Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 23
59
<< 20  21  22    24  25 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by OrphenFire
 


Such would be true if racism was merely an opinion, such as enjoying vanilla more than chocolate, instead of outright degradation. But that is what it comes down to: it always ends up as abuse.

You say "Give it a chance." But remember: we've been given a chance at racism, multiple times. And we always end up screwing it up. We run out of chances eventually.

Also, everyone here is confusing cultural pride with racism.

Cultural pride: being proud of your ethnicity, and protecting it.

Racism: discriminating and degrading other cultures

I agree with cultural pride. I don't agree with racism.




posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 





Nowadays, non Western immigrants into Europe largely don't integrate. They set up their own communities.

If they were willing to accept the culture of their adoptive nation, or if such communites were small then their non integration would not be an issue.

But by and large, they want to set up their own large communities and preserve their own culture.


Non-western being a stand in for non-white. We really should just say what we mean - as long as we're talking about it.

What you've just said is something I hear over and over again whenever this discussion comes up. Here is what I hear: We would welcome them with open arms if they showed us the respect (and or adulation) we so obviously deserve, they adopt our way of life down to the tiniest, most subtle detail and they be grateful (ever so) for permission to live with us and like us in these most wonderful and perfect of 'Western' lands

Racism may be natural. I prefer the word bigotry - it covers more territory and it's more honest. But whichever - it is natural. Human beings do not automatically trust or like anything that smacks of 'other'. This includes people with mental health problems, and many other kinds of disabilities. We seem to need to surround ourselves with people that don't make us feel uncomfortable. We absolutely need to be liked. Respected if liked is not possible

So, people don't like autistic people or other mentally challenged individuals. They make fun of the handicapped. They don't trust or like people who are smarter or more successful than they are. They dislike movie stars, the rich, the poor, the left, the right, the middle... They are vicious to people who are better looking - and also cruel to those who are less attractive. They dislike people who don't dress the way they dress, eat what they eat or pray the way they pray. They don't want to have to look at the wrong kind of house, listen to music they don't like or hear a language they don't understand

Not all people of course

But, some people very simply need to be surrounded by people who are just like them. If they can be revered by people who are not like them - that makes them feel (somewhat) better

For these fearful, self-absorbed and incredibly proud individuals - the level of discomfort they feel when confronted with people who are different from them (in even the smallest ways) results in mistrust, fear and loathing

Love us or leave us they say - your need to have your own communities, keep ties to your homelands and your cultures, be what you have always been - this is just proof that you hate us, or at the very least are unwilling to recognize our superiority and show us the respect that is due us - so, you need to go

Because certainly - you have nothing to be proud of or attached to - your identity isn't important

Of course, anyone that sees this differently has an agenda: White people are evil - and are being discriminated against. Our inability to accept 'the others' is seen as a weakness, and so, clearly - our existence is being threatened

Pretty much - everything - every single little thing in this universe revolves around us - we people of the West - our beautiful, perfect god-fearing West

Love us or leave us - or we will see to it that you are destroyed. Slowly but surely


Anti-racism is a code word for anti-White.


You know what ollncasino? You should go out - get yourself a nice falafel, sit on a park bench and watch the show

relax - it will all be OK

and - have a nice day

:-)




edit on 1/14/2012 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Racism is natural because thats what every bible has ever taught. Period.

Human beings are evil. Racism is just a stupid excuse to be ignorant.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


After finding mankind’s apes fossils dated back at least 25,000,000 years ago, new discoveries have placed hominid fossils in Africa dating 14,000,000 years ago...

All this is fantasy palaeoanthropology. No human or hominid fossils anything like 25 million years have ever been found, nor will they ever be. The last common ancestor of apes and monkeys probably lived about that long ago. The hominid line is only 5-10 million years old, probably closer to five than ten – Sahelanthropus tchadensis, discovered in Chad, was a 'near-hominid' that lived in those parts 6-7 million years ago.

Hominidae, by the way, is the primate family that includes chimps, gorillas and orang-utans as well as all the extinct varieties of genus Homo, and of course ourselves.

I don't know what you mean by 'Advanced Australopithecus', but the earliest Australopithecus fossils are about 4 million years old, and the latest about 2 million years old. The earliest examples of the genus Homo date back about 2.4 million years.

Australopithecines walked upright, by the way. Homo erectus was by no means the first hominid to do so. Also Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis were very different species; the first was enormously successful, evolving in Africa about 1.8 million years ago and spreading through the Middle East and Asia. The species survived until about 70,000 years ago, when it died out, probably in the Mt. Toba catastrophe. Neanderthals originated much later, only about 400,000 years ago, and lasted until about 30,000 years ago.

