"Racism" is 100% natural, and is not evil. Homogenization is.

Originally posted by mr1alphaalpha
reply to post by Starchild23

 

So you sir are an anti-White. White guilt sure does bite some people hard. Shame on you for being pro White genocide and sitting there "laughing" as you race is set to be ethnically cleansed from their countries.

Sickening

Anti-racism is a code word for anti-White

You are just the cutest little doggey humping our legs! no, I'm not anti-white or pro-white. I'm pro-human and pro-Earth.

But what exactly do YOU stand for?

Originally posted by mr1alphaalpha
reply to post by Starchild23

 

So you sir are an anti-White. White guilt sure does bite some people hard. Shame on you for being pro White genocide and sitting there "laughing" as you race is set to be ethnically cleansed from their countries.

Sickening

Anti-racism is a code word for anti-White

You are just the cutest little doggey humping our legs! no, I'm not anti-white or pro-white. I'm pro-human and pro-Earth.

But what exactly do YOU stand for?


Anti-racism: opposing the discrimination against race.

Anti-white: discriminating against the race marked by pale skin.

reply to post by FOXMULDER147


Yeah, because when left to be among themselves White people, Black people, Asian people, (insert race of choice) people live in perfect harmony, holding hands, singing kumbayah and sharing all their worldly belongings in deeply rooted brotherly love.
It's the mixing of colors and cultures that's the problem.LOL

Originally posted by VivaLaEvolution
reply to post by FOXMULDER147

 

Yeah, because when left to be among themselves White people, Black people, Asian people, (insert race of choice) people live in perfect harmony, holding hands, singing kumbayah and sharing all their worldly belongings in deeply rooted brotherly love.
It's the mixing of colors and cultures that's the problem.LOL

Because we're all too arrogant and proud to see that we're all the same color on the inside.

Originally posted by masqua
The way I see it, if whites want to preserve white skin, then they should have children with white partners. It's a personal choice. Don't marry that cute Asian chick.

It it about the color of ones skin or about culture?

I prefer Western culture.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by masqua
The way I see it, if whites want to preserve white skin, then they should have children with white partners. It's a personal choice. Don't marry that cute Asian chick.

It it about the color of ones skin or about culture?

I prefer Western culture.

The color of the skin has come to represent the culture, unfortunately.

reply to post by kimish


Don't we prosecute persons who are in possession of stolen property?

Originally posted by DZAG Wright
reply to post by kimish

 

Don't we prosecute persons who are in possession of stolen property?

How is that relevant, at all?

second line

Originally posted by andersensrm
reply to post by FOXMULDER147

 

So we should define ourselves more clearly to make the world a better place. We will separate everyone according to race, culture, and religious beliefs. The world will be a beautiful place right.

Straw man alert! I never mentioned race or religion.

You might think being part of one huge 'super culture' of 7 billion would be a good thing. All in together, right? But in fact, the larger the group the more lost an individual feels.

It's easier to identify within a smaller group, and is more comforting. That's why nations and cultures exist in the first place. If multiculturalism was natural, we would have done it thousands of years ago. We didn't.

reply to post by Starchild23

I was being sarcastic, as it seemed that was what the poster implied.
I'm all for do what and who you like.
We are all the same species and a pretty wonderful yet at the same time miserable one, I might add.

Originally posted by Starchild23



The color of the skin has come to represent the culture, unfortunately.

says who? only the multi-cult police even mention skin color to help make the people they are talking against appear racist. the differences are on the inside, and they are quite telling when going over averages. those "differences" are what makes beautiful cities like detroit, DC, oakland, etc.. turn into hellholes.

Originally posted by kimish

Originally posted by DZAG Wright
reply to post by kimish

 

Don't we prosecute persons who are in possession of stolen property?

How is that relevant, at all?

second line

You made the statement that blacks were sold into slavery by other Afrikans and Arabs. They were stolen from their land. So basically America was in possession of stolen property.

Originally posted by Starchild23
The color of the skin has come to represent the culture, unfortunately.

That isn't true. My son is only half white but he is 100% Western.

He likes being Western. Is that OK?

Originally posted by DZAG Wright
You made the statement that blacks were sold into slavery by other Afrikans and Arabs. They were stolen from their land. So basically America was in possession of stolen property.

Didn't the Chinese steal 90% of modern China?

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147

Originally posted by andersensrm
reply to post by FOXMULDER147

 

So we should define ourselves more clearly to make the world a better place. We will separate everyone according to race, culture, and religious beliefs. The world will be a beautiful place right.

Straw man alert! I never mentioned race or religion.

You might think being part of one huge 'super culture' of 7 billion would be a good thing. All in together, right? But in fact, the larger the group the more lost an individual feels.

It's easier to identify within a smaller group, and is more comforting. That's why nations and cultures exist in the first place. If multiculturalism was natural, we would have done it thousands of years ago. We didn't.

Interesting. You see, as long as individuals are free do as they want and be who they are, there should be no problem as regards identity. There have been people born into a culture who had to leave the country and travel across the world to find a culture they were comfortable with. Being born into a culture does not guarantee identity. You make your own identity. Also, I think people are more afraid of being alone than being lost among many of their own kind.

More peole means more chances of finding someone like yourself...someone with the same interests and opinions and generally the same sort of heart. In a superculture, that is.

"what most of Western society has now deemed "racist", is really just an extended instinct of self-preservation. Does not the self-preservation instinct extend beyond the proper functioning of one's own physical body into more abstract things like culture and society, making it only natural for a people to want to maintain their unique cultural identity as an extension of themselves?"

