Caucasians

[Hollus]

Well I am not sure of that cuz your second analogy leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Do you mean so- called white people who breed with so-called white people for no other reason than mass producing white children? Wham bam thank you mam, here is your official I Help Saved Whitey pin. Or do you mean people who plan to get married and have kids anyway, choosing to marry someone who is of the same race, not just because they want to perpetuate whiteness, but because they want kids and they also could try their hand at preserving something for some sort of sentimental value as Kimmy puts it.

Yes I mean people who choose their mate based on the ability to preserve their appearance. Kimmy says she believes it to be "a duty, more or less" And in response to a question of whether or not a mate must have a certian skin color, Scott says: "Yup, I'm certainly not going to contribute to submerging my Caucasian genes". Im not saying these people do not have some other standards by which they choose a mate, but it certainly seems that perpetuating their whiteness is paramount.

[Hollus]

I realize that race is a very superficial thing. I mean it doesnt matter if a person is white or not, right? So I mean if everyone turned "caramel" as someone else put it, I am sure life would go on and we'd all be ok.

Take two families with a parallel situation. Each of them has an heirloom that has been handed down for 10 generations. A ring lets say.

Now the parallel is about to end.

One family is robbed in the middle of the night, and the burglar finds the ring in the little wooden jewellery box in the living room. The ring is not important is it? I mean its not like these people are going to lose what inherently makes them a family. The physical ring is just a superficial symbol, and there is no use crying over spilled milk.

You have no trouble understanding that I know. Nor do I. "There is nothing wrong with losing something like that."

But lets look at the other family. They still have their ring. Is it wrong of them to try to preserve it? Is there something wrong with keeping something like that?

If there is no use crying over spilled milk, does that mean people who take care not to spill it are bad?

As long as they are not hurting you or I, what is the problem?

Ya, I think its wrong. I see the two families as part of a bigger family. So now that one of the families has lost their 'meaningless jewel', the other family will not join with them. That creates a negative meaning for the jewel.

[ScottSA]

This is broadly dishonest. Jefferiah used the term "protection," which you changed to "preference."

Yes. Good point. However, I was not referring to his posts, but yours Scott.

You want to "protect" them because you "prefer" them. And as with far too many of my posts, you just ignore them, or claim they are not worth addressing. And this all coming from the person who chides us on trying to ignore pertinent debate.

And it hurts.

Is it because I am an immigrant?

Furthermore, we all ought to practice what we preach. Calling my post "broadly dishonest", than introducing the word "superior" in response to my request to find out the underlying reason for your "preference", and even more so, attributing it to me.

A Freudian slip? A genuine mix up? Who knows. I shall not impute.

But you seem to be presenting a lot of non sequiturs, and I would presume for the sake of political correctness.

Ex.

Your line of reasoning that preserving the Caucasian race will somehow weaken its culture is, I admit, far beyond me.

Than how about a simpler term to borrow from econ, "crowding out'. Or Birthrates. Or is that still beyond you.

Or are you implying that only Caucasians can subscribe to the Caucasian culture, and that getting other "non Caucasians" to adopt Caucasian culture is an impossible feat. If that is the case, than why?

Regardless, I do not care to go down to some childish level of argumentation, I would just like an answer.

I agree with your wanting to preserve our common culture.

I just do not know how skin colour got tangled up in it.

Please, oh please, tell us why this race, or any race is worth preserving*.

I'm sorry, but you're just making no sense whatsoever. You don't seem to know who said what, and either you're attributing motives, words, and the killing of kittens to me with not even a pretence of honesty, or your ESL absolutely sucks. Maybe try again, slowly.

[ScottSA]

Yes I mean people who choose their mate based on the ability to preserve their appearance. Kimmy says she believes it to be "a duty, more or less" And in response to a question of whether or not a mate must have a certian skin color, Scott says: "Yup, I'm certainly not going to contribute to submerging my Caucasian genes". Im not saying these people do not have some other standards by which they choose a mate, but it certainly seems that perpetuating their whiteness is paramount.

My whiteness isn't going anywhere in the foreseeable future as far as I can tell, even though summer in the Okanagan turns me a bit Asiatic in appearance, so I'm not sure I need to take measures to preserve it beyond putting on sunscreen. But yes, preserving my caucasian genes with a caucasian mate is important to me, if not exactly "paramount." And what, pray tell, do you find offensive about that? Is it ok if I do the same thing but make up some other reason for it? Why do you think most people marry into their own race? Because of "culture?"

