Caucasians

[jefferiah]

I decided to go back to Scott's OP because I must admit that I am still confused by this thread. Some posts make sense to me, and others don't.

But survival of a race is very much a valid question. I don't mean the euphemisms of culture and all the other sidesteps we tend to use, nor do I mean culture. For the purpose of this exercize, and to head off Momo et. al. who tend to obfuscate the genetic question, let's define race as follows:

...observable characteristics as skin color, hair type, body proportions, and skull measurements, essentially codifying the perceived differences among broad geographic populations of humans. The traditional terms for these populations—Caucasoid (or Caucasian), Mongoloid, Negroid, and in some systems Australoid...

--------------------

Anyway, the question is this:

Is anyone concerned that Caucasians are intentionally destroying themselves as a homogenous race? It's a fair question, I think, because that is the course embarked upon many years ago when the traditionally Caucasian nations embarked upon policies, almost as one, to institute mass immigration of so-called "visible minorities."

Again, I'd ask that folks focus on the question and not get side tracked by what you might think my sinister motives are for asking it, and I'd ask that the accusations of "racism" be held to a minimum...every other racially homogenous region in the world asks these kinds of questions as a matter of course. And it is a fair question. Given the below replacement birthrates of caucasians across the board, if the west continues on this path, caucasians will become a minority in their own traditional lands, and eventually be absorbed into the other genetic pools.

I'm sure I forgot some caveats, but the question stands...is anyone concerned? Is anyone not concerned?

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.

Here is the mushy thinking of the left on display.

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.

Genetically, human beings have not changed at all for the past 100,000 years.

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:

Is anyone concerned that Caucasians are intentionally destroying themselves as a homogenous race? It's a fair question, I think, because that is the course embarked upon many years ago when the traditionally Caucasian nations embarked upon policies, almost as one, to institute mass immigration of so-called "visible minorities."

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.

[Peter F]

But you provided no context or explanation. I'm willing to bet if someone asked you if you were concerned about the demise of a particular type of animal you'd express at least sadness at the thought. For that matter, if there were fewer and fewer natives in Canada I bet you'd be damned concerned about them disappearing.

But you evidence a reflexive disdain for the very notion that anyone should be concerned about the welfare of whites - as if this is a particular group which no one should be concerned about. Why? Projecting your liberal white guilt? Tons of concern for the welfare of every minority under the sun, but if Whites were to become a minority and even face extinction - well who cares?

Whats to explain? There simply is no impending demise of caucasians. So I am not concerned.

[August1991]

There is a large school of thought, in fact, which says Africa's cultural and economic melt down over the past fifty years is almost entirely due to the borders having been drawn improperly, jamming all sorts of different tribes together within the political framework of a single nation. They can't get along. They won't get along.

Perhaps, but these people (Africans) 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'm willing to bet if someone asked you if you were concerned about the demise of a particular type of animal you'd express at least sadness at the thought. For that matter, if there were fewer and fewer natives in Canada I bet you'd be damned concerned about them disappearing.

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 leftist baiting when you tie this environmental question with the supposed threat to the "Caucasian species".

I have seen some very attractive women of other races, but consistently, generally, I find White women more attractive. I suspect I'm not alone there. And I suspect if you ask an Asian man he'll tell you he finds Asian women more attractive.

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. If you prefer white women, then that is your choice. You should be free to choose.

I'll simply note that, for obvious reasons, males are less selective than females. When it comes to procreation, I'd look to what females do, and how males make themselves noticed. I wouldn't look to the choices of men. In general, most men don't even know the colour of the eyes of the women in front of them. (Note to women: After talking to a guy for an hour or so, close your eyes and ask the guy the colour of your eyes. Or on the phone, ask him what you were wearing.)

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.

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, and the British race in Canada still avoids sometimes). 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.

Edited July 13, 2007 by August1991

[jefferiah]

There is a large school of thought, in fact, which says Africa's cultural and economic melt down over the past fifty years is almost entirely due to the borders having been drawn improperly, jamming all sorts of different tribes together within the political framework of a single nation. They can't get along. They won't get along.

