ScottSA

I have no particular problem with this. If they have a "no jewelry" rule, then there should be no jewelry.

I'm not sure you're even dimly aware of things going on around you, much less anything to do with foreign policy. You obviously can't differentiate between the war and the occupation, and dragging that ridiculous old "military industrial complex" nonsense into the equation is much like wearing a dunce hat to the corner store. Any modern nation is a "military industrial complex" among other things.

Rue, I read every bit of your thoughtfully written post. First, I believe in terms of race you are falling into the trap of arguing, very scientifically and quite likely correctly, that the trees do not exist. The problem is that you are standing in the middle of a forest while you're doing it. Race may not exist in scientific terms, but as everyone knows, it exists anyway. If I am standing next to an Australian aborigine, one need not take blood samples to know which one of us is caucasian. Phenotypically, there are differences between humans, and between what we know as races. That is a simple fact, and pretending through what amounts to Sophism that there are no differences is...well, it's silly. Race is apparent to the eye of the beholder. More than that it is obvious to the eye of the beholder, no matter how far they have burrowed under the covers of science or whatever mechanism they prefer to deny the bleeding obvious. Second, I'm talking about race. I am not arguing about culture, or any mixture of the two; "ethnicity"; that's Leafless' bag. I happen to think that in the case of Canada there is overlap between race and culture to the extent that our society is still culturally western, which happens to correlate to caucasian (not in a causal relationship, but in a correlation to be sure), and that the reason we Canadians feel we are western has to do with the fact that caucasians are still the hegemonic population. But again, that's really another question and not one that I want to get into here. Third, you say "A healthy democratic society is not afraid of individual difference". That makes great copy on billboards, but how true is it, really? Let's drop the "democratic," since that's political and doesn't really belong here. Now we have "A healthy society isn't afraid of individual difference." Is that a fair enough characterization of what you said? If so, I agree. But we don't live in a society that sees "individual" differences within our current social construct, and in some cases even under the law. We don't see a homosexual as an individual, but instead see a homosexual. That's why we are forever treated to Liam's announcements that he's "gay;" because it's a statement of the 'group' he is a member of. Race is an even more obvious divider: We don't see an Indian as an individual; instead we see an Indian as an Indian; as a member of the group "Indians," and we apply social and legal attributes accordingly. Ironically, we are supposed to, on one hand, ignore our differences because we're all the same, doncha know, and on the other celebrate our differences, as you suggest above. But no matter which way one wants to go, race is front and center. More than anything else, the strong emotions it raises are evident on this very board. Given that truth, I see no reason why I would voluntarly want to become a minority. Given the fact that this is the land of last resort for caucasians, I see no reason why caucasians would want to allow themselves to become a minority. There is another, darker truth afoot out there too. There is not one instance in historical memory that races with parity of numbers and power have been able to co-exist peacefully for any length of time, and no reason to believe they were able in pre-history either. Forgive me for saying so, but this kind of trite nonsense makes me want to gag: "I want many and I want to be able to enjoy them all as I do different flavours of food. I do not like to buy the same wine, I like different types of wine."

Don't mind Momo...he just likes to argue. He may not realize that the "A" in MAD stands for "assured", and that assurance gets severely watered down if the "destruction" has to be trundled across an ocean or two on the backs of ancient attack jets.

A nuclear weapon is a deterent wether its delivery system is an ICBM or FedEx. If you are building the weapon from scratch, then yes, an f-18 or harpoon would work quite well ...according to the FAS the F-18 can carry the B-57 or B-61 Nuclear bombs. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-18.htm Unfortunately Fedex is only marginally more effective than F18s as delivery systems, and neither are adequate. But I'm quite sure canada has the technology and the components to produce ICBMs head and shoulders above anything most of the third world can produce, and could do it within a short period of time if necessary. I don't know what our alleged space program, buried under snow 11.95 months of the year, has in terms of lift capability, but it could probably heft a nuke or two in a pinch. As for a thermonuclear warhead, favored by 9 out of 10 doctors for strategic deterent effect over plain jane nuclear weapons, I imagine canada could produce one in about ten minutes if it needed to.

One would think that someone from China would be well aware that the will of the government and the will of the people are often at cross purposes. Perhaps less so in Canada, because we vote instead of run over people with tanks, but often enough. You will find within a few years that the will of the Canadian people, if it has not already begun to change, will, and we will become much less welcoming than you seem to think we are now. Mind you, you can always go back to China, while the rest of us are stuck here to sort out this mess. But keep in mind that Scott as been saying this for at least 10 years now and there is no sign that he will be any less wrong about any time soon. No, everyone is mixing just fine, ain't they Momo? All those colorful street festivals are humming along with nary a Jaican bullet, Asian streetgang, or fertilizer bomb plot to be seen. Did I start these observations before the Air India downing too? I forget.

