Caucasians

[ScottSA]

Do you understand that Kimmy wanting to keep blondes in existence is not necessarily demoting equality, either

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?

[kimmy]

So, anyway, I hope it didn't go unnoticed that despite all the accusations of "Aryans" and racism and "Stormfront" being thrown around, the only person here who actually claimed that anybody's genetics makes them inferior was...

Posit:

Kimmy, I suppose that is true. So what you are really telling us is that YOUR mother was blond too. I notice the blond genetic flaw in your tone. I'm surprised that you wouldn't want to break that genetic inferiority and marry out of your gene pool. However, I do understand your dilemma....no one wants to be accused as being the first to marry out of your family.

Wow. That's pretty astounding. Imagine if he had made comments like that based on *any* *other* superficial characteristic, and imagine how people here would react.

Don't believe me? Try swapping "blond" for some other superficial characteristic. Brown skin, "slanted eyes" (tm Andre Boisclair), whatever. *Then* how does it make you feel?

Anyway, just thought this merited some special recognition. I'd thought that making sweeping assumptions about people's genetic fitness based on superficial characteristics was an idea that went out of vogue with the fall of the Third Reich. But not for Posit! Good for you, little buddy. Let's have a big round of applause for Posit.

-k

[Posit]

Dumb blonds......

I know you are intellectually challenged Kimmy, but making fun of you being blond is not that same thing as being brown or having slanted eyes. Both of those things (unless you fell down the outhouse and landed on a lighted cigarette butt) are racial characteristics (or not). Using racial feature as a means to denigrate a person IS racism. Only a blond would see that differently.......

I suggest that you people get off your Aryan horse and join the "melting pot" of Canada. I mean you are quick to suggest that new Canadians and natives join the melting pot and give up any notion of separate culture and language. Or is the melting pot an exclusive non-white thing where everyone but white English males get herded into non-distinct groups for management purpose.

And no Kimmy in case you haven't notice.....you are not a white English male and therefore fall into the melting pot with the rest of the Browns and Jones....

[Peter F]

Well, so far in the thead regarding the protection of Caucasians we have the following:

Caucasians are in danger of being reduced to minority status.

The Causes are a Low birth rate of Caucasians and massive immigration of non-caucasians who, to make matters worse, have a high birth rate. This will result in Caucasians becoming a minority and subject to the (at best) descrimination by the majority non-caucasians.

Argus proposed way back at post#22 (page 2)

despite its many flaws I think what we really want to ensure is that non-white immigrants to these countries embrace western liberalism and cast aside their primitive cultural backwardness. That isn't happening as much as it should, and that's what we really need to be concerned with

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.

?

Edited July 16, 2007 by Peter F

[White Doors]

Dumb blonds......

I know you are intellectually challenged Kimmy, but making fun of you being blond is not that same thing as being brown or having slanted eyes. Both of those things (unless you fell down the outhouse and landed on a lighted cigarette butt) are racial characteristics (or not). Using racial feature as a means to denigrate a person IS racism. Only a blond would see that differently.......

I suggest that you people get off your Aryan horse and join the "melting pot" of Canada. I mean you are quick to suggest that new Canadians and natives join the melting pot and give up any notion of separate culture and language. Or is the melting pot an exclusive non-white thing where everyone but white English males get herded into non-distinct groups for management purpose.

And no Kimmy in case you haven't notice.....you are not a white English male and therefore fall into the melting pot with the rest of the Browns and Jones....

What utter crap and hypocricy!

'Blonde' isn;t a racial sterotype and 'slant eyes' is?

WTF? My 10 year old niece could see through this.

Yes Kimmy, I noticed.

Coincidentally, he is a big defender of native 'rights' - you know, special rights no one else has based purely on gene's?

It is quite clear here that it is indeed, ok to be racist against whites.

On the other hand, to the PC Nazi's, not only is it not alright to be racist if you ARE white, it is not even tolerable that we speak (nay, think) of Caucasians as BEING a race.

What does it say about one's Intelligence if you can't even question something that you were fed when you were 6 years old?

Edited July 16, 2007 by White Doors

[Argus]

Dumb blonds......

I know you are intellectually challenged Kimmy

The only challenges Kimmy faces, at least here, is putting up with the brainless twaddle of undereducated, emotionally stunted halfwits without the comprehension to see what fools they are making of themselves.

She's probably the smartest poster on this forum, or at least, her commend of the facts and the language certainly put her in contention for that position.

You, on the other hand, are only known for making racist statements in barely understandable whiny diatribes that never have more than an occasional, coincidental connection with reality.

[kimmy]

Dumb blonds......

I know you are intellectually challenged Kimmy, but making fun of you being blond is not that same thing as being brown or having slanted eyes. Both of those things (unless you fell down the outhouse and landed on a lighted cigarette butt) are racial characteristics (or not). Using racial feature as a means to denigrate a person IS racism. Only a blond would see that differently.......

ORLY? Hollus and Mad Michael and the rest say that there's no difference.

Didn't you get the memo? There's no such thing as race. It's *all* superficial characteristics.

So a certain skin tone might come from parts of Africa? Certain facial features might come from parts of Asia? And? Certain hair-colours come from Northern Europe. What's the difference?

And again, you made the claim that I'm genetically inferior based on nothing more than my hair colour.

How does that make you feel? Fancy yourself something of a wit? Proud of yourself?

By making the claim that someone is "genetically inferior" based on a superficial characteristic, you've allied yourself with some of the most appalling ideas ever devised. Good for you.