On that note, I'd like to announce the engagement of Kimmy and I, who are planning to honeymoon in the ruins of the Berlin bunker so as to better learn the art of jackboot wearing, and vi vill zen produssse bucketloads of goose-stepping children of a shiny hue and a bit of kinky white hair, in a nod to the sheep in my family's woodpile. Let me break the thrilling news to her myself though...I want to make sure she's sitting down...

BTW, WTF is this supposed to mean:

So now that one of the families has lost their 'meaningless jewel', the other family will not join with them. That creates a negative meaning for the jewel.

[marcinmoka]

I primarily asking one simple question, which you fail to address. And it is a simple one.

"Why do you want to protect Caucasians".

(i.e. What makes them so special that they should be protected. Why impede the evolutionary process?)

But I have a gut feeling the response will be "You are not making sense" or " I will ignore your infantile questions", or something to that effect.

Please note the absence of any personal attacks, jerkhoodness or other bannable offences in the above content.

Wo, herr Scott?

But since you've already taken it to such lows, don't mind if I follow.

On that note, I'd like to announce the engagement of Kimmy and I, who are planning to honeymoon in the ruins of the Berlin bunker so as to better learn the art of jackboot wearing, and vi vill zen produssse bucketloads of goose-stepping children of a shiny hue and a bit of kinky white hair, in a nod to the sheep in my family's woodpile.

Bon Voyage.

But may I suggest the "Turner Diaries" for the flight. God forbid, the in flight film produced by the Liberal media elite will undoubtedly feature either Jackie Chan or Morgan Freeman as a means of conditioning you to eventually accept,yearn for a hybrid Homosexual/Islamist/Sheikh form of rule over your vulnerable offspring while banishing Christianity to the gallows.

Oh, a roll of Tinfoil too!

And on that note. I am out.

Edited July 15, 2007 by marcinmoka

[jefferiah]

I realize that race is a very superficial thing. I mean it doesnt matter if a person is white or not, right? So I mean if everyone turned "caramel" as someone else put it, I am sure life would go on and we'd all be ok.

Take two families with a parallel situation. Each of them has an heirloom that has been handed down for 10 generations. A ring lets say.

Now the parallel is about to end.

One family is robbed in the middle of the night, and the burglar finds the ring in the little wooden jewellery box in the living room. The ring is not important is it? I mean its not like these people are going to lose what inherently makes them a family. The physical ring is just a superficial symbol, and there is no use crying over spilled milk.

You have no trouble understanding that I know. Nor do I. "There is nothing wrong with losing something like that."

But lets look at the other family. They still have their ring. Is it wrong of them to try to preserve it? Is there something wrong with keeping something like that?

If there is no use crying over spilled milk, does that mean people who take care not to spill it are bad?

As long as they are not hurting you or I, what is the problem?

Ya, I think its wrong. I see the two families as part of a bigger family. So now that one of the families has lost their 'meaningless jewel', the other family will not join with them. That creates a negative meaning for the jewel.

So if you spill a glass of milk I should spill mine as well? Malarky, I say!

[jefferiah]

I realize that race is a very superficial thing. I mean it doesnt matter if a person is white or not, right? So I mean if everyone turned "caramel" as someone else put it, I am sure life would go on and we'd all be ok.

Take two families with a parallel situation. Each of them has an heirloom that has been handed down for 10 generations. A ring lets say.

Now the parallel is about to end.

One family is robbed in the middle of the night, and the burglar finds the ring in the little wooden jewellery box in the living room. The ring is not important is it? I mean its not like these people are going to lose what inherently makes them a family. The physical ring is just a superficial symbol, and there is no use crying over spilled milk.

You have no trouble understanding that I know. Nor do I. "There is nothing wrong with losing something like that."

But lets look at the other family. They still have their ring. Is it wrong of them to try to preserve it? Is there something wrong with keeping something like that?

If there is no use crying over spilled milk, does that mean people who take care not to spill it are bad?

As long as they are not hurting you or I, what is the problem?

Ya, I think its wrong. I see the two families as part of a bigger family. So now that one of the families has lost their 'meaningless jewel', the other family will not join with them. That creates a negative meaning for the jewel.

So if you spill a glass of milk I should spill mine as well? Malarky, I say!

If you dont react with envy and bitterness about it, I just might share. And if I spill mine, I would hope you keep yours. What good does it do either of us if you spill your own milk? I may have lost something of some value to me by accident, but you just tossed it away like Esau. Do you think it is wrong for people to have something you dont have? You may have alot of things I dont have. That's not negative for me. I would not ask the star player on my hockey team to score less goals because I cant seem to get any in the net...what greater purpose would that serve for the team?