Homo sapiens originated in Africa about 250,000 years ago. The immediate ancestral species is not known. The trends in tool development and skull expansion of which you speak may have begun about this time, not 800 to 700 thousand years ago as you state, but their effect was more pronounced later on. The oldest Cro-Magnon (a type of H. sapiens) fossils are only about 35,000 years old.


This quantum leap in the hominid intelligence is not in line with the evolution of the Homo erectus. In other words, cavemen did not create advanced knowledge and technology out of thin air. Going at the original rate of evolution, mankind should still, in 2012, be in its Cro-Magnon stage.

These statements appear to be plucked out of thin air. What does 'not in line with' mean? Homo erectus had fire, stone tools and possibly language. There is plenty of evidence for the evolving refinement of Stone Age technologies, so early man certainly did not acquire technology full-blown, out of thin air – he developed it the hard way. And what genius decided which stage evolution should have reached by 2012? No reputable evolutionary biologist or palaeontologist would ever make a statement like that.


As the notable anthropologists and author Zechariah Sitchin suggested...

I do not believe this person is an anthropologist, or indeed, any kind of scientist. I understand he has a degree in economics and writes books for a living.

edit on 14/1/12 by Astyanax because: of some necessary corrections.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


After finding mankind’s apes fossils dated back at least 25,000,000 years ago, new discoveries have placed hominid fossils in Africa dating 14,000,000 years ago...

All this is fantasy palaeoanthropology. No human or hominid fossils anything like 25 million years have ever been found, nor will they ever be. The last common ancestor of apes and monkeys probably lived about that long ago. The hominid line is only 5-10 million years old, probably closer to five than ten – Sahelanthropus tchadensis, discovered in Chad, was a 'near-hominid' that lived in those parts 6-7 million years ago.

Hominidae, by the way, is the primate family that includes chimps, gorillas and orang-utans as well as all the extinct varieties of genus Homo, and of course ourselves.

I don't know what you mean by 'Advanced Australopithecus', but the earliest Australopithecus fossils are about 4 million years old, and the latest about 2 million years old. The earliest examples of the genus Homo date back about 2.4 million years.

Australopithecines walked upright, by the way. Homo erectus was by no means the first hominid to do so. Also Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis were very different species; the first was enormously successful, evolving in Africa about 1.8 million years ago and spreading through the Middle East and Asia. The species survived until about 70,000 years ago, when it died out, probably in the Mt. Toba catastrophe. Neanderthals originated much later, only about 400,000 years ago, and lasted until about 30,000 years ago.

Homo sapiens originated in Africa about 250,000 years ago. The immediate ancestral species is not known. The trends in tool development and skull expansion of which you speak may have begun about this time, not 800 to 700 thousand years ago as you state, but their effect was more pronounced later on. The oldest Cro-Magnon (a type of H. sapiens) fossils are only about 35,000 years old.


This quantum leap in the hominid intelligence is not in line with the evolution of the Homo erectus. In other words, cavemen did not create advanced knowledge and technology out of thin air. Going at the original rate of evolution, mankind should still, in 2012, be in its Cro-Magnon stage.

These statements appear to be plucked out of thin air. What does 'not in line with' mean? Homo erectus had fire, stone tools and possibly language. There is plenty of evidence for the evolving refinement of Stone Age technologies, so early man certainly did not acquire technology full-blown, out of thin air – he developed it the hard way. And what genius decided which stage evolution should have reached by 2012? No reputable evolutionary biologist or palaeontologist would ever make a statement like that.


As the notable anthropologists and author Zechariah Sitchin suggested...

I do not believe this person is an anthropologist, or indeed, any kind of scientist. I understand he has a degree in economics and writes books for a living.

edit on 14/1/12 by Astyanax because: of some necessary corrections.



I shall entertain the firm belief that this thread is about to get amusing...



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Just read through the whole thread here, seems it was derailed almost the whole time, but entertaining at least.

In response to the OP:

What place does "multiculturalism" have in today's world? No matter where a person is located, they want to eat, sleep, have shelter, be entertained, and be loved.

Why do people insist on clinging to their past "cultures?" I was born in America; I am of Irish, Germanic, and Native American descent, as far as I know. Do I waste time trying to be Irish, Germanic, or Native? No. Why would I? We're all here, now, as Americans, working, eating, sleeping, entertaining, and loving/being loved.

To any other white men that are espousing their culture, please define for me what your culture is, exactly...



