jefferiah

I'll spell it out for you again Hollis. In Scott's case he may want to look for a woman who is "white" (by his definition) and marry her (if she agrees to it) and procreate. In your case you are not talking about getting married and procreating, , but choosing two people and forcing them to mate.

Would you be defending me if I decided to breed Africans with Asians and declare their offspring to be Afians? And if I then started to passionately voice my concern about the possibility of discrimination towards my newly defined concoction of physical appearance, and their need for a homogeneous homeland? Is this something you would support? Lol. You know that is a very ridiculous comparison. You are becoming the breeder putting two people together like a farmer. There is a huge difference between that and two consenting adults deciding to marry each other. You are forcing your will on someone and pre-arranging the marriage based on the idea that other people should marry the way you want. As far as I can tell, Scott is not going to come to my house with a burning cross if I decide to marry an asian. And he can choose who he wants to marry. There is no overseeing farmer.

Well as far as swimming goes, I can float. I'll never be an olympic competitor, and I cant compete even among the few lads I grew up swimming in the muddy river with. As for the pool of knowledge, thanks for the invite, but I was pretty much done at the time, and I went outside to see how my garden was doing. Its been light here for a few hours in NB.

Lol.....cant answer eh

what names did i call you?

Sure i have flung a few names...but I can admit. You have done nothing but since you joined, refuse to admit and say the truth doesnt sit well with me.

I'm sorry if you misinterpreted my post as being "angry." My post states why I believe this premise of protecting the Caucasian races is nothing but racist nonsense (and as such would have a better home on a racist site). I'll repost it below in case you missed it. ScottSA states that Caucasians are "destroying themselves as a homogenous race" I guess that there are two ways that you could rationalize that statement. First, by allowing people with darker skin to move into the "traditionally Caucasian nations" the white people will become a minority. I'm just left with one question, how does becoming a minority in a region affect race? Will being a descendant of white ancestors be affected if that group makes up the minority in a country? Do you foresee a genocide of white people in the future? Will the white people become the American Indians of the 22nd century? The second possible way Caucasians might be "destroying themselves" would come about from interbreeding, and a loss of purity. The original post contends that "every other racially homogenous region in the world asks these kinds of questions as a matter of course." Well, Canada is not now, and has never been racially homogenous. So, to answer the question posed in the initial post of this thread, I am not concerned about the loss of whiteness because all people are equal. If in several hundred years we have evolved into a homogenous shade of purple, I don't think the human race will be any worse off for it. To be honest, I think this thread would have a better home on the Stormfront forums. Hmmm....you know I think Scott has said over and over that he doesnt believe there is anything more than a "superficial" difference between people of different races. That's not the point. If someone says hey I would like to conserve white people so that they still exist it does not mean they think they are more important. I dont think Scott is talking about banning interracial marriages. He has not said anything to that effect. You know in the long run it doesnt matter if..... well...the baseball glove I had as a kid is still in a shoebox in my closet. But some people like to preserve stuff like that. You dont have to make it into a hate thing. If there were only 100 black people left and a few of em got together and said "you know i would like there to be black people in the future...i know its not important what color your skin is...but there always were black people as far as i remember...id like there to keep being black people."----would that be such a crime? Sure there are no pure whites....well lot people who wanna marry what they consider white people marry them. What is the big deal. If a person decides to choose a woman who is white, according to your logic you should have no problem with it....since there is no difference between white. black, brown anyway...and the white race doesnt even exist...well he is really just marrying a really pale black woman,. Yeesh And you call me a know it alll. You prove everything I say about you. Didn't I just tell you that whatever someone calls you is what they feel about themselves. you are the one calling people frauds and molesters and anal retentives, sir. what exactly is wrong with someone saying i would want to marry a person of my own race. thats just their preference. just because its also not wrong to marry someone of another race, whats wrong with someone who says i want to marry one of my own... look at it this way...we all agree there are no differences between people of other races....as far as the important stuff (whats on the inside) goes, right..... so the only real difference is just an outward appearance...and as far as physical traits go...people have preferences....i personally find women of other races attractive....but some people might not...i am short...if a girl says i like tall guys i am not going to fly off the handle...would you? or if you heard a girl say i like construction workers.....you know....would that "get a rise" out of you. no....but the real fact this racial issue is getting a rise out of you...is cause you people really do see a difference between races.