"so the maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights

the oaks are just too greedy, we will make them give us light,

now there's no more oak oppression for they passed a noble law,

and the trees are all kept equal by HATCHET, AXE, and SAW"

Neil Peart

[jefferiah]

or from another angle.....

If you believe two families are just a smaller part of a big family you should be happy for the other family. Anything else is just envy, and there is no reward for catering to your jealousy.

[ScottSA]

I primarily asking one simple question, which you fail to address. And it is a simple one.

"Why do you want to protect Caucasians".

(i.e. What makes them so special that they should be protected. Why impede the evolutionary process?)

I think that's been explained at some legnth by several people. The real question though is why wouldn't you want to protect caucasians?

[jefferiah]

I realize that race is a very superficial thing. I mean it doesnt matter if a person is white or not, right? So I mean if everyone turned "caramel" as someone else put it, I am sure life would go on and we'd all be ok.

Take two families with a parallel situation. Each of them has an heirloom that has been handed down for 10 generations. A ring lets say.

Now the parallel is about to end.

One family is robbed in the middle of the night, and the burglar finds the ring in the little wooden jewellery box in the living room. The ring is not important is it? I mean its not like these people are going to lose what inherently makes them a family. The physical ring is just a superficial symbol, and there is no use crying over spilled milk.

You have no trouble understanding that I know. Nor do I. "There is nothing wrong with losing something like that."

But lets look at the other family. They still have their ring. Is it wrong of them to try to preserve it? Is there something wrong with keeping something like that?

If there is no use crying over spilled milk, does that mean people who take care not to spill it are bad?

As long as they are not hurting you or I, what is the problem?

Ya, I think its wrong. I see the two families as part of a bigger family. So now that one of the families has lost their 'meaningless jewel', the other family will not join with them. That creates a negative meaning for the jewel.

The next time you see someone unfortunate enough to have lost his arm (which doesnt subtract anything from his whole person) in some sort of accident, I urge you to cut your arm off, lest it create some sort of negative meaning.

[marcinmoka]

I think that's been explained at some legnth by several people. The real question though is why wouldn't you want to protect caucasians?

Back to intelligible discourse. Merci bien!

Could you point out where? I've heard Jeffriah's explanations (i.e, seeds, flowers, etc) as well as numerous references as to the role race plays in selecting a partner (which is kosher as well, since physical appearance can be a legitimate criteria in selecting a partner. I know you would be more capable of articulating your position, clearly and concisely, thus why I ask you.

in Response to:

The real question though is why wouldn't you want to protect caucasians?

Simple. They are nothing special. As I stated earlier, I may be biased since I am surrounded by "White Trash", but I see nothing "caucasianess" on it's own as nothing special, nothing worth getting your panties in a whirl. Protecting "Johnny Methhead & Co." for the simple fact he and his family are white is futile. I would rather put energy and resources in helping someone who is beneficial to our culture/society, regardless of skin.

I want to preserve/protect the respect for law, tolerance, hard work, education, progressive thinking, all elements not restricted to race.

Cheers.

[jefferiah]

Sure, if thats your concern, whats it to me. As long as you dont belittle non-Afro-Asians or think any less of them.

Would you not be afraid that my Afro/Asian group might dicriminate against whatever appearance group you belong to? Do you think there is any reason my Afro/Asian group should be afraid that your appearance group whould discriminate against us? Do you think there is any reason Scott's appearance group should be afraid of discrimination from either of us?

You are confusing the existence of something---these groups as you say---for what they might conceivably decide to do in the future. It is possible that some Afro/Asians might become racist and wish to attack, but that has nothing to do with the genetic makeup of Afro-Asians. You are starting to sound like the racist now.

[jefferiah]

Well I am not sure of that cuz your second analogy leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Do you mean so- called white people who breed with so-called white people for no other reason than mass producing white children? Wham bam thank you mam, here is your official I Help Saved Whitey pin. Or do you mean people who plan to get married and have kids anyway, choosing to marry someone who is of the same race, not just because they want to perpetuate whiteness, but because they want kids and they also could try their hand at preserving something for some sort of sentimental value as Kimmy puts it.

Yes I mean people who choose their mate based on the ability to preserve their appearance. Kimmy says she believes it to be "a duty, more or less" And in response to a question of whether or not a mate must have a certian skin color, Scott says: "Yup, I'm certainly not going to contribute to submerging my Caucasian genes". Im not saying these people do not have some other standards by which they choose a mate, but it certainly seems that perpetuating their whiteness is paramount.

And this choice of theirs to limit their potential mate pool is imposing some sort of limit on you?

