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

reply to post by VivaLaEvolution


I'm sorry but you are just being foolish and a bit anti-white.
I could find crimes committed by every single group or country on the planet.
But it's only white countries, white people and white children who are ever blamed for their ancesters crimes.
Then only white countries, white people and white children are ever demanded to accept massive non-white immigration and "mix together" until white children don't exist.
If this was happening to a different group...
It has happened to different groups and we recognize it as genocide.
Why is it not genocide when it happens to white children?
Why should I not condemn the genocide of white children?
Why don't you condemn the genocide of white children?

reply to post by CaticusMaximus


Who is better the birds or the bees? Bear or Buffalo?
Racism is natural but it is ignorant to think by virtue of race you are better than anyone else.
We are all different and like attracts like...but not always.
We are a conglomeration of species. If people can't handle that they should leave.

OP just epitomized the term "having an open dialogue". Your post is worthy of applause from our moderators in my opinion.

You wrote with precise finesse and honesty. There is nothing I can argue on your thoughts regarding color, culture and creed. It is natural to have a primal fear of those that are different than us. However, we need to learn to ask questions from those different than ourselves and understand others cultural backgrounds to overcome ignorance.

Obviously you can not please 100% of the people 100% of the time with what you post, but you did a great service in opening up this topic.

Bravo!

reply to post by Astyanax


I agree with your second point. Im just a little bitter at what I perceive as how far America has fallen in terms of its values over time I guess

Interesting thoughts.

I looked up the definition of racism. From Wikipedia we get The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race.

I was brought up to believe that racism is assigning specific attributes to a race..ie all white people are (fill in the blank)

However, I find myself living in a multicultural society but I'm not seeing people truly being race blind. I work at a University and when I walk around campus, I see Asian kids hanging out mostly with other Asians, I see Mideastern people mainly grouped with other Mideastern people etc.

I don't see the different groups of people mixing together like they are on TV... You do see some interactions between the groups and occasionally you see groups that are a little mixed but that doesn't seem to be the norm.

Just my observations.

wow, never read a more ignorant thread title.

when IN NATURE do you see homogenization?

the ONLY thing you see in nature is DIVERSITY.
THAT IS THE ONLY THING NATURE DOES.

every snowflake, every blade of grass, every stone, every hill, every mountain, every tree, every forest, every river, every lake, every ocean, every bird, every lizard, every mole, every eyeball, every deer, every stick, every lightning bolt, every raindrop, every iris, every rose, every daisy, every hair, every skin cell, every person, every star, every planet, every nebula, every black hole, EVERYTHING IS DIFFERENT, NOTHING IS REPEATED.

there is NO homogenization in nature.

you have to be pretty ignorant of nature to believe that it does anything other than create Bio Diversity.

you use the word "racism" in the exact same context in which you speak about in your OP.
I agree, the word racism has been molded to mean many things,,,,but this is only in the context of being used by ignorant people.

IF people simply used ACCURATE words then we would not have this problem.
"racism" is NOT 100% natural. "self preservation" IS 100% natural.

the use of the words "racism", and "homegenization" in the context of your thread title only further solidifies the idea that your OP functions to combat.

reply to post by CaticusMaximus


Why then has mankind for most of its history was not racist but really nationalist. Dutch Saxon wars? British and the Scots? British and the Irish? British and the French? British and the Spanish?

Only until the western big business elites started to spin propaganda 500 years ago to sell it to the suggestible masses that "savages" deserve to be imprisoned and worked against their will. Of course. Any tyrant would say that.

Kind of like al-quaeda and a global terrorist threat. Doesn't exist. But the elites staged false flag to create a infinite war.Problem Reaction solution--->appeal to authority--->Profit---->Repeat.

reply to post by metalshredmetal


And you would have to be pretty ignorent of history to think that flooding all White countries and only White countries with millions of non-Whites, and then demanding that everybody "mix together" until there are no more White children, is somehow an example of "bio-diversity." It's genocide.

No one is saying Black countries need more "bio-diversity" so lets flood all Black countries and only Black countries with millions of non-Blacks, and then demand that everybody "mix together" until there are no more Black children.

No one is saying Asian countries need more "bio-diversity" so lets flood all Asian countries and only Asian countries with millions of non-Asians, and then demand that everybody "mix together" until there are no more Asian children.

That would be genocide, not "bio-diversity."

"Diversity" is a codeword for less and less white people.

"Anti-racism" is a codeword for anti-white.

Originally posted by RoderickBateman
reply to post by metalshredmetal

 

And you would have to be pretty ignorent of history to think that flooding all White countries and only White countries with millions of non-Whites, and then demanding that everybody "mix together" until there are no more White children, is somehow an example of "bio-diversity." It's genocide.

No one is saying Black countries need more "bio-diversity" so lets flood all Black countries and only Black countries with millions of non-Blacks, and then demand that everybody "mix together" until there are no more Black children.

No one is saying Asian countries need more "bio-diversity" so lets flood all Asian countries and only Asian countries with millions of non-Asians, and then demand that everybody "mix together" until there are no more Asian children.

That would be genocide, not "bio-diversity."

"Diversity" is a codeword for less and less white people.

"Anti-racism" is a codeword for anti-white.

edit on 13-1-2012 by RoderickBateman because: (no reason given)

first of all, your post and my post cannot intermingle, because your post is speaking about humans and my post is speaking about nature.

it's no secret that us humans do not operate as we should be operating on the Earth. humans KILL anything in their path in order to get their way. this is not the way of nature.

human actions (which should be in harmony with nature, but is not) are distorted by our EGO.

your post is speaking to the effect of EGO distorted racial diversity.

if we could all get over our dumb EGOS and accept the fact that ALL other human beings on Earth are simply other versions of our self, we would not have the problems spoken about in your post.

instead our EGOS (motivated by FEAR) convince us that our well being ("well being" is also distorted by the EGO) is more important than any other human's well being, or any other animal's well being, or any other eco-system's well being, or any other natural resource's well being, or any planet's well being.

we're obviously killing the very planet that gave us life, this is the perfect example of how Human actions are NOT the same as Nature's actions.

