ScottSA

Ok then, how do you propose growth for this country. Who will fill the jobs? I am sure your equity position in your house is pleasing to you , so how to continue that? I have already answered that a hundred times. Read the thread. No answer. I thought so. You skipped it the last time I asked too. Pattern developing here, and your premise on this.....is false. I said read the thread. I'm not going to get sucked into this truther game of repeating arguments over and over so they can be blithely ignored over and over again. Sorry.

I don't. Where as the "melting pot" is sometimes more of a crucible, multiculturalism attemts to promote diversity (but not separation) and to alloy cultures to one another. You should come out to Toronto for the Dragon Boat races........ I love these bumper sticker metaphorical cliches you keep tossing out. How do you propose "alloying" Sharia to common law, or Jamaican druglords to law abiding society? You might as well try to mix oil and water. And of course you need to wave the happy happy "cultural diversity" flag in the form of "dragon boat races." How about we celebrate the cultural diversity of Asian street gangs, Vietnamese grow-ops, and Sikh terrorism instead? They are at least as prevalent as "colourful street festivals"...

Ok then, how do you propose growth for this country. Who will fill the jobs? I am sure your equity position in your house is pleasing to you , so how to continue that? I have already answered that a hundred times. Read the thread.

And I'm saying you are imagining potential dangers where there aren't any. There is nothing dishonest about what I have posted - I didn't say you wanted to exterminate non Caucasians, but rather that you wanted to create a homeland only for Caucasians, which you have clearly said. I questioned what would then happen to the non Caucasians who currently live there, which you had not addressed up to this point, other than saying they had somewhere to return to. I am still wondering why you feel Canada is the land of last resort for Caucasians. Now you are being dishonest about being dishonest. What you said, and I quote, is this: Scott wants a Caucasian homeland, which means that yes, he does want to start his own group, and yes, he does want to cause harm to other “races” – what does he propose to do with the non-Caucasians currently living in this homeland? I was quite clear from the beginning that I am concerned with Caucasians becoming a minority in the west; not with booting out non-caucasians who are already here. Nor, at any point in this thread, did I advocate harming anyone...the point I am trying to make is that people may get harmed if something isn't done to stop floodgate immigration. Nor did I say I want to "create" a homeland for Caucasians, what I said is that Europe and North Amerioca and Australia are Caucasian homelands at this point in history, and that if and when Caucasians become minorities in them, these countries are, in the event of very probable trouble, no longer havens. You can claim you don't "buy" the idea that racial violence is in the future, and I hope you're right. But you're very likely not right, given the history of the world.

Yes but you will still be branded as kook. As I keep trying to point out, Caucasian in it's original meaning doesnot mean white skin. Iranians are caucasians, Tamils are caucasians, Greeks are caucasians, the Ainu of Japan are caucasians....... With that being hopefully understood, what the fuck is Canadian Caucasian Culture? Naturally one assumes what is really meant is white (culture). Then I am forced to ask, what is that? Surely no one here is stupid enough to suggest there is some monolithic definition of white culture? Or has that question been already been inadvertantly answered by Scott? WHere we go dragging "culture" back into the issue. My ideas in this thread, as I've pointed out a trillion times, are not about "culture," but about race. The "White culture" thingy is not my idea, and I find it as unhelpful a concept as holding forth the idea of "Black culture." Y'know Momo...this slavish insistence upon definitional obscurantism by you is getting sillier by the moment. Insisting that you don't know what I'm talking about when I use the term "caucasians" is like claiming you don't know what an elephant is, because when you stand an elephant next to a mouse, they both have four legs and must therefore be identical. If you don't know the difference between an Iranian and a Scotsman, then I'm sorry for your affliction, but need you celebrate it so loudly? And actually, by clumsily citing "Iran" as being caucasian, you are inadvertently pointing out one of the dangers of losing caucasians as a race. It is not the Persians who are caucasian, it was the Hurrians who were, and the operative term is "were," because they were subsumed, like the Celts in Anatolia.

This is utter and complete nonsense. The proposition that immigration is necessary for economic or any other reason is simply a lie.

I have read what you have written - these examples are only from the first 6 or 7 pages of this thread, there are more scattered throughout. You seem to believe that genocide is on the horizon, and I just don't buy into it. I am talking in these examples of the potential dangers facing our society in general and caucasians specifically if and when caucasians become a minority in their own countries. As you must know. But nice backtracking...even though it is thoroughly dishonest. In your last post you claimed that I wanted to exterminate non-caucasians, and here you're claiming something else entirely. Disgusting.