One would think that someone from China would be well aware that the will of the government and the will of the people are often at cross purposes. Perhaps less so in Canada, because we vote instead of run over people with tanks, but often enough. You will find within a few years that the will of the Canadian people, if it has not already begun to change, will, and we will become much less welcoming than you seem to think we are now. Mind you, you can always go back to China, while the rest of us are stuck here to sort out this mess.

I think it has to do with not living in buttlove BC.....I see, live and work with more ethnicities in one day than you do in an entire month. And not once have they ever asked if they could eat my young or marry my camels........ I think it has to do with you never having lived in New Delhi, a city with roughly the population of Canada living in it, speaking over 100 dialects, and holding ethnicities you've never even heard of. Or Mexico City, with a few less ethnicities, but a tad more foreign than Toronto, center of the world in the minds of Torontonians. The hillbilly redneck spiel doesn't really work well with me, Momo. But it's a cute way to avoid the questions. Hut tere maki chute, y pinche cabrone, gringo

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6902143.stm Given that a natural disaster is more likely than a terrorist attack, why do opponents deride such prudent measures? In our own household we generally always have a case of water, candles, propane and canned food to last a minimum of 48 hours. .....to add to that we got a wind up radio. I think being prepared is a civic responsibility and in our nation, things like ice storms and winter black outs are real dangers. Are fertilizer trucks with triggers natural disasters too?

Absolutely true, but it hardly takes a genius to figure out why that is, dobbin. It's because of the intense civilian focus on an immediate solution, and our impatient tendency to assume that if every action doesn't deliver concrete and immediate results, the action must be useless. They can wear us down because we are impatient, and the media keeps up a steady drumbeat of impatience and pessimism to make sure we stay that way. The truth of this is borne out by the fact that the soldiers know they are succeeding, and the civilains believe they are not succeeding. One gets information from the horse's mouth, and the other thirdhand and filtered through the press. Which one is more likely to be accurate? Why the radical disconnect? If the fight truly wasn't working, or if the military didn't believe in it, why isn't it the other way around, with soldiers deserting or refusing to fight?

Ummm....indians are caucasians.......and today Chinatowns do exists, and only 100 years ago, paddy towns existed too in every major city...after a life span of 200 years or more. In toronto we have Cabbagetown. In montreal they have Pointe St Charles. The point I think, given 200 years, the chinatowns will go the way of the Paddy towns.....(like montreals near non existant chinatown) On another tangential note, if there are two non "white" immigrant populations that are easily assimilated into north american western culture it has to be the japanese and indians. If Chinatowns were going to go the way of Paddytowns, why are they expanding instead of getting smaller? Why do they exist at all when Paddytowns don't? That's my point...that they are NOT "going the way of Paddytowns." You can pretend all you want, but it's demonstrably not true. In two hundred years, if things go the way they are with immigration, it will be caucasians in "Whiteytowns" rather than the disappearance of Chinatowns, and I see no viable reason why we ought to let that happen. The reason the Japanese have assimilated so well is that there simply aren't that many of them here, and while there may be a bit of crossover integration with the Indians, it certainly isn't appreciable. You really have blinders on when it comes to this subject, don't you?

I agree with that, except that I believe that race has a profound multiplier effect on the cultural phenomenon. Irish are easier to integrate with Caucasians than Indians from India, and it is, I believe, because of the push of the hegemonic group and the pull of the 'other' group towards a homogeniety of their own. In the case of the Irish, they are almost indistinguishable from the rest of society, except for the odd quaint borough where the last remnants of "Irish culture" hangs on by a potato skin. But Chinatowns exist today all over North America, and their establishment predates in many cases the arrival of the Irish.

What's with all the sophomoric mysticism? How come you like to blurt out these meaningless and usually trite slogans? And they are different from your posts how? If you don't know, my telling you won't help.

No kidding. There is only one race - the human race. The classification of humans by 'race' was the action of racists creating the classifications to match their subjective bias and justify them. The idea of 'races' is no more scientifically established now than it was two hundred years ago. How come you pop up every few pages to repeat the same slogan, and then slink away without addressing any of the grownup points being presented?