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   


Mr1alphaalpha:
So you are openly and blatantly supporting anti-White policies that promote White genocide" because of the acts of your ancestors."

I find it funny how mentally incapable the two of you (yourself and Roderick) are at trying to make your point without putting unsaid words into the mouths of other people. There are quite a few examples in this single post, and it's pretty sad. The fact that you have completely refused to acknowledge this shows that you are less about having a logical discussion than you are about projecting your views (assumptions) of other people's motives to the world, even when there isn't a shred of evidence for it. Many times in this thread, I have said not that I support this 'white genocide' that you speak of. I have simply acknowledged the reason why these places have become melting pots. Anything beyond that falls into the category of "your delusion", which seems to be a recurring theme, here.



Mr1alphaalpha:

You claim that's why White people of today in EVERY White country don't have a vote to stop mass immigration? How does Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Iceland, Finland, Poland etc. fit into your model? That is anti-White thinking to the extreme.

And another example of the human brain in the throes of failure. Not once did I say EVERY WHITE COUNTRY doesn't have a vote to stop mass immigration. I said that This Region (AMERICA) and Others (WHICH DOES NOT MEAN 'EVERY') has forfeited the right to make those decisions. This is a child's logic, to the extreme, and you should feel a certain level of intellectual shame for being so continuously guilty of it.



Mr1alphaalpha:

As i said BEFORE...

Sure. Let's touch on this. I've already explained how most Japanese slaves were indigenous Japanese. Scores of an entire outside culture weren't brought in and forced to call Japan their home, so logic would dictate that - once slavery was abolished - Japan would not have had the same 'problem' that, say, America had, where you had this whole other race that was now Already Inhabiting the area. That one, right off the bat, is a horrible analogy.

As far as the others, I'm still confused on WHO, exactly, is making these 'demands' you keep speaking of? Fringe activist groups? The ACLU? Organizations like that? When you say, for instance, that 'nobody' says the Muslim countries need to accept and integrate with millions of non-muslims...who exactly are you proposing would be saying this? What specific groups, affected by what is happening in those Muslim countries would demand such a thing?

You are comparing two completely different cultures, lifestyles and economies, over a single issue that one can just 'barely' say they have in common, and you are making the paranoid conclusion that it's all about the systematic genocide of your race. America has long been billed as a 'free and accepting nation', where anybody is welcome to live. There was no problem with this, when slavery was abolished, and the only reason you have one with it, now, is because you feel like 'your land' is being invaded, simply because of the numbers of immigrants coming into this country. This country was founded on immigration (following the actual invasion, of course). On top of this, it happens to be a land of great opportunity for people to make a living, as opposed to many underdeveloped countries where the immigrants are coming from:



Wikipedia:

Starting in the 1970s, the Black population has been bolstered by a growing West Indian American sub-group with origins in Jamaica, Haiti, Trinidad and Tobago, and Barbados, et al. This community was 2.5 million strong in 2008.[22]

More recently, starting in the 1990s, there has been an influx of Sub-Saharan African immigrants to the United States, due to the instability in political and economic opportunities in various nations in Africa.[citation needed] They are outnumbered by their U.S-born descendants, and together they composed an estimated 2.9 million in 2008.[23]

en.wikipedia.org...


So, of course, anyone with half a brain would know that the influx of people would be greater than the opposite. The more people enter than leave, and the more those accumulative people start to reproduce faster than the indigenous (can we even call the white people of America 'indigenous'?) the more those mixtures are going to thin out the race that was already there. You would need an enormous influx of whites to balance out the scales again. Where would they come from? Other sufficiently-developed countries? Why? Of course there are still some of them coming from poorer countries, but on what scale? As many as those that might be of different color, from many other countries that are less well off? That wouldn't make a lot of sense, would it?

edit on 14-1-2012 by Oneiros247 because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-1-2012 by Oneiros247 because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-1-2012 by Oneiros247 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   
[CONT]



Mr1alphaalpha:

You anti-Whites really are evil pieces of work.

After this post, I believe I'm going to stop entertaining your idiocy. The fact that you must lace every post you write with this ridiculous and insulting assertion proves to me, and I believe everyone else who's reading (aside from maybe one other "white and normal" poster), just how juvenille your mind actually is. There is really no point in debating with someone who has the resolve of an 8 year old.



Mr1alphaalpha:

You know fine well that i was posting UN Definition to preempt attempts by yourself and other anti-Whites to continue with the "ohhh its not genocide unless people are being blown up and shoot" line.


Once again: arguing against something I never said. Do you hear voices? I mean seriously. Your logical failures are so blatant that they seem deliberate.