Yes I have done all you recounted and learned much from it. As I helped pioneer the sport of hang gliding in this country I have some valid perspective which you are free to criticize all yoou want. The reason I like to share my wisdom as I have exoerienced it is in the spirit of growing a pool of knowledge . This is how we early flexwing pilots expanded thesport from hundred foot hops to 350 mile magical mystery tours. It was done so everyone could gain. My spirit would suffer if I were to be as mean and spitefully negative as yours. There is not a single lesson from your lives, a true personal insight into the challenges we are dicussing here. Your constant plan of attack is to belittle me as if you wished to capture my goat. This anyone can see is the power of your god. It is not I thats needs to forgive you, but I don't wish to apologize either when I point out your fraud. By the way you fling your christian love at me, I gain respect and assurance for myself. Amen to you two. Lol all of a sudden you start to play victim when I point out that you are no better than anyone else...even the Christians you hate so much. I am not trying to capture your goat. You are the one doing that to people...launching into attacks on religion just to start something right....and the thing is you are still the angriest person in here and have flung more insults at the "Anal-retentives" than they have at you. You even followed Scott over here and made a little note of his Amen so you could accuse him of being Peter, but everyone else but you is the negative one, with a constant plan of attack to belittle you. You can dish it out fine....but when it comes time to take it---well

I'm sorry if you misinterpreted my post as being "angry." My post states why I believe this premise of protecting the Caucasian races is nothing but racist nonsense (and as such would have a better home on a racist site). I'll repost it below in case you missed it. ScottSA states that Caucasians are "destroying themselves as a homogenous race" I guess that there are two ways that you could rationalize that statement. First, by allowing people with darker skin to move into the "traditionally Caucasian nations" the white people will become a minority. I'm just left with one question, how does becoming a minority in a region affect race? Will being a descendant of white ancestors be affected if that group makes up the minority in a country? Do you foresee a genocide of white people in the future? Will the white people become the American Indians of the 22nd century? The second possible way Caucasians might be "destroying themselves" would come about from interbreeding, and a loss of purity. The original post contends that "every other racially homogenous region in the world asks these kinds of questions as a matter of course." Well, Canada is not now, and has never been racially homogenous. So, to answer the question posed in the initial post of this thread, I am not concerned about the loss of whiteness because all people are equal. If in several hundred years we have evolved into a homogenous shade of purple, I don't think the human race will be any worse off for it. To be honest, I think this thread would have a better home on the Stormfront forums. Hmmm....you know I think Scott has said over and over that he doesnt believe there is anything more than a "superficial" difference between people of different races. That's not the point. If someone says hey I would like to conserve white people so that they still exist it does not mean they think they are more important. I dont think Scott is talking about banning interracial marriages. He has not said anything to that effect. You know in the long run it doesnt matter if..... well...the baseball glove I had as a kid is still in a shoebox in my closet. But some people like to preserve stuff like that. You dont have to make it into a hate thing. If there were only 100 black people left and a few of em got together and said "you know i would like there to be black people in the future...i know its not important what color your skin is...but there always were black people as far as i remember...id like there to keep being black people."----would that be such a crime? Sure there are no pure whites....well lot people who wanna marry what they consider white people marry them. What is the big deal. If a person decides to choose a woman who is white, according to your logic you should have no problem with it....since there is no difference between white. black, brown anyway...and the white race doesnt even exist...well he is really just marrying a really pale black woman,. Yeesh