I hate to repeatedly point out the obvious, but you are either intentionally or bovinely ignoring the point I'm making: since that contact ceased, it is entirely possible that a whack of shipwrecked Dutchmen or Englishmen or Spaniards ended up on their front lawns and dramatically changed the genetic makeup. Simply assuming homogeniety and genetic division based on selectivity isn't very scientific. I'm sure if you know more than you've presented, you'll be able to supply a link...

Should the title be "Harper Embraces Deathsquads and Suxors in Columbia!11!!!"

I believe it had to do with shipwrecks and cases like that of the Bounty. And may I congratulate you on growing out of the practise you once had of rushing into threads of this nature and laying about you with a smurf bat. Yes MacFeeble, the bounty sailed 1000 years ago...... Want to explain how the addition of genetic material on one of the islands is precluded by the fact that they started out as the same race? The island, for instance, where the Bounty's crew ended up has all sorts of genetic markers, several of them phenotypal. It's not exactly beyond the pale to think that other shipwrecks happened during the age of exploration, is it?

I believe it had to do with shipwrecks and cases like that of the Bounty. And may I congratulate you on growing out of the practise you once had of rushing into threads of this nature and laying about you with a smurf bat.

actually.. I have seen a few on Springer.. Yes, but I don't think they popped out of the trailer park hospital with that hair color!

According to ScottSA, Argus' proposal is merely the ongoing 'melting-pot' concept wich has failed (see post #74) The only other proposed solution (professor ScottSA's suggestion see post #17 amongst others): We need a Caucasian homeland. Actually he did not say we need a Caucasian homeland. ScottSa only referred to a lack of a caucasian homeland as an indication of the seriously dangerous position the Caucasian race is in. Because ScottSA deals in negatives in order to not be pinned down on anything I have to ask if he would agree that the answer to the supposed Caucasian suicide problem is a Caucasian homeland? If so, and recognizing that ScottSA considers all races equal and that no one race is any better than any other; Would not such a Caucasian-safe homeland require the following: -Immigration from non-Caucasians will be restricted (otherwise whats the point of a caucasian homeland if it will be swamped by non-caucasians. A form of unilateral disarmament as the professor called it) -Pro-creation amongst non-caucasians allowed to immigrate to the homeland will be restricted (otherwise the non-caucasian high birthrate will eventually reduce caucasians to minority status.) -Policies of the Caucasian homeland should be designed to encourage pro-creation amongst the caucasians while discouraging the same amongst the non-caucasians. ? Permit me to cut to the chase through all this innuendo and turd tossing. I believe immigration has to stop for a generation or longer. There are two reasons for my belief, and yes, one does have to do with race. 1 For cultural reasons. Though not in the scope of this thread, floodgate immigration is allowing certain groups of people, based on both race and religion, to group into self-insulated geographical and political enclaves. In a foolishly therapeutic society based on grievances, political power lies in the establishment of group grievances; a practise that makes it all the more profitable to group together in self-contained cultural units. We see it starkly in Britain, where whole neighbourhoods run by Muslims are virtually autonomous, demanding, in one case, that the female Mayor of the city wear a headscarf when she visited the neighbourhood. Aside from the startlingly obvious problem presented by this sort of behaviour, the larger picture involves a trend toward balkanization. I use the term "trend," because the numbers are not yet sufficient to support full scale geographical balkanization. But it is shortsighting indeed to assume that somehow more people will result in less balkanization. Clearly there is no reason whatsoever to believe that. Ultimately that means that integration on a cultural level is not occuring. Our culture is maintained ONLY by the preponderance of citizens of European extract, holding European notions of culture. It is certainly not maintained by third world arrivals. We need time to at least see if assimilation will occur at these levels or harden into generational socio-religious entities before we blindly continue along this lemminglike path of social fragmentation. 2 For racial reasons. Like it or not, Caucasians are losing their homelands. All other races have geographical centers, and none of them, with the exception of various indigenous peoples, are in any danger of losing them. I don't want to be a minority in my own land. I don't want to live on a reservation or live a Dhimmified existence in what was once my land, and more importantly I don't want my kids or my kid's kids living like that. The Indians had no choice, but we do. In answer to your rather thinly vieled Nazi "policy" references, yes, I think immigration should be stopped immediately. And yes, it has much to do with non-caucasian immigration, but I'm certainly willing to include ALL immigrants in the effort to remain "fair." Given the lack of integration and the respective birthrates of the present populations in the west ("Mohammed" is now second only to "Jack" as the most popular baby name in Britain), even now demographics are not looking good for caucasians. There is no moral imperitive to continue non-caucasian immigration. Caucasians do not owe anyone a "right" to immigrate. Nor is there a moral obligation of caucasians to become a racial minority in their own lands. The very thought is ridiculous. But it is precisely because I don't see "policies" of procreation as either morally or politically viable that I think immigration has to stop. We are aften treated to the questionable claim that we need immigration to take care of the babyboom generation in the west, but we don't. What we need in the west is another babyboom generation. I can't think of a better stimulous for such a boom as a cutoff of immigration. Then we'll be able to see firsthand if these economic claims are true, and if they are, the need will in and of itself create a stimulous toward procreation. At our present level of population mix, another babyboom would at least put off, for a time, the loss of caucasian homelands, but within ten years it may be too late...and that is when we'll really find out what the consequences of this noble dream are. At that point, the spectre of Nazism really will have some application to the problem, instead of just being a rhetorical device. That I don't want to see. I don't want my kids to see it either. It doesn't have to be. But I think it is almost inevitable if we stay on the track we are on. Some of the things I'm saying are just common sense, but I realize that some elements of it go against the very fibre of everything we've been taught since the 60s about happy happy inclusion and rainbow hues and street festivals and so on. But I've been fortunate, or unfortunate as the case may be, to see a darker side of multiracialism, and it is a socially enervating and destructive situation to which there is no viable solution. But if folks could just slip off the blinders for a moment, drop the learned responses and prejudices of the last 40 years, and look closely at where we are headed, and then look backwards with an honest look at history, it's not hard to see that if the west doesn't explode into either fascism or genocide, it'll be what Marx would have called a 'world historical' first. And I don't believe in world historical firsts.

