Why is racism wrong?

[David Sims]

I had said: If you will carefully examine some of my other posts, you will see that I give examples of racist/egalitarian debates in which my claim is illustrated.

Then "The Germans are coming" said: You dont.

Yes. I did. You can't have missed those examples, either. And I am certainly an atheist.

Then "The Germans are coming" said: Gang culture is a social phenomenon not only attributed to american suburbs. It occures In Neaples, Sau Paulo, Marsaille, Karachi, Tokio and everywhere else in the world. And also has in the past in some place which would be considered to be the "whitest possible" like Hamburg. How can you attribute a social phenomenon to one single group alone and then claim to have done "research"??????

True, I lack data on gang activity/membership in European countries. I can't say anything on matters of which I am ignorant. So I speak only of what I know.

Questions to be answered by research would include: What fraction of white youths in Europe belong to gangs, and how does that fraction compare with the fraction of blacks who belong to gangs?

Also: What is the ratio in the per capita murder rates between white gang members and black gang members? Repeat this question, except substitute robbery, rape, vandalism, arson for the word murder.

No racist seriously claims that all the bad guys are black and that all the good guys are white. Instead of all-and-nothing, it's a question of more-and-less. That is why, among racists, the customary metric for comparisons is the ratio of the per capita rates (for whatever) between two specified races.

(Edit: As it happens, I have heard a few things about gang activity in Europe/UK. I've heard that in the UK there is an extensive criminal network of Muslim pedophiles who are kidnapping British children all across the country and using them for the purpose of child prostitution. For several years, the police were either in denial, or were informed but were deliberately looking the other way, fearing to be accused of racism. I have also heard that all, or almost all, of the rapes in Scandinavia are perpetrated by non-white immigrants to Sweden/Norway. Of course, since I don't live in Europe, and especially since the media often don't carry news of this kind, there is undoubtedly much that I don't know regarding the distribution of criminal acts by race in Europe. I don't deny that I am largely ignorant of the matter.)

Then "The Germans are coming" said: Tell that those alive who still suffered from racist supremecy, such as those who had to live in appartheit South Africa.

You mean the white South Africans whose ancestors stopped the Bantu and the Mbele from slaughtering each other by the hundreds of thousands year in and year out? The South Africans who paid their taxes, only to watch their government spend more to benefit the blacks than to benefit themselves? The South Africans who rebuilt hospitals and schools for blacks every time the blacks decided to burn down what they were given before? What kind of racial supremacy is that?

The South Africans didn't want to be displaced in their country for the same reason the Israelis don't want to be displaced by the Arabs who live in Palestine. But whereas the Israelis continue to hold out, thanks to apartheid, the South Africans voted their apartheid away, gave the vote to blacks, and now they are being destroyed.

I very much doubt that the Afrikaaners wanted to enslave the blacks. They just didn't want to happen what eventually did come about: the genocidal domination of black racists in their government.

Then "The Germans are coming" said: Or create Lebensraum.

Oh, is that a Hitler reference? I should invoke Godwin's rule, then, I suppose. But I won't. Yes, the idea is to create a white living space. And, no, that's not a bad idea (even if Hitler had it too). It's a good idea.

Then "The Germans are coming" said: Laconic.

That's your contrary argument? Somehow, I find it unimpressive. It means "using few words," and, whereas it's true that good writers use no more words than they need to, you appear to have used somewhat fewer than you should have.

And here's yet another thing I've noticed when racists and egalitarians debate. The egalitarians always, incessantly demand that the racists support everything they say with documented facts, with appropriate citations of scholarly and scientific reference material. And, to an extent, the racists do just that. However, the egalitarians almost never do as much to support their own opinions. Or, at least, I've not seen them do much of it. They appear to think that their assumption of racial equality is some sort of default idea, with a privileged status, such that it can be accepted without evidence. As if it needed none.

I've found an exception, in that debate between the racist and the egalitarian on YouTube. The egalitarian demanded that the racist explain why the (black) country of Sierra Leone had a higher average IQ than the white country of Croatia. The racist checked some reference material and found out that the average IQ of Sierra Leone is only 64, with only two countries in the world (both of them black: Eithiopia and Equatorial Guinea) having average IQs less than that. Meanwhile, the average IQ of Croatia is 90. The racist asked the egalitarian where he'd come by his information, and the egalitarian told him "IQ and the Wealth of Nations," by Richard Lynn et. al. It was the very same reference that the racist had found. The one time during that debate when the egalitarian bothered to cite an authoritative source, he lied about what was in it.