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'm willing to bet if someone asked you if you were concerned about the demise of a particular type of animal you'd express at least sadness at the thought. For that matter, if there were fewer and fewer natives in Canada I bet you'd be damned concerned about them disappearing.

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".

I have seen some very attractive women of other races, but consistently, generally, I find White women more attractive. I suspect I'm not alone there. And I suspect if you ask an Asian man he'll tell you he finds Asian women more attractive.

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.

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.

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?

[ScottSA]

I'm going to address this post issue by issue, since I believe it is an intelligently constructed post, and sincerely meant. It's the type of post that is a real benefit for me because I'm trying to piece together a formulation for exactly what I do believe, and it's good to have intelligent pressure put on it. It keeps me honest.

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.

I suppose there are two issues here; first the clarion call of "racist." It means many things, from the bumper sticker sloganeering of xman and others, to what I hope is the more meaningful "cognisance or awareness of race" that you're refering to.

The other is the element of "ought" that is used here. "We should," you say, "judge people on criteria other than the colour of their skin, or the shape of their nose or eyes." I've got no problem with that sentiment. But it is a sentiment. The fact is we do judge people on the colour of their skin, or the shape of their nose or eyes. As Argus pointed out, I find white women more attractive, not because I'm suggesting they are objectively more attractive, but because I find them more attractive. That may be a learned response, but I somehow doubt it. I suspect it's an inate response. Obviously there is some genetic crossover between races, but not really that much, anywhere, including the west, which makes your accusation of racism rather broad in scope...broad enough to encompass the huge predominance of people who do reproduce within their own race.

But more important than all that is the fact that others make the same distinctions, and for caucasians to adopt the 'ought' as a standard of praxis, to reify it, is to practise in a sense unilateral extinguishment. And that appears to be what we are doing in the west. Blacks in the Congo are not going to be bred out of existence anytime soon, but caucasians in the west almost certainly will if the trend toward negative caucasian BR and non-caucasian immigration continues. In a very real sense, caucasians do have a right, indeed an imperitive, to be racist, if by being non-racist you mean they ought not fight the fact of extinguishment. You said we ought not use the criteria that others use, "because such criteria are generally not helpful in making good decisions." Perhaps generally speaking that's true. But in this specific context, and assuming that the preservation of race is important to someone, it is not only helpful, but extremely important.

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).

Taking the long view is all very well, but it is of little help to the more immediate future. To suggest, taking the long view, that we might as well all lie down and die because eventually the sun will wink out and we'll all die off anyway is not a particularly helpful way to look at things in the here and now. 20,000 years down the road will take care of itself...we'll be not even a memory of dust, except for the lucky few who get preserved in a bog, but I'm more concerned with the next 100, 200, or 1000 years. I don't think we ought to airily dismiss the next few centuries as irrelevant. I don't anyway. I have kids.

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.

Scott, don't confuse Leftist political correctness with the Enlightenment's non-racial view of existence.

And I applaud the remarkable discoveries of the 22nd or 23rd centuries. But I suspect we'll still be procreating the old fashioned way for some time to come, even if we don't have to.

But I think you are reading into enlightenment thought something not quite there. Race was largely irrelevant to the enlightenment thinkers; and this is driven home by the later offshoots of the enlightenment, including Marx, to whom race became relevant only as a vehicle of disparagement. What did race matter to a group of people who, unless they ventured overseas to the then embryonic colonies, could live out their entire lives with a reasonable expectation that they would never see anyone of a different hue, and if they did, then only as a sort of oddity.

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?

You are practising rather silly sophistry here. Do you ereally want me to address this?

[jefferiah]

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.

[ScottSA]

Scott's desire to preserve the Caucasian race is, well, racist.

Again depending on what your definition of 'racist' is, you may well be right. So what?

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"?

I'm far more offended by this trivialization than I am of being called racist, even if you did mean it disparagingly.

[Hollus]

And I would invite you go go back to highschool long enough to distinguish between culture and race. Why must you persist in pretending they are the same thing?

