Zibii]

I'm a social Darwinist, but I'm ashamed to admit it because of the implications of racism, etc. Not mixing races, cultures, religions is not necessarily Darwinist. Darwin didn't go to the Galapagos to segregate turtles.

Recently, I've become preoccupied with Batesian and Mullerian mimicry. The same habits of insects and fowl can been seen in practice among humans. Even racism is evident amongst apes.

[Avinash]

Originally Posted by Mus Zibii

I'm a social Darwinist, but I'm ashamed to admit it because of the implications of racism, etc. Not mixing races, cultures, religions is not necessarily Darwinist. Darwin didn't go to the Galapagos to segregate turtles.

I would very much like it if a few thousand specimens of every "race" and sub-race would be preserved in special human reservations. The rest should go on mixing as they have been doing for the last ten thousand years or so. The so-called "races" aren't that old anyway, not much older than 50.000 years when the more modern humans left Africa for the first time. Mixed "races" have less genetic defects than genetically isolated "races", so continued mixing is good.

[Vapour]

Wow, National socialism and Social Darwinism advocating separation of *culture*. This thread may be pulled and the thread starter banned depending on the admin's tolorence. So let me jump in before that happen.

Where in Darwinism does it state that one *ought to* separate breeding ground to create separate species? The idea that each culture or species ought to be separate is totally irrelevant to darwinims because darwinism basically don't give a **** about what *context* something will survive/adopt.

[Mus Zibii]

Originally Posted by Vapour

Where in Darwinism does it state that one *ought to* separate breeding ground to create separate species? The idea that each culture or species ought to be separate is totally irrelevant to darwinims because darwinism basically don't give a **** about what *context* something will survive/adopt.

A-flippin'-men.

[IlluSionS667]

Originally Posted by alexa

I'm a Canadienne and mixing races and cultures is normal for me. I do not belive another culture/race could destroy mine. All we have to do is to learn from each other and evoluate togheter.

You can learn from eachother without mixing. Are you familiar with the folklore of Asia or Europe? These countries have much richer cultures than your country. If you start mixing them too much, the entire world would become a clone of North America. And I do not like the sight of that.

Originally Posted by alexa

What do you understand by culture ? This is a large term.

Perhaps you should read the first link in the first post.

Originally Posted by alexa

Even the culture evoluate and not always in a better direction.

True. The strongest and richest cultures will get most influence.

Originally Posted by alexa

but I have to accept the modern art, as result of evolution.

Some see modern art as degenerate art. And I somewhat agree with that. To me there is more to art than just an idea.

Originally Posted by Avinash

Mixed "races" have less genetic defects than genetically isolated "races", so continued mixing is good.

What makes you so sure about that?

Originally Posted by Vapour

This thread may be pulled and the thread starter banned depending on the admin's tolorence.

Yeah, I know my ideology is pretty controversial. However, I'm one of the most tollerant and openminded persons you'll ever meet. I dare you to prove otherwise .

So I do not see why I should be banned. As this thread also is not in any way disrespectful to anyone, I do not see why this thread should be pulled.

Originally Posted by Vapour

Where in Darwinism does it state that one *ought to* separate breeding ground to create separate species? The idea that each culture or species ought to be separate is totally irrelevant to darwinims because darwinism basically don't give a **** about what *context* something will survive/adopt.

I'm talking about social darwinism, not darwinism. Social darwinism is a theory that's just a bit older than the actual darwinism (it should be called social spencerism, however Howard Spencer never got the credit he deserved). It is darwinism applied to our society. It has been an inspiration for both Marx and the early national socialists.

The necessity for the seperation of cultures is an interprettation of social darwinism. We see the seperation of cultures as necessary for every culture to be able to survive next to other cultures. By mixing, you end up destroying the depth of both cultures, of you end up with one culture ruling and opressing the other.

[Vapour]

ah, firstly, you are talking about Herbert Spencer right?

Secondly, you are not talking about culture, you are talking about *identity* of culture. Culture has been pollinating since the begining of the time. In U.K. curry is the national dish while in India, cricket is the national sport. As far as I can see, culture has been thriving precisely because it is allowed to cross the ethnic devide thanks to the exchange of people and idea.

[alexa]

Originally Posted by IlluSionS667

You can learn from eachother without mixing. Are you familiar with the folklore of Asia or Europe? These countries have much richer cultures than your country. If you start mixing them too much, the entire world would become a clone of North America. And I do not like the sight of that.

Sorry, to disapont you, but I was born in an ex comunist country, in Europe, so I can understand you better than you think.

The culture in Canada has evoluated by accepting different cultures and different races to live togheter. The evoluation is based on mutual respect of each other !

Let's suppose you have each culture separated. If each other is afraid by the influence of the other culture, what do you do about comunication ? Maybe you think once separated, the evoluated one should destroy those less evoluated and in this way the supreme race conqueres all.

[IlluSionS667]

Originally Posted by Vapour

ah, firstly, you are talking about Herbert Spencer right?

Oops. Did I say Howard? Yes, we're talking about the same person.

Originally Posted by Vapour

Secondly, you are not talking about culture, you are talking about *identity* of culture. Culture has been pollinating since the begining of the time. In U.K. curry is the national dish while in India, cricket is the national sport. As far as I can see, culture has been thriving precisely because it is allow to cross the ethnic devide thanks to the exchange of people and idea.

It is good for different cultures to influence each other. This is one of the reasons why I love to learn about other cultures. At the same time however, I believe every culture should it's own boundries. The reason is because different cultures have different needs, and those needs can only be fully satisfied for all cultures, if all cultures are politically and economicly independent. There is a reason why the Indians wanted independence from the UK, you know?!

[Vapour]

Oh, I also checked your website. Replacing tyranny of capitalism by socialism was a fine idea. Only thing they didn' think was that it merely replaced tyranny capitalists with tyranny of politicians/bureacrats which was worse. Why? Democracy and market economy often goes hand in hand because it is on principle respect choise. Unfortunately, in practice, we only have indirect democracy and market economy where we let politicians and corporations to make decisions for us. This is no excuse to adopt totalitalian system, IMO.