So far it is almost as if I were an Oracle the way I had you pegged for a closet Chritians in my conversation. Well I wouldnt speak too soon because he could have meant Amen to that....which is like "Here here" you know. But it is certainly possible, either way you are not his judge. You know, you gave me a hard time about using some personal pronouns in a silly little story I made up in the maryjane thread, which I thought was a little strange since its quite common. And the fact that I made myself a superhero in a story that wasnt serious anyway. The funny thing is I have noticed, in what seems to me to be the most serious manner, you fashion yourself a super hero. You are an Oracle. A brilliant man cuz of some smart thing you did with the cops, blah blah. And you are the voice of the oppressed of the past. And the best damn pilot that ever flew an airplane. Delusions of grandeur? Oh well, we all have em. Now you talk about the lowest common denominator and stooping to the lowest levels, and yet you have no qualms about using the shrieking victims of past atrocities to condemn religious people, many of whom mean you or nobody else no harm at all. Many of those people may have died clinging to the words in that book you dont like. I am sure many did, so dont claim to be their voice. You dont care about them really. And you know it. You are trying to lump yourself in with em in an effort to score points in an argument. No one is getting a rise over the fact that you scored some weed. Its funny that you think anyone would.

As I recall Mr KO2, Jesus forgave Peter for that.

Is that so? Robespierre was once one of those bold voices of the tortured apparently. Lenin, Stalin.

Hmm suppose a man followed another man. A sheep you might call him. You rail at him. "You fool, you follower, you arent doing what you want, you just blindly follow." You consider yourself the free one. The intelligent one. The one free from the delusions the herd has perhaps. Hey and sometimes herds can have mass hysteria. They are not always right. But what you might not have counted upon, is some people choose to follow, not out of coercion, but because that is a free choice they like. So if you were to say to such a man "You idiot. You silly follower. You are nothing but a sheep, cuz you dont see it the way I see it." You may be the voice of the oppressor. And he would be your sheep if he did things because you dared him.

Not long ago, a person who felt like searching elsewhere, or making such statements as I have made here, would suffer a very painful screaming death. Ive read lots of books that are not Christian...Nietzsche, Buddhist Sutras...nobody put me on the gallows. How long ago? Why wasnt Neitzche delivered a very painful screaming death? Was god with your fellow good brethern when the screams of burning whiches rang out? Who are you talking to here? Did anyone claim that the witch trials were good? I really dont understand. It's like you are blowing up at someone who isnt there. I am sure I could find a pot smoker in history who did something atrocious. Is that part of your history? Is he your brethren? You are getting mad at no one. You are spewing something you built up.

Is that so?

Who can only speculate upon that topic? You seem quite sure I am here.

Technically speaking, your lack of understanding of the issue doesn't prove that there is no substantive meaning in it. Nor does this mean that you don't understand the issue. "Nothing more, nothing less" is indeed precisely what the statement means. But that has huge significance that you apparently don't see. Your inability to see the significance doesn't prove there is no significance. i dont think i said there was no significance or the presence of a significance. maybe i lack an understanding of what i said though. either way i still Am just as much as you Are

Technically speaking, your lack of understanding of the issue doesn't prove that there is no substantive meaning in it. Nor does this mean that you don't understand the issue. "Nothing more, nothing less" is indeed precisely what the statement means. But that has huge significance that you apparently don't see. Your inability to see the significance doesn't prove there is no significance. i dont think i said there was no significance or the presence of a significance. maybe i lack an understanding of what i said though.

Look I like gardening. Lets say there are three kinds of seed. Seed A which produces a small plant. Seed B which produces a small plant. And seed C which is a hybrid of A and B, and produces a midsize plant. You know maybe there is no greater essential value to any particular type of seeds. A is no better than B. And C is no worse than A or B for being a hybrid. But as a gardener Id like to have all the varieties. I want the As the Bs and the hybrids. To some extent as you say those things are going to die out inevitably, and there is no actual pure white race. So what if someone wants to work with what they got and marry a white person. No skin off my back. And you know I am going to die someday inevitably, that doesnt mean I will stop eating because of the futility of existing forever.