I don't think race and culture are the same thing. I just don't buy your claim that your desire to preserve the the caucasian race is not based out of your ethnocentrism.

You're playing with terms that I don't think you understand. Of course my desire to preserve the the caucasian race is based on my ethnocentrism. Duh. When did this particular penny drop? When did I ever claim it wasn't based on my ethnocentrism?

Sorry if Im a little confused but:

survival of a race is very much a valid question. I don't mean the euphemisms of culture and all the other sidesteps we tend to use, nor do I mean culture.

your post drifts back into culture, and that is simply not the angle I'm talking about.

I think European culture is eons ahead of any other culture. I am ethnocentric, and proudly so, if what you mean by that is that I think my culture is superior to other cultures. This thread has nothing to do with culture.

So your desire to preserve the caucasian race is based out of your view that your culture is superior, yet this has nothing to do with culture? What am I missing here?

[marcinmoka]

Read carefully. He is saying that this protection of Caucasian race is separate from his cultural preference, and not because he prefers Caucasians.

Well thank you Jeffriah for that P.R announcement on his behalf, but it was unnecessary. Let me explain.

Unfortunately comparing humanity to flowers is a bit.....ineffective, for obvious reasons.

What I wanted to know is THE REASON for his preference of the "Caucasian race", seeing as it is separate from culture. This question has been established.

Furthermore, if from a mathematical standpoint, the preservation of the "Caucasian Race" will only serve to weaken the "Caucasian Culture", by making it more exclusive, and thus less relevant in the bigger scheme of things.

Edited July 13, 2007 by marcinmoka

[ScottSA]

Read carefully. He is saying that this protection of Caucasian race is separate from his cultural preference, and not because he prefers Caucasians.

Well thank you Jeffriah for that P.R announcement on his behalf, but it was unnecessary. Let me explain.

Unfortunately comparing humanity to flowers is a bit.....ineffective, for obvious reasons.

What I wanted to know is THE REASON for his preference of the "Caucasian race", seeing as it is separate from culture. This question has been established.

Furthermore, if from a mathematical standpoint, the preservation of the "Caucasian Race" will only serve to weaken the "Caucasian Culture", by making it more exclusive, and thus less relevant in the bigger scheme of things.

This is broadly dishonest. Jefferiah used the term "protection," which you changed to "preference." Nowhere in this thread or any other will you find me claiming that caucasians are superior to other races.

Your line of reasoning that preserving the caucasian race will somehow weaken its culture is, I admit, far beyond me. I think it transcends logic too.

[ScottSA]

And I would invite you go go back to highschool long enough to distinguish between culture and race. Why must you persist in pretending they are the same thing?

I don't think race and culture are the same thing. I just don't buy your claim that your desire to preserve the the caucasian race is not based out of your ethnocentrism.

You're playing with terms that I don't think you understand. Of course my desire to preserve the the caucasian race is based on my ethnocentrism. Duh. When did this particular penny drop? When did I ever claim it wasn't based on my ethnocentrism?

Sorry if Im a little confused but:

survival of a race is very much a valid question. I don't mean the euphemisms of culture and all the other sidesteps we tend to use, nor do I mean culture.

your post drifts back into culture, and that is simply not the angle I'm talking about.

I think European culture is eons ahead of any other culture. I am ethnocentric, and proudly so, if what you mean by that is that I think my culture is superior to other cultures. This thread has nothing to do with culture.

So your desire to preserve the caucasian race is based out of your view that your culture is superior, yet this has nothing to do with culture? What am I missing here?

When did I say my desire to protect the caucasian race is based on my belief in the superiority of western culture?

Listen closely; this isn't that complicated:

1 I think western culture is superior to all other cultures.

2 I do not think caucasians are superior to all or any other races.

3 The two statements above are not at odds.

4 This thread is about race, not culture.

5 I think the Caucasian race is worth protecting.

The only reason culture intruded into this thread is because some people can't seem to distinguish between race and culture, and accused me or holding views of racial superiority on the basis of my views of cultural superiority. I sorry if it's confusing for you, because it's just not that complicated.