Mr1alphaalpha:

If ALL and ONLY Black countries in 1965 opened the borders and let hundreds of millions of non-Blacks into their countries. Then people in government/media tried to assimilate these non-Blacks into the Black population, and then 90 years later, Blacks are expected to be minorities in those countries; that’s not done by accident. Would you agree this is genocide?

No. By opening their borders, and repeating the mantra of citizen and equality for those other races, I would think of it as simply the natural progression of said melting pot. Though assimilation is being encouraged, no one is being forced to assimilate. Not the blacks. Not the whites. No one. Period.

Due to your belligerent bull# and attempts at assigning me degrading labels that are completely unfounded, I think we're done here. You can go back to provoking others with that trollish crap, because I see right through that big, illogical wall you've built around you.
edit on 14-1-2012 by Oneiros247 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
I feel that this song is quite adequate for the topic at hand. I hope you all enjoy.
This is off of my favorite album of all time.

www.youtube.com...

Star me if you digg it



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by kimish
I feel that this song is quite adequate for the topic at hand. I hope you all enjoy.
This is off of my favorite album of all time.

www.youtube.com...

Star me if you digg it


Starred. Lol.

I'll see your STP, and raise you a little Sevendust:
www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Oneiros247
 


Star for you my ethnic brother! lol. I call all my non white friends my ethnic brother


Peace.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
What you described is racialism and self - determination. I am not sure what your political persuasion is but in my lonely camp of 'Alt Right' Paleoconservatism this is what we believe and get hammered for being racists because we come out and say it. We have tried to explain it the best way possible but always get slapped down with the racism card, which is unfortunate. But you have explained it better than anyone I have ever met and if I could give you a giant hug to thank you, that still would not show my appreciation and gratitude.

People, we are racialists and not racists. We do not hold our views out of hate towards others but love towards our people. Just as you would want to see your family name carry on into the future so too would we want to see our ethnicity and race, centered around a particular culture, carry onward into the future. I do not think this is too much to ask for. There is no beauty in this world if we are all one color and one culture united around consumerism, materialism, and subservient to the global masters who are dragging us into this frightening situation.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
I'm still confused, I thought "Racism" mean this:



rac·ism/ˈrāˌsizəm/
Noun:
The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as...
Prejudice or discrimination directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief.


So, are we actually talking about this concept or are we discussing something different? The OP makes little sense to me considering what the word actually means.

It's all a crapshot anyway, you can't stop human evolution. Humans are going to get horizontal. You want more white people tell em to get busy in the bedroom otherwise well, their population will keep getting smaller. It's not some grand conspiracy. When you get educated and have a bit of money and freedom you aren't likely to want to have kids right away. Most white women have kids late if they even have them these days. Close to 40 is becoming normal for a first child. Heck, I was 28 when I had my son (not really one for the white race though as I'm not fully white, his dad is though). Cultures are born, they die it's just the way things go.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


Ok, i get all this-But how do you accomplish it? What do you suggest be done to preserve "cultural" heritage?



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Oneiros247
 


Where do i begin with your reponses. You have typed so much anti-White venom i can't even quote you as it exceeds the word limit LOL

1. You are textbook. You clam you do not support White genocide but then post multiple lengthy responses that time and time again castigate the White race for all evils in history and use that as support for polices that have White countries and only White countries flooded with other races. Granted you have back tracked some what and now claim it is only in America you support this. So what you are saying now is you DO think Ireland, Germany, England, Sweden, Italy, Spain, Scotland, Wales, Denmark and so on HAVE the right to remain homogenous? Why not America? The slave trade? Okay so what about all the Arab countries? As i said Blacks sold other Blacks to Arabs. Using your logic all Arab countries should be made more "diverse" right? In fact lets not forget the White race was the first race to abolish the slave trade. If we are going to "punish" anyone in 2012 for something from the 1800s in seems like the Arabs are the ones who should have "forfeited the right to make those decision?" Agree? I am using your logic here. Thats what you said about White Americans. How about Israel? Slavery is legal there. Have the Jews "forfeited the right to make." decisions now? That place could do with some diversity. Support that? I am just using your logic so i can't see how you can say no.

2. Nice attempt at shifting the focus in regards to Japan. I clearly said Japan has a horrendous COLONIAL history.

3. Who is making these demands? Thats quite a stupid question. Leaders in every White country are making these demands. We are told time and time again we need these non White immigrants for "the economy "to do jobs we won't do" "to pay our pensions" "for diversity" and all the other code words for genocide. On top of that anti-Whites like YOU demand this. If anyone dares speak out against it they are smeared a nazithatwantstokillsixmillionjews. Thats control. Thats a demand. Someone only has to read your responses to figure that out.