I suggest that you people get off your Aryan horse and join the "melting pot" of Canada. I mean you are quick to suggest that new Canadians and natives join the melting pot and give up any notion of separate culture and language. Or is the melting pot an exclusive non-white thing where everyone but white English males get herded into non-distinct groups for management purpose.

And no Kimmy in case you haven't notice.....you are not a white English male and therefore fall into the melting pot with the rest of the Browns and Jones....

And here you appear to have missed the distinction between culture and genetics. Personally, yeah, I believe that immigrants ought to join our society by learning our language and accepting the values which this country stands for. But who they marry and procreate with? That's nobody's business but their own.

-k

[ScottSA]

Dumb blonds......

I know you are intellectually challenged Kimmy, but making fun of you being blond is not that same thing as being brown or having slanted eyes. Both of those things (unless you fell down the outhouse and landed on a lighted cigarette butt) are racial characteristics (or not). Using racial feature as a means to denigrate a person IS racism. Only a blond would see that differently.......

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?

[White Doors]

Negroid blondes

actually.. I have seen a few on Springer..

[ScottSA]

Well, so far in the thead regarding the protection of Caucasians we have the following:

Caucasians are in danger of being reduced to minority status.

The Causes are a Low birth rate of Caucasians and massive immigration of non-caucasians who, to make matters worse, have a high birth rate. This will result in Caucasians becoming a minority and subject to the (at best) descrimination by the majority non-caucasians.

Argus proposed way back at post#22 (page 2)

despite its many flaws I think what we really want to ensure is that non-white immigrants to these countries embrace western liberalism and cast aside their primitive cultural backwardness. That isn't happening as much as it should, and that's what we really need to be concerned with

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.

[ScottSA]

Negroid blondes

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!

[M.Dancer]

Genetics is a mysterious thing. I have knew a black family in Montreal whose kids all had red hair and freckles...their grandfather was scottish.....

There are these two islands in the south pacific, I don't remember their names b ut around 1,000 years ago they were populated by the same ethnic group. On one island the population is one of the darkest skinned peoples in the area, on the other, one of the lightest. On one island the ideal for beauty is light skin, on the other, dark skin. I believe this evolutionary process is called sexual determinism.

[ScottSA]

On one island the ideal for beauty is light skin, on the other, dark skin. I believe this evolutionary process is called sexual determinism.

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.

Edited July 16, 2007 by ScottSA

[M.Dancer]

On one island the ideal for beauty is light skin, on the other, dark skin. I believe this evolutionary process is called sexual determinism.

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......

[ScottSA]

On one island the ideal for beauty is light skin, on the other, dark skin. I believe this evolutionary process is called sexual determinism.

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?

Edited July 16, 2007 by ScottSA

[M.Dancer]

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?

I can't explain what didn't happen. I can explain that the code for fair skin and the code for dark skin exists in everyone, and by an evolutionary process callled sexual determinism, those codes can be coaxed forward.

In other words through selective breeding any homogenous race can be "bred" to look a particular way. You could engineer straight hair amongst blacks, or fair skin amongst Malays.

BTW, not only did they start out as the same race, they are still the same race. They just look different. Like white sicilians and swedes, same race, different face.

Edited July 16, 2007 by M.Dancer

[M.Dancer]

I hate to repeat myself but it was two islands populated by the same original genetic stock. About 1000 years ago contact between the islands ceased.

[ScottSA]

I hate to repeat myself but it was two islands populated by the same original genetic stock. About 1000 years ago contact between the islands ceased.

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...

[M.Dancer]

I hate to repeat myself but it was two islands populated by the same original genetic stock. About 1000 years ago contact between the islands ceased.

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...

Oh brother...yes it is entirely possible but there was a genetic study (which concluded that the two populations were homogenous).....What this comes down to is when you have an isloated gene pool. genetic twists appear and pass on more regularly. Like the genes responsible for "Caucasioness" It happened in Europe. It apparently happened in North America. What happened on these islands is similar. On one island lighter skinned folk had better oppurtunities to pass along their genes...on the other island, the opposite.

And this is anut shell is why we have variations in humanity. Caucasians are the carriers of a recessive gene that arose in an isolated gene pool and managed to survive.

[Mad_Michael]

BTW, not only did they start out as the same race, they are still the same race.

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.

[M.Dancer]

BTW, not only did they start out as the same race, they are still the same race.

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.

That isn't entirely true. 200 years ago it was science. It is only in the last 50 years with the exploration of DNA and genetics has the notion of race as a scientific concept been set aside. That being said, the notion of race as a sociological concept is alive and kicking. And to my knowledge, it is still an anthropological concept.

[Mad_Michael]

And to my knowledge, it is still an anthropological concept.

It appears to be far more a 'religious' concept. Anthropologists use the term in a cultural sense. The religious types seem to be obsessed with it.

[M.Dancer]

And to my knowledge, it is still an anthropological concept.

It appears to be far more a 'religious' concept. Anthropologists use the term in a cultural sense. The religious types seem to be obsessed with it.

That's plainly nonsense.

[Mad_Michael]

That's plainly nonsense.

So are most of the posts/threads at this forum. I can't take this place seriously - or you.

[jefferiah]

I understand the arguments saying that race doesnt exist. I am not sure either way, nobody has compelled me to any conclusion on that matter, but I think it is extremely wrong to jump to the conclusion that the idea of different races within humanity is the reason for racism. Is it not possible to see people as being of different races as being equal---if in fact you believe there are different races? I think that if you truly believe in the non-discriminated, you can also understand the discriminated without being caught up by ideas of what is more valuable. If you understand this you can say there are different races and there is one race without contradicting yourself. I can discriminate between broccoli and carrots, but it does not mean I think one has more inherent worth than the other.