I'm just trying to make sense of what I've read from you. No you're not. You're trying to make it into some kind of sinister white supremacy thing, compleat with genocide thrown in for good measure. Either you haven't actually read what I've written, or you're being dishonest about it.

You are completely wrong in our imputations, actually. My point here has been, all along, that floodgate immigration will first make caucasians a minority, and may eventually, through whatever means, make caucasians extinct as a 'race'. My proposed solution is to stop immigration now, and allow such integration as is possible to take place over the next few generations. Coupled with this, we should allow economic need to drive the birth rate of those who are here now instead of relying on immigration. The homeland issue only came up as a point of fact to describe a time when caucasians no longer have majority status in any location. They will, at that point, have no point of retreat. No 'homeland.' Idiots on this thread have taken that and run with it, turning it into some call for greater Aryania or whatever, and it is no such thing. Non-whites in the west would continue just the way they are now, with full rights of citizenship and full and equal participation in society. What exactly is wrong with the above? Why do you feel a moral imperitive to allow this country to become majority non-caucasian? What is so important about it in your mind? Would you feel the same if Africa suddenly became the immigration target of choice and Blacks started to complain that they will soon become a minority in their countries? And please stop concocting nonsense and trying to claim it came from my mouth.

The only ethnically 'pure' countries (and even not 100%) like Japan and Korea are going to be int ons of trouble when they cant replace their population without immigration. So ScottSA, how many kids do you have? If you have under 3 then you really have no right to be spewing any of this. Obviously you haven't taken the time to read the thread, and if you have, it doesn't speak well of your analytical skills, sweal.

That is happening all across western Europe. The Native Europeans are emmigrating at tremendous rates not seen ever before, and Muslims are swarming in. I feel for the Europeans who can't leave...their future is looking more dire by the day.

I think progress, especially scientific and technological progress, occured in step with the decline of religious power. When Christianity had as strong a hold on the population in Europe as Islam currently has in some middle-eastern countries, those European countries were also very stagnant and averse to scientific progress. I would argue that those aspects of Western culture that encourage progress and innovation are not particularly related to Christianity. Even today, issues stemming from Christianity continue to inhibit scientific and technological progress that could be benefit civilization, such as in the area of stem cell research. Also, while I share your apprehension about the current violent state of Islam and the implications this has for other civilizations throughout the world, it is worth remembering that at the age of 1400 years, Christianity, too, was quite violent and intolerant. Call me an optimist, but perhaps if humanity makes it through the next 600 years (when Islam will be as old as Christianity is now), and if religion is still around by then, then maybe Islam will have been pacified to an extent comparable to the present state of Christianity. One can only hope that some other cult doesn't grow to be a fullblown religion in the midst of its youth and virulence by then. Well, you've got cybercoma on your side...I'm not sure that's a good thing for you, but hey...I think it's far too simplistic to see Christianity as representative of the forces of ignorance juxtaposed against the forces of sweetness, light and the Renaissance. In fact, without the classicism inherent in the Church, and without the theological debate that by necessity took the form of classical logic within the Church, long before the Renaissance began, it's unlikely that either the Renaissance or the Reformation would have taken place. The culture that spawned classical logic, and debate, and the entire social framework the set the stage for the western leap ahead was directly attributable to the Church. It's easy to look back and scoff at the theological debates that occured from the 6th to the 14th century, but they are as responsible for the "Age of Reason" as anything else. Simply looking back on it as many do, including cybercoma, as some kind of Monty Python skit submerged in dark ignorance, drowning witches and silly flagellants is as ahistorical as it can possibly be. The west didn't suddenly come to its senses and leap ahead, and in fact we only became a truly secular society less than 100 years ago, all rhetoric about seperation between church and state notwithstanding. And it not at all profitable to draw comparison between Christianity and Islam...the comparison simply doesn't have merit. It's incredibly simplistic to imagine that the amount of "time" passed since the founding of religion has the slightest thing to do with its actions. Islam is insular, slavishly concerned with "submission" to an extent no Christian ever dreamt of, and so immersed in society that it cannot exist apart from it. Its fixation on the afterlife and total rejection of freedom in the here and now is pathological and never had a parellel in Christianity. There will be no Reformation in Islam. There will only be victory or defeat.