So, Einstein, how many Asiatic or Oriental or Negroid blondes do you know? I would think that blonde hair is easily as racial an indicator as slanted eyes, wouldn't you? And given the context of its use in your diatribe, mixed in with shouts of alarm about Aryans and specifically refered to as a "blonde genetic flaw," it's quite obvious that you meant it as a racially disparaging remark. Add it to your hate filled rant against "shrimp dicked white men," I don't think anyone has any question in their mind that you are a hate filled bigot, or that your valiant attack on Kimmy's hair color is anything but a racist slur. It's a shame gentlemen of all colors prefer blondes, eh? Did one of them turn you down once? Is that why you're so eaten up with hate?

It's worse than that. His arrogance is insulting to his intelligence. When he doesn't have an answer, he simply resorts to comments like, "you wouldn't understand anyway, " or "you're never going to get it." The reason I say you'll never get it is because you insist on using the standard of rationality as a touchstone against which to measure believe in a diety. But more important than that is the fact that you don't even understand what I mean when I say that.

Was this a rhetorical question? Afterall, why would I want to impose restrictions on the physiological features of her children. If she wants to have blond children, who are we to dictate what is right or wrong. My partner and I often discuss what traits we would want in our own children. This is a free country. Celebrate it. On the flipside, it is the extrapolation of these policies on a wider scale which unnerve me, especially keeping in mind my place of birth and my physiology as it brings back shadowy historical events and the fear that this could bring us down a slippery slope. What "policies" are you talking about? Do I smell a "Nazi" diatribe about to raise it's head?

Scott, your comment about your fear of being treated badly as a minority was a valid one and I was satisfied. But...... Attack whites? You cannot be serious? Because I don't want to group all Caucasians under one banner, or protect all white folk more than any other folk does not mean I am attacking them. However, now it is you who is attributing comments to myself. I have always supported a merit based incentive program, but I guess even that is beyond you. I may have misattributed something to you amid the hysterical rants coming from various posters, and if so, I'm sorry. But lets look a bit closer to what you are saying. Two things stand out. The first, a minor rhetorical point. You are sliding the question a bit to the south when you suggest that I want to "...protect all white folk more than any other folk..." I never said that. How could you possible impute from anything that I've said that I want to protect caucasians "more" than another group? The second is profoundly philosophical, and it's almost scary. You suggest that "we", presumably refering to the government, should get involved with who procreates with whom. It doesn't matter what basis is used; merit, race, or number of toes; neither the government nor "we" in any form should have the right to come within 10,000 miles of that question. Not through coercion, not through "incentives", and not through any other means of social engineering.

That was the point I was making. Was I not clear enough? I was pointing out the hypocrisy of those who pretend shock and horror at the actions of the vicious Jew in the video. The video was a catfight, because it took place in Israel. It would have been a callous rape and murder had the situations been reversed and had the event taken place in so-called "Palestine." That doesn't make a catfight proper, but when juxtaposed against a rape and murder, one hopes it comes out looking relatively harmless. I've seen far worse catfights on highschool playgrounds.