-I agree that it is natural to favor your own culture/race the way an insect would favor his own species. Be it by pheromones or the memory of our parents faces growing up, we have reference points that guide us away from the unknown and dangerous to the friendly community that is our source and this arguments focal point. It is necessary to identify race with community since both are a form of the other usually. The danger of dissolving into another community is self evident and needs not be specified more than briefly. Our knowledge base comes from our community and reflects the different ways we have learned to survive in our environment.
Take for example the "story" of thanksgiving. A foreign community arrived to an unknown area and had to rely on the knowledge base of the native people to survive. They formed a new community without mixing their respective races entirely. Survival is not dependant on homogenization for the equal exchange of information between communities in the name of greater survivability.

"Peoples derive great power from their cultures; a cultureless people are easily fractured and conquered. Culture invisibly binds a people together, and allows them to be part of something greater than themselves; individuals, yet still part of the whole. Both culture and individual are contained within each other."

-It is so true what you say here. I see the future without diversity as a bleak one, in which no advancement beyond the limited imagination and needs of one group is ever achieved. The identity and purpose we are immediately given by being born to a group is the core of the social animal we are. It is something very natural and is indeed instinct to protect this identity. IMO, without this identity we would be in danger of being absorbed into larger groups based solely on size and power of the dominant group. We know this identity is not the exception to progress as we look to groups that have established their territory to include that of smaller groups, like for example the Romans.

The Romans enriched the smaller groups by providing a common form of communication and social order without denying their individual cultural identity. They actually took on some of traits and concepts of smaller groups like for example the Greeks, without losing their own. The perfect example of non-homogenization achieving progress is the roman empire. Citizenship was not based on race or culture. It was based on being able to live by universal codes which they(the Romans) established in order to control their territory. A territory which consisted of many groups and cultures which existed independently from each other but were connected through the overall community.

Originally posted by mr1alphaalpha
reply to post by UmbraSumus

 

Irrelevant straw man. As i keep saying no one would say any of that nonsense to a Chinese, Japanese or Jewish man to try and justify flooding their country with other races. Any sane Chinese, Japanese or Jewish man would realize this was just double speak that attempted to deny the genocide of his race.

Anti-racism is a code word for anti-White

The Chinese have no need of such a measure as they are overpopulated. The Japanese have suffered over a decade of economic downturn and part of this is due to a low working population because of low birth rates. They would do well to allow immigrants if they want to see economic recovery. Except at of 2008 Japan was ramping up efforts to loosen immigration laws.
www.atimes.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
Your facts are wrong with concern to Japan. China actually does allow the immigration of skilled workers.

European countries allow immigration because the local populations have low birth rates and more workers are required. It's no conspiracy to kill the white man, it's about money. All things go back to money. If white people in Europe start popping out more babies then they will close the borders.

Time to get horizontal over there,

Homogenization has never proved to be an answer to governance or organization since it eventually causes problems for one group by not addressing the specific needs of that group. The only way for a global community to actually live without chaos is for each group to address its own needs through the knowledge base it has developed over time by trial and error.

A grand scope is only necessary when establishing a form of exchange and interconnection. If that is imposed for the sake of having that connection, it usually has the opposite effect since it threatens the individual knowledge base for each group and by doing so, their survivability

"What I am saying is wrong, is we being told it's not OK to desire our individual cultural identities to persist into the future. What I am saying is wrong, is the active agenda to push for general homogenization among the Western cultures, and the demonization of naturally resisting. What I am saying is wrong, is to call someone a "racist" for wanting to preserve humanities diversity and protect the wonderful heritages of our peoples ancestors and not being satisfied relegating those heritages into the history books."

Agreed. It is wrong for a dominant community to define how smaller communities can live without the consideration of how that group formed and continually renews itself over time in the presence of adversity. If we as the dominant species eradicated another for its inability to adapt to our environment the way we have, we may in effect permanently damage our own environment by disturbing the balance already established. I mean for example, if we deem lions to be "savage" and proceed to domesticate them to better fit our own idea of what they should be, we would eventually have an over population of their food supply. That would lead to catastrophic consequences for the ecosystem we share with them.

Equally if we as a culture change another to better fit our idea of them, we may permanently effect our own by eliminating a source of innovation and thought processes we would never have come across since we would not answer problems in the same manner their experiences taught them to. Imagine if a certain disease was curable in south American peoples before Europeans arrived and "domesticated" the "savages" by erasing their cultural knowledge in favor of the European one. We would have loss a solution to a problem we could not foresee in our cultures future and may actually encounter.

"Live and let live. Give others the freedom to live as you would want to have yourself, and embrace liberty for all. Celebrate and love your heritage, white, black, yellow, or red, Christian or Pagan, Viking or Egyptian or Scot or Moor or Jew, and don't let anyone ever tell you you are "racist" for doing so."

AMEN. YES SIR. ABSO-F-ing-LUTELY. One world, one love, many people, many voices.
A choir is only as beautiful as the unity of the many voices that sing a common song.

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147

Originally posted by andersensrm
reply to post by FOXMULDER147

 

So we should define ourselves more clearly to make the world a better place. We will separate everyone according to race, culture, and religious beliefs. The world will be a beautiful place right.

Straw man alert! I never mentioned race or religion.

You might think being part of one huge 'super culture' of 7 billion would be a good thing. All in together, right? But in fact, the larger the group the more lost an individual feels.

It's easier to identify within a smaller group, and is more comforting. That's why nations and cultures exist in the first place. If multiculturalism was natural, we would have done it thousands of years ago. We didn't.

We did not have the technology to travel halfway around the world in a day back in the past. These kinds of developments naturally change the social order. If you can get from Canada to the Congo in less then a week I'd say culture is pretty malleable. As technology continues to progress the world gets smaller therefore a "supernational" cultural identity is possible.

reply to post by DZAG Wright


How did the whites get the stolen property? Maybe they wouldn't have gotten the stolen property if others wouldn't have stolen it first?