[stignasty]

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.

[ScottSA]

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.

You were doing fine until you got to the end with that idiotic comment about Stormfront. If I wanted to argue pointlessly with a group of low brows with a surfiet of self-love, I would have posted it on Stormfront. You, like quite a few others here, can't quite make the rather obvious distinction between the idea that caucasians should be proud of being caucasians and maintain a racial identity, and the idea that caucasians are somehow special. In fact there seems to be no room in the minds of many for the grey area between self-hate and self-exaltation. It's a shame.

The rest of the post is an adequate restatement of the points I've made throughout this thread, although I find the claim that Canmada has never been racially homogenous specious at best and entirely lame at worst. Perhaps "hegemonically homogenous" would cover that little nitpick?

If all people are equal, as you so sanctimoniously suggest, then why do you object to one equal part maintaining its racial identity? Your use of the term "equal" is sloppy at best, since "equal" is not synonymous with "identical."

Edited July 13, 2007 by ScottSA

[betsy]

Folks, let's boycot this thread, also. Why give them a platform?

Four one-line posts in a row, and nothing of value in any of them.

I say Xman should boycott this thread! I'm with you there Xman....go.

[stignasty]

You, like quite a few others here, can't quite make the rather obvious distinction between the idea that caucasians should be proud of being caucasians and maintain a racial identity, and the idea that caucasians are somehow special. In fact there seems to be no room in the minds of many for the grey area between self-hate and self-exaltation. It's a shame.

That is the kind of shit that belongs on Stormfront.

[White Doors]

You, like quite a few others here, can't quite make the rather obvious distinction between the idea that caucasians should be proud of being caucasians and maintain a racial identity, and the idea that caucasians are somehow special. In fact there seems to be no room in the minds of many for the grey area between self-hate and self-exaltation. It's a shame.

That is the kind of shit that belongs on Stormfront.

I don't understand why you say that?

[ScottSA]

You, like quite a few others here, can't quite make the rather obvious distinction between the idea that caucasians should be proud of being caucasians and maintain a racial identity, and the idea that caucasians are somehow special. In fact there seems to be no room in the minds of many for the grey area between self-hate and self-exaltation. It's a shame.

That is the kind of shit that belongs on Stormfront.

Perhaps you'd like to flesh out what appears to be a knee jerk reaction? Have you actually read through the thread or is your learned distaste simply rearing its head? I really don't think you've bothered to read the thread.

Edited July 13, 2007 by ScottSA

[kimmy]

I don't feel the preservation of a skin colour should be a conscionable effort or concern because I don't see physical characteristics as having any significance in the quality of a persons character.

I am shocked! Shocked and appalled! Well, somewhat appalled, but mostly shocked! I am in shock, I tell you!

All these years of hearing that there is intrinsic value in our diversity. Funny hats and wacky music. Tasty ethnic food. Zany dancing. All the different skin colours... a rich tapestry, that was what they told me. I mean, the CBC. Sesame Street. National Film Board. The educational video I had to watch the time I got sent to the principal's office. It sounded so ... so right. I wanted to believe in it.

And now I find out ... it doesn't matter? It's "the quality of a person's character"? But... the funny hats... the ethnic food. "All the colours of the rainbow." There's no intrinsic value in our diversity?

I so feel betrayed. I don't know if my belief system can recover from this.

That aside, I think the most interesting aspect of this thread has been the angry and/or accusatory tone of some of the responses. From Xman's "Aryans" to Stignasty's "Stormfront", the mere question seems to draw angry reactions, and I'm a little puzzled as to why.

Hollus directed this at me earlier:

However, my suspicion is that if you don't recognize beauty in the opposite sex of people with darker skin than yourself you are either visually impaired or have some kind of prejudice towards them.

...and I still haven't figured out what prompted that. Because I waxed poetic about my skin and hair? Because I said I hope those characteristics live on in future generations?

I don't get it. How does someone interpret that as an attack on other skin colors?