Look at it this way. If Scott marries who he wants to for whatever reasons, you will still have the freedom to choose your partner based on whatever you want. So he is not trying to limit your freedom by telling you that you should either date people of all races or only one.

Would you impose your will upon someone like Scott that he should specifically marry someone of another race as an exercise in race relations simply because he wants to marry a white woman on purpose?

[August1991]

Marcinmoka addressed this to Scott:

Or are you implying that only Caucasians can subscribe to the Caucasian culture, and that getting other "non Caucasians" to adopt Caucasian culture is an impossible feat. If that is the case, than why?

Regardless, I do not care to go down to some childish level of argumentation, I would just like an answer.

I agree with your wanting to preserve our common culture.

I just do not know how skin colour got tangled up in it.

Please, oh please, tell us why this race, or any race is worth preserving*.

It seems to me that this gets to the basic point of the OP and this entire thread.

It's unfortunate (although appropriate) that Scott answered Marcinmoka:

I'm sorry, but you're just making no sense whatsoever. You don't seem to know who said what, and either you're attributing motives, words, and the killing of kittens to me with not even a pretence of honesty, or your ESL absolutely sucks. Maybe try again, slowly.

----

This thread is not an intelligent or even civilized debate.

[Hollus]

Jefferiah, ScottSA, Kimmy: I think I’ve been very clear on my views regarding this subject. I don’t see skin color as having any significance in the quality of a person’s character and from what I can read you have all agreed with that sentiment. Yes? No? You all agree that skin color is superficial. Yes? No?

You all wonder (or surmise) why I oppose the idea of deliberate and intentional preservation of skin color. It is because I see no room for sentimentalism or superficialities when dealing with fundamental values.

All of you put a great deal of importance in preserving skin color. So much so that you allow it to dictate something as fundamental as whom you choose to marry and have children with. So what is it that is so important that you must hold this superficial aspect as a fundamental value?

[Hollus]

Sure, if thats your concern, whats it to me. As long as you dont belittle non-Afro-Asians or think any less of them.

Would you not be afraid that my Afro/Asian group might dicriminate against whatever appearance group you belong to? Do you think there is any reason my Afro/Asian group should be afraid that your appearance group whould discriminate against us? Do you think there is any reason Scott's appearance group should be afraid of discrimination from either of us?

You are confusing the existence of something---these groups as you say---for what they might conceivably decide to do in the future. It is possible that some Afro/Asians might become racist and wish to attack, but that has nothing to do with the genetic makeup of Afro-Asians. You are starting to sound like the racist now.

Have you been reading this thread???

This is very racist.

It is not a sentiment I have been presenting, it is one I have been contesting.

My post you are replying to here was designed to illustrate the racism of such thinking.

Apparently you picked that up (sort of).

[jefferiah]

Would you not be afraid that my Afro/Asian group might dicriminate against whatever appearance group you belong to? Do you think there is any reason my Afro/Asian group should be afraid that your appearance group whould discriminate against us? Do you think there is any reason Scott's appearance group should be afraid of discrimination from either of us?

OK lets say a few Afro/Asians got together and began an Afro/Asian supremacy group and started attacking others. Well that is a crime right. But a consenting African and a consenting Asian agreeing to have kids together for whatever reason is not a crime. And one does not necessarily lead to the other.

This is getting into the microscopic levels of analysis here, where you are proposing these what ifs and genetic breeders, etc. And in order to keep explaining to you I have to do the same with family jewels, what is so hard to understand about the belief that people can marry whoever they want. How do you plan to derail Scott's and Kimmy's plans to choose a white partner? They dont seem to be trying to engineer some new race of afroasians or to engineer anything other than their own lives. (And dont say they are engineering their children's lives because children dont have a choice anyway since they are born after the fact.) Kimmy would like to marry someone with whom her blonde hair might be preserved. As silly as that desire might seem to you, do you recomend that society take steps to stop people from choosing to marry people of their own race? None of this affects you. They are not questioning you about why you marry who you marry. Do you need to control their lives?

[Hollus]

Jefferiah: Your interpretation of my response to your analogy is incorrect and your subsequent projections pure fiction. The analogy itself was quite a poor one but I responded in good faith. I wish I hadn’t.

[jefferiah]

Jefferiah, ScottSA, Kimmy: I think I’ve been very clear on my views regarding this subject. I don’t see skin color as having any significance in the quality of a person’s character and from what I can read you have all agreed with that sentiment. Yes? No? You all agree that skin color is superficial. Yes? No?

You all wonder (or surmise) why I oppose the idea of deliberate and intentional preservation of skin color. It is because I see no room for sentimentalism or superficialities when dealing with fundamental values.