I see the English language is already in a state of disaster. Is this practice of not capitalizing the words at the beginnings of sentences a new fad or just a resurgence of bad 60s writing?

Good question...does anyone have the answer? I smell lawyers on this board, so I suspect there are some hereabouts who might be able to answer.

And it doesn't demand proper punctuation. WTF is "internet hate speech is a cancer that is metastitized by the actions of the unintelligent" supposed to mean? It sounds like the bumper sticker on the back of some grayhaired and ponytailed professor of Linguistics' car. Essentially meaningless but polysyllabic enough to impress the revolutionary lumpenproletarians living in mommy's basement.

I don't think that was his point, but yes, you're right. Hopefully they'll get to see the cultural meltdown in western europe in time to put the brakes on immigration there. It'll be irony upon irony if we somehow find ourselves in the future heading back to the safety of eastern Europe.

Certainly, that is true. But that is common throughout history. People at one time discover engineering, mathematical and scientific principles and may or may not be used at the time. This was true with the Greeks, Chinese, Arabic, Indian and others. Who knows what discoveries made today which have seemingly no value but good lead to good things in the future. You're still missing the point. Whatever discoveries managed to squeeze out of islam in between beheadings were siezed upon by the west and transformed into science by the west. Not one western discovery was siezed upon by Islam, and in fact western discoveries were explicitely excluded as the work of the infidel and thus tainted. The western world, in spite of or as a result of Christianity (I suspect both in about equal parts), supplied a medium in which scientific enquiry could grow, so that after the reformation the west shot ahead technologically. Islam, by contrast, remained insular and backwards in thought even as it tried repeatedly to expand into Europe through conquest. Islam today, 14 centuries after its birth, is virtually unchanged and even regressive, and the Islamic world's main export is gnashing of teeth and "seething."

I believe the military prior to the last extension was saying it was important to have a break between deployments for the reason you gave: that they have had not enough people to train new recruits because part of the force is in Afghanistan, part of the force is about to go to Afghanistan and part of the force has just gotten back from Afghanistan. Not enough trainers is what I recall the argument was. It was part of the reason that last year the Auditor said recruitment was having such a problem getting back to people including, in one case, an experienced doctor who was trying to volunteer. The military is using reservists for the most part to man the recruitment drive, and people are applying in droves. Like Momo said in one of his infrequently correct posts, the pool is not "small," but quite deep and full of fish.

6 soldiers? OMG...that's almost a tenth of the death toll of the quietest day on the western front! Oh Gosh. Guess we'd better run away fast. Thanks for the update! I had no idea it was so serious.

One can only wonder what this is supposed to mean. Perhaps the blocks of stone will be levitated by Krishna? I suspect it means many lawsuits in the coming years, as chunks of building fall onto spectators. Buildings in India may be built to last 1000 years, and if one considers heaps of stones to be "lasting," they do, but unfortunately buildings in India also shed elements of their construction with abandon, and quite often fall into heaps for no reason whatsoever.

Well, since "Indo-Canadians" includes Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims, and about a dozen other more minor religions, we can expect the museum to be bombed in the near future by one or more of the groups "offended" by the monopolization of the museum to promote the wrong "faith."

I think the persians might object if we trundled over and set up a homeland in Tehran. What do you think?

I think you're missing an important distinction here. Any civilization will have thinkers who operate regardless of their surroundings. But in each of the cases you mentioned, it was left to the western world to make something of these discoveries. These people are famous for the most part because they are famous in the west, not becuse the Muslim world did anything noteworthy with their discoveries.

This thread seems to have meandered into various nit-pickings, ranging from Kuzzads inane insistence that "race" by any other name is caucasaisian racism, to Remiel's irrelevant observations on Obama. The fact remains that caucasians will become a minority in their own homelands within this century, if immigration is not stopped and caucasian birthrate isn't increased. And yes, Kuzzad, caucasians do exist, and no, they do not only exist to hurt "other groups" of people.

Natives in Canada are allowed to participate in a legal system that will protect their rights. They have no need to resort to terrorism. However, if a future Canadian government unilaterally removed those protections we would likely see terrorism from native groups. When standoffs erupt the Canadian government bends over backwards trying to avoid bloodshed - an approach that is often criticized. But it is sensible because creating native 'martyrs' would be a catalyst that would trigger terrorism in the future. Native "terror" tends to end up with Natives being beaten with a stick. I strongly suspect a new go-round would end up the same way.