-k

[stignasty]

From Xman's "Aryans" to Stignasty's "Stormfront", the mere question seems to draw angry reactions, and I'm a little puzzled as to why.

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.

[jefferiah]

From Xman's "Aryans" to Stignasty's "Stormfront", the mere question seems to draw angry reactions, and I'm a little puzzled as to why.

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

[KO2]

From Xman's "Aryans" to Stignasty's "Stormfront", the mere question seems to draw angry reactions, and I'm a little puzzled as to why.

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.

[jefferiah]

From Xman's "Aryans" to Stignasty's "Stormfront", the mere question seems to draw angry reactions, and I'm a little puzzled as to why.

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.

[KO2]

Caucasians?

Some say that these are just Asians with cock....

[Hollus]

I am shocked! Shocked and appalled! Well, somewhat appalled, but mostly shocked! I am in shock, I tell you!

All these years of hearing that there is intrinsic value in our diversity. Funny hats and wacky music. Tasty ethnic food. Zany dancing. All the different skin colours... a rich tapestry, that was what they told me. I mean, the CBC. Sesame Street. National Film Board. The educational video I had to watch the time I got sent to the principal's office. It sounded so ... so right. I wanted to believe in it.

And now I find out ... it doesn't matter? It's "the quality of a person's character"? But... the funny hats... the ethnic food. "All the colours of the rainbow." There's no intrinsic value in our diversity?

I so feel betrayed. I don't know if my belief system can recover from this.

Aww, your sarcastic smiley face looks so sad.

Well I didn't watch much Sesame Street. Thought Mr. Dress-up was way more fun. But as I remember it: Elmo is red, Grover is blue, Grouch is green, Cookie monster is a different shade of blue that I can't really describe, Hermit is green, Mumford is pink etc. And that's cool because they're all pretty cool (well except the Grouch is kind of a dick, but hey: He lives in a trash can. And the Cookie Monster might rip you off. He's clearly suffering from addiction). I guess lots will interpret the show differently. I don't think the show's message of the value of diversity is about the value of color. I think it is teaching that lots of different looking characters can be pretty cool. The characters community is a rich tapestry of looks and personalities, and as the show evolves over the years some the colors and personalities vary. The important part is they remain a tolerant and accepting community.

That aside, I think the most interesting aspect of this thread has been the angry and/or accusatory tone of some of the responses. From Xman's "Aryans" to Stignasty's "Stormfront", the mere question seems to draw angry reactions, and I'm a little puzzled as to why.

I think the most interesting aspect of this thread is how much thought people put into pigmentation.

Hollus directed this at me earlier:

However, my suspicion is that if you don't recognize beauty in the opposite sex of people with darker skin than yourself you are either visually impaired or have some kind of prejudice towards them.

...and I still haven't figured out what prompted that. Because I waxed poetic about my skin and hair? Because I said I hope those characteristics live on in future generations?

I don't get it. How does someone interpret that as an attack on other skin colors?

-k

Sorry for such a late reply to that; maybe my sinister impression was wrong: I thought you were speaking of race when you stated "However, I'm not too big to admit that I am influenced by appearance. My suspicion is that only the visually impaired can truthfully say otherwise." I don't see how else your comment could have pertained to our discussion.

[Hollus]

When did I say my desire to protect the caucasian race is based on my belief in the superiority of western culture?

"I am ethnocentric, and proudly so, if what you mean by that is that I think my culture is superior to other cultures. "

"Of course my desire to preserve the the caucasian race is based on my ethnocentrism. Duh. When did this particular penny drop? When did I ever claim it wasn't based on my ethnocentrism?"

Well you defined ethnocentrism as your belief that your culture is superior to others and then you said your desire to preserve the caucasian race is based on your ethnocentrism. So if we take your second statement and substitute 'ethnocentrism' with the definintion you gave it in your first statement we get:

Of course my desire to preserve the the caucasian race is based on my belief that my culture is superior to other cultures. Duh. When did this particular penny drop? When did I ever claim it wasn't based on my belief my culture is better than other cultures.?