Perhaps, but these people are not modern Westerners. I'm not even certain that ordinary Europeans in 1920 were modern Westerners. (By modern Westerner, I mean people who benefitted from the Enlightenment.)Nowadays, if ordinary white chicks don't care what others think if they appear in public with a Chinese guy, then I reckon that the Enlightenment has taken hold among the modern masses. In the 1920s, such public displays were exceptionally rare to non-existent. IMV, the Enlightenment went public in America in the 1960s. I won't defend the plain vanilla, politically correct, ecolo Left on this, but the disappearance of species is a serious problem. We're apparently killing off species at a tremendous rate.It is not the disappearance of one butterfly species that poses a problem. It is the disappearance of several thousand every decade. Argus, you are lewftist baiting when you tie this environmental question with the supposed threat to the "Caucasian species". Above all, I think that it is the individual's freedom to choose that we should protect. If I had a religion or an ideology, it would be that. Scott's desire to preserve the Caucasian race is, well, racist.In fact, Scott is baiting Leftists. He's arguing that if Leftists want to defend "minorities", then why don't they defend "whites" or "Caucasians"? Perhaps because of my background, I prefer not to view the world in racial terms, and I think I benefit because I don't. Racial divisions are generally inaccurate. (Incidentally, Canada was once divided not on language and not even religion. It was divided on "race": the English race vs. the French race.) The Enlightenment offered a revolutionary idea (something French Quebec conveniently avoided for a century or two). Each individual should judge every other individual on their merits. We should not judge individuals on their antecedents, their parents or grandparents. We should judge them on what they do. We should approach social life the same way the rationalists approached the universe: with an open mind. I think Elton John (of all people) said that the problem with England is that, as soon as you open your mouth, everyone knows what your father did for a living. I refer to the Enlightenment but I could just as easily refer to Moliere and Shakespeare. It is the ability to question intelligently. Caucasians don't need to survive into the future; but I hope some basic principles do. Well I dont see why its such a horrible thing for Scott to say ifyou defend minorities, why is it so bad to defend whites. Caucasian don't need to survive, and yea basic principles are what is important and have nothing to do with any race, but I dont see any problem with trying to preserve something anyway. Like the old Irish pub from 1674, it doesnt really matter if its there in the long run, but whats wrong with wanting to preserve it. He isnt saying that he judges Caucasians better than other people, just that he would like to see them exist. Thats not racist. Look if there were a hundred black people left in the world and some of em decided "hey i know race isnt the most important thing, but you know i would like to keep black people alive".....is that such a horrible thing. It doesnt mean the hate white guys, right?

How do you interpret Descartes' statement: "I think, therefore I am"? I think, therefore I am. Nothing more, nothing less. I always found it strange in English class when I was expected to write a page about a 4 line poem. The poet got away with 4 lines.