4. Who am i proposing should say that Muslim countries should be flooded with other races? Well you anti-racists are all for equality right. Everything being equal anti-racists should be pointing out Muslim countries need to be more diverse. Their government should be pointing out they need multiculturalism. But they aren't are they? Anti-racists never mention this Why? Simple- because they are NOT White countries. They are ALREADY 100% diverse!

5. American was FOUNDED by White Europeans. Immigration polices were set to keep it a White majority. It was NOT until the 1965 immigration reform that Whites were browbeaten to change this policy. Anti-racism kicked and screamed it was "racist." to favour White people in a country founded by White people. In 1960 America was 89%. You work out the rest buddy. This same trick is being used in EVERY White country. They are all set to become minority White within a few generations.

This doesn't happen by accident. It IS genocide.

As i keep saying you prove again and again anti-racism is a code word for anti-White



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


There are many non – violent ways of doing so. First of all we must end mass immigration, not all immigration, just dramatically cut it from where it is now. Second is to institute a system of voluntary repatriation of people to their homeland or the homeland of a recent family member (2nd or 3rd generation). Third would be to immediately end the attempt at multiculturalism and admit it to be a failure; remove it from the education curriculum, from political beliefs, etc… Fourth would be to remove the pressure that has been placed upon Westerners about their own cultural history, quit demonizing it and treat it as a respectable cultural tradition worthy of preservation and admiration.

This is already beginning in Hungary, it is baby steps, but nevertheless they are beginning to throw out the cultural disease which began in the 20th century. Removing social taboos from talking about racial differences, cultural differences, love of one’s nation and heritage, and about the spiritual bond that has held the West together for centuries. This is more a transformation of the culture and people rather than a political one so we cannot really look to government to change this, we must look towards ourselves, our neighbors, our media, and the other core influences on our societies.

It must be known again that being a proud German or Frenchman or Swede does not mean one wants to kill Jews, Muslims, or hates anyone else, it means you love who you are and this is not something to be demonized. I try every day to convince people of this, often it sticks but sometimes I get called a racist bigot; that will not stop me though, this fight is far too important for me to worry about my emotions. This is about whether or not my (Hungarian / European / American) people can live far into the future as a unique people on this Earth. Much like Enoch Powell, people asked what gives me the right to say these things, well; I do not have the right not to say them.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
I was reading the title of the thread, and realize...

Racism is not evil. Not exactly. If you were to define evil...exactly. There is no precise definition of evil that everyone agrees upon.

And it IS natural. Racism is the result of the survival mechanism of keeping everything pure anc clean, and not allowing threats from "other packs"...you will see this with wolves. Wolves will regard members of other packs with suspicions, and make it clear that they are not "one of them."

Racism is neither evil nor unnatural. But it is as dangerous as a gun, which is also neither evil nor "unnatural". It simply has bad uses, just like racism.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23
Racism is neither evil nor unnatural. But it is as dangerous as a gun, which is also neither evil nor "unnatural". It simply has bad uses, just like racism.


I love that analogy! Racism (which I do not personally support) is like a gun in that it is meant for protection, of your specific people, but much like a gun can be used for evil ends (genocide, persecution).



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


I have some issues with this-What is to be done with mixed race people? Secondly, how do you guard against certain genetic diseases? These are likely to become more prevalent when you start breeding in a smaller gene pool.

And you mention Hungary, that's not a race, it's a nationality.
edit on 14-1-2012 by antonia because: forgot something



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   
The "friends of humanity" so-called "anti-racists" are pushing the same tired old Lysenkoist BS they do elsewhere.

Fact: So-called "anti-racists" are only pushing mass non-white immigration and "assimilation" for white countries in the name of so-called "anti-racism".

Fact: Targeting a group for demographic elimination by ANY MEANS is genocide under international law:

Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group

Some examples of famous so-called "anti-racist" speech:

Jose Angel Gutierrez,"Civil rights leader": “We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the
worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him.”

Kamau Kambon,Africana Studies teacher:"We need to exterminate white people off the face of the planet"

Noel Ignatiev,Harvard professor:"Keep bashing the dead white males,and the live ones,and the females too,until the social construct known as the White race is destroyed.Not deconstructed,but destroyed"

Susan Sontag:"Whites are the cancer of history".

These are all Establishment-approved so-called "anti-racist" people.Do I really need to say more?


Anti-racist is OBVIOUSLY a code word for anti-white.





new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 20  21  22    24  25 >>

log in

join