All of you put a great deal of importance in preserving skin color. So much so that you allow it to dictate something as fundamental as whom you choose to marry and have children with. So what is it that is so important that you must hold this superficial aspect as a fundamental value?

Well personally I have no beef about marrying a woman of another race Hollus, but I seriously doubt I will ever marry anyone.

What fundamental values would be broken if Scott marries a white woman?

You shouldnt have to worry about this.

[jefferiah]

Jefferiah: Your interpretation of my response to your analogy is incorrect and your subsequent projections pure fiction. The analogy itself was quite a poor one but I responded in good faith. I wish I hadn’t.

Look at it this way Hollus. You can marry who you like. I probably wont marry at all.

Kimmy wants to marry someone with whom she has a chance of reproducing a blonde likeness with. You dont agree with it. What are you going to do about it? Has she committed any crime? Is she attacking someone of another race? Is it going to hurt you in anyway if Kimmy has a blonde child?

[Posit]

I can understand why Kimmy would want blond children. After all she wouldn't want her kids to be smarter than her.....

IN the end those arguing for protection of the caucas are just superficial egoists. They are more concerned about looks and marinating the pure line than they are about humanity, or genetics. I mean these people are intent on preserving small penis shrimps. I mean real men are descendants of mixed cultures and when the white boys are out trying to polish their whiteness, the rest of us are making babies with their wives.

Of course few pure whites ever get dates unless you want to count pouring beer on their hands trying to get their dates drunk......

The fact is there is nothing special about caucas except the brown ones and the white ones all come from the same place.....

I'm willing to bet these guys were all born with their mothers standing up.

[jefferiah]

I can understand why Kimmy would want blond children. After all she wouldn't want her kids to be smarter than her.....

IN the end those arguing for protection of the caucas are just superficial egoists. They are more concerned about looks and marinating the pure line than they are about humanity, or genetics. I mean these people are intent on preserving small penis shrimps. I mean real men are descendants of mixed cultures and when the white boys are out trying to polish their whiteness, the rest of us are making babies with their wives.

Of course few pure whites ever get dates unless you want to count pouring beer on their hands trying to get their dates drunk......

The fact is there is nothing special about caucas except the brown ones and the white ones all come from the same place.....

I'm willing to bet these guys were all born with their mothers standing up.

lol posit. like you i am not putting to much thought into preserving the race, unlike you i can see the possibility of someone wanting to do it without being quite as bad as you are making them out to be.

[Hollus]

Jefferiah: I am not trying to control people’s choice in who to marry. I don’t care. I’m in here talking about how skin color fits into one’s fundamental values. I don’t think it does because skin color is a superficial aspect of a person. Others here think skin color is a fundamental value. I don’t know why. I’m not worried of these people trying to control me either. I just think they lack moral substance based on their impressed importance of pigmentation.

[jefferiah]

I can understand why Kimmy would want blond children. After all she wouldn't want her kids to be smarter than her.....

IN the end those arguing for protection of the caucas are just superficial egoists. They are more concerned about looks and marinating the pure line than they are about humanity, or genetics. I mean these people are intent on preserving small penis shrimps. I mean real men are descendants of mixed cultures and when the white boys are out trying to polish their whiteness, the rest of us are making babies with their wives.

Of course few pure whites ever get dates unless you want to count pouring beer on their hands trying to get their dates drunk......

The fact is there is nothing special about caucas except the brown ones and the white ones all come from the same place.....

I'm willing to bet these guys were all born with their mothers standing up.

why do you need to foam at the mouth over Kimmy's decision to marry someone who is white? or are you trying to get someone to fight back and say the parallel of what you said but aimed at blacks or something? entrapment? racism?

[jefferiah]

Jefferiah: I am not trying to control people’s choice in who to marry. I don’t care. I’m in here talking about how skin color fits into one’s fundamental values. I don’t think it does because skin color is a superficial aspect of a person. Others here think skin color is a fundamental value. I don’t know why. I’m not worried of these people trying to control me either. I just think they lack moral substance based on their impressed importance of pigmentation.

i think they have all said over and over hollus that they dont believe it has a fundamental value. maybe they are lying, who knows, i cant prove otherwise right. so ill just accept em at their word. i dont think they are placing great importance on it. like the family that knows the Christmas tree is meaningless. its superficial. they could survive without it. core values would not change if they didnt have a Christmas Tree up...so what if they still feel like putting one up. if you get down to it Hollus many things are meaningless and superficial in the deepest analysis. You say why is it so important to preserve it? I am saying why would it be a crime to do so as long as they are not doing it in hatred of someone else.