I guess I will have to leave you to your thoughts again Yuyutsu. I speak as a rationalist and and atheist, so when people start using a non existent God to justify their arguments, or start talking about "spirituality", I know that I can't win against that nonsense.

It's like trying to argue evolution to someone who thinks that the world was created in seven days.

As for brahmin superiority, if you think that people who are nationalists are "weak" and not "intelligent", and you are not a nationalist, then you are indirectly declaring that you are "strong" and "intelligent". That is your own self identity.

You have just created two classes of people, the weak and the stupid, and the strong and the smart. Naturally, you identify with the upper class. Not that there is anything wrong with preening your ego by thinking that you are smarter and stronger than others, it is a very human thing to do.

Dear Lego,

Though I do not possess this specific weakness and folly of nationalism, I do possess other bad habits which other people have not, some of which are even more severe, hence I cannot consider myself smarter and stronger than others.

I mentioned God twice: first by mentioning that intelligence is God-given and second by discussing Brahmins.

As for the first reference, would it matter if intelligence was not God-given? Would it then justify the tall-poppy syndrome?

As for the second, referencing Brahmins, I did so only because you mentioned them first, and being a Brahmin is a religious term.

Cardigan, “racism” is not a principle, it is an epithet produced by the politics of hate to attack people who tell the truth about a race which happens not to be white.

It is quite permissible to tell the truth about the white race, or for that matter, lies. The “anti racists”, as they call themselves, or anti whites as they really are, give that a free pass.

The use of the term “racist” should be proscribed. It denigrates the white race in the same way as the "n" word was said to denigrate blacks.

As I pointed out in my post of 30 January above, the term has no valid basis. It should never be used in sensible discussion, and should be extirpated from our language in view of the shameful use to which it has been put since it first reared its ugly head in the 1970s.

It has generally been used in a vituperative manner, and its use should never have been tolerated. To link it with national pride in the flag is just another example of the insanity of the politics which invented the term.

In my original draft of this post, I set out the "n" word in full, and was instructed to "remove the profanity". I would like to see a similar instruction for the "r" word.

Leo,

Race does not exist.
Some people think it does.
Those people then go on and on and on and on about races.
After a while that makes them racist.

How else would you like that behaviour described?

Lego writes the usual rubbish about atheist being rational when they hold to the something from nothing myth. They even take it further and call it science. Far from rational despite the arrogant asserion.

Cardigan, you ask me: “How else would you like that behaviour described?”

It is not up to me, it is up to the persons wishing to describe the behaviour.

We manage without the “n” word, so we will manage without the “r” word.

Fortunately, the highly developed English language makes many options available, so it is not difficult.