When I first travelled outside of Canada, young and alone, I was surprised at how much of the world was undamentally racist. As two examples, most East Europeans viewed gypsies as vermin and I recall that Asian prostitutes refused to accept Black clients. I am disturbed that Scott (and others) feel that since the rest of the world is racist, then Caucasians have the right to be racist too. I disagree. Racism is not a step forward. It's not scientific. We should judge people on criteria other than the colour of their skin, or the shape of their nose or eyes. Why? Because such criteria are generally not helpful in making good decisions. ---- Would it matter if the Caucasian race disappeared? No. It's inevitable. In the grand sweep of history, in 100,000 years say, I would imagine that there will be many superficial changes to our gene code. In the past two hundred years alone, the average height of American men has increased by about 6 or 7 inches. The features that Scott describes as "Caucasian" probably didn't exist as recently as 20,000 years ago (prior to the most recent ice age when Canada was covered under a kilometer or two of ice). My one sincere hope for the future is not only that life continue on this planet, but that it continue in such a manner that people continue to live civilized lives, exploring and adding to our knowledge. At the moment for example, we are on the edge of remarkable discoveries in genetics. The discoveries of the 22nd or 23rd centuries are still before us. Argus has used a similar argument. I almost feel as if Scott strated this thread as a way to provoke Leftists.The modern Left has adopted an ideology based on oppressors and victims. White males are oppressors; everyone else is oppressed. To the modern Left, black females, as victims, have the right to defend themselves but white males can never unite or defend themselves since they are oppressors. This is a caricacature but Scott's OP is designed in part to oppose this caricature. Scott, don't confuse Leftist political correctness with the Enlightenment's non-racial view of existence. Can you provide a reference for that assertion?I read that somewhere and I have been looking on the Internet for a good cite. I have some good comments but no knockout. Admittedly, I overstated the case. Our genes have changed in 100,000 years if only to cope with various infectious attacks. But these have been minor or superficial changes.I'll stand by my basic argument that a child born 100,000 years ago and brought to the present would have no problem, given the right adoptive family, in graduating from university. Now, let me finish with this comment in reference to Scott's OP: Scott, it seems rather odd that you would refer to "mass immigration".The "mass immigration" of which you refer was the capture and enslavement of Africans by Europeans and their forced transfer to America. Black Africans didn't choose to immigrate to Caucasian society. Caucasians forced them to immigrate. You'll note too that Caucasians didn't force this immigration to Europe (their homeland), they forced it to America. So, once again I'm kind of at a loss to understand you, Scott. Are you suggesting that 21st century Caucasians are suffering because of choices made by 18th century Caucasians? When you say that Caucasians are "intentionally destroying themselves", do you really mean that Caucasians alive today should correct for mistakes made a century or two ago by other Caucasians? Once again though Scott is not saying we should be racist cuz everyone else is, he just wants to preserve the existence of a race as he sees it. You say its futile and the extinction of whites is inevitable. Well as far as I can see Scott hasnt proposed a war to eliminate other races and so whats the difference if he wants to give preservation a go. You say he wont succeed anyway.

I just recommended that you should try it. Well it depends how high you are. You certainly can fall over, the room can spin, and you can even get motion sickness and throw up. All the above happened to me on more than one accasion so I know that motor skills can definately be impaired when smoking up. ,Well at least you are big enough to be honest here on the forums and admit that you drive under the influence. Part of enjoying life is being at your potential. Most here like to be impaired also. But weed is not widely used regularely for many reasons. I tried way back and it did nothing but give me insomnia and make me slow and dumb most of the time. Drinks just don't do that sort of thing. I'm the type of dude that is into trying new things adn I'm sure you too. How about for the next three days, you buy 3 bottles of wine at $7 each. Don't smoke any weed. When the time comes that you need to smoke, have the drinks instead and smoke ciggarettes or something. Or roll some tobacco. Drink the wine on an empty stomach. After 2 glasses you'll have a great buzz going. But you have to do it for 3 days. AFTER 3 days of this, your mind will become clearer and you'll feel real alert and great. You'll feel hyper and energized. Then come back here and take a look at some of the things you wrote. Then you'll see what I was talking about. You should atleast try it. There's no fun in smoking if your not willing to give it up for a bit. And you just might like the drinks more. And BTW, these two glasses of wine are proven countless times to be beneficial to your health. Everyone knows this. Weed is simply not beneficial to your mind state and physical health. It's don't nothing but costing you money and holding your back. Try for 3 days and you'll see. Well Mike, on this one I might have to take KO's side. Now it may be that different people are affected in different ways, but having been a former pot smoker and a person who has indulged in alcohol, personally I can say that every time the effect on motor skills is much greater from alcohol. And I am not talking about getting sloshed either. And it was one of the reasons I smoked pot when I was younger as opposed to drinking----I could still play my guitar well. That said though, I prefer drink too (which I very very rarely do)....and only mildly. There is something more down to Earth about being tipsy than being high. I think pot makes you think too much, basically.

Hey I see a lot of I's and Me's in that post.

WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID. I AM VERY FAMILIAR WITH CATHOLIC THEOLOGY AND THE ROLE OF THE SACERDOTAL MINISTRY, TRUST ME. WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING YOU, I CAN I ASSURE I KNOW MORE ABOUT THE CHURCH AND THE PRIESTHOOD THAN YOU DO, SINCE IT IS, IN EFFECT, MY EMPLOYER. So basically you agree that a Priest and only a priest can in effect transform bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Jesus?