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
reply to post by CaticusMaximus

 

Why then has mankind for most of its history was not racist but really nationalist. Dutch Saxon wars? British and the Scots? British and the Irish? British and the French? British and the Spanish?

Only until the western big business elites started to spin propaganda 500 years ago to sell it to the suggestible masses that "savages" deserve to be imprisoned and worked against their will. Of course. Any tyrant would say that.

Kind of like al-quaeda and a global terrorist threat. Doesn't exist. But the elites staged false flag to create a infinite war.Problem Reaction solution--->appeal to authority--->Profit---->Repeat.

edit on 13-1-2012 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: (no reason given)

A lot of people are misunderstanding how Ive used the term "racist" in my OP. I put it sometimes in quotes, and sometimes not in quotes, for a reason.

Literally the first sentence in the OP past the bracketed one: " "Racism" is a word kicked around a lot, that has expanded to mean just about anything that supports the preservation of a cultural identity at the exclusion of homogenizing it with another, some cultures more susceptible to branding than others", explains that "racist" has now connotations meaning... well, what I said, which includes national identity, as that is a part of cultural identity as well.

reply to post by CaticusMaximus

Every unique race, culture, and every peoples histories is worthy of preservation.

That is a ridiculous assessment.

No culture (or galaxy for that matter) can last forever...change is the universal law.
Culture is the result of change, of things learned and worth remembering.

That's like saying we must keep every species of animal alive, when they are just going to evolve anyway.

reply to post by metalshredmetal


I think you are misunderstanding me. I am anti-homogenization. I agree that nature is diversified. Read post www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by CaticusMaximus

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
reply to post by CaticusMaximus

 

Why then has mankind for most of its history was not racist but really nationalist. Dutch Saxon wars? British and the Scots? British and the Irish? British and the French? British and the Spanish?

Only until the western big business elites started to spin propaganda 500 years ago to sell it to the suggestible masses that "savages" deserve to be imprisoned and worked against their will. Of course. Any tyrant would say that.

Kind of like al-quaeda and a global terrorist threat. Doesn't exist. But the elites staged false flag to create a infinite war.Problem Reaction solution--->appeal to authority--->Profit---->Repeat.

edit on 13-1-2012 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: (no reason given)

A lot of people are misunderstanding how Ive used the term "racist" in my OP. I put it sometimes in quotes, and sometimes not in quotes, for a reason.

Literally the first sentence in the OP past the bracketed one: " "Racism" is a word kicked around a lot, that has expanded to mean just about anything that supports the preservation of a cultural identity at the exclusion of homogenizing it with another, some cultures more susceptible to branding than others", explains that "racist" has now connotations meaning... well, what I said, which includes national identity, as that is a part of cultural identity as well.

i completely understand where you're coming from in this post, and i agree.

words only represent their definitions. words are only symbols.

but it doesn't do ANY good to further use the word "racism" with INACCURATE definitions.

Racism means one thing, self preservation means something different, cultural identity means something different, national identity means something different, these all have different definitions, no?

when you use the word "racism" to MEAN a different thing other than "racism", you're putting yourself into the same erroneous crowd that you speak of in the OP.

you can't expect people to KNOW what you MEAN when you USE a word that MEANS something different.

it's not that hard to hit a few more keystrokes and make a more ACCURATE word.

actually, this is how language evolves, through the use of metaphors. the use of metaphors also implies that the human mind is comprehending some things that don't have a tangible definition or word to represent the definition.

this is further reason why using correct words according to their definition is so important.if you are not using words according to their definition, than you have only yourself to blame for having no higher vocabulary.

my point is: when constructing a sentence, humans do not MEAN what the word IS, they MEAN what the word MEANS. if you are ignorant of what words MEAN, then you start using words INCORRECTLY, like "racism". then you are speaking erroneously.

reply to post by CaticusMaximus

Multicultural society's do not work, they all live side by side but do not integrate with each other S&F.

i'm part of the human species. my ethnicity is "white".

the way i see it is we all are part of the human race.

we have different cultures. we have different personalities. i prefer to hang around like minded people whether they have a different color skin or not. i can retain my "culture" even if i happen to want to hang out with someone of another culture who has similar likes and dislikes as me. if that person wants to display their culture in front of me i don't care. i'd probably find it interesting.

can't we all just get along? at least all the ones who are nice. i don't really care to attempt to get along with narcissistic a-holes.

Originally posted by RoderickBateman
reply to post by metalshredmetal

 

And you would have to be pretty ignorent of history to think that flooding all White countries and only White countries with millions of non-Whites, and then demanding that everybody "mix together" until there are no more White children, is somehow an example of "bio-diversity." It's genocide.

No one is saying Black countries need more "bio-diversity" so lets flood all Black countries and only Black countries with millions of non-Blacks, and then demand that everybody "mix together" until there are no more Black children.

No one is saying Asian countries need more "bio-diversity" so lets flood all Asian countries and only Asian countries with millions of non-Asians, and then demand that everybody "mix together" until there are no more Asian children.

That would be genocide, not "bio-diversity."

"Diversity" is a codeword for less and less white people.

"Anti-racism" is a codeword for anti-white.

edit on 13-1-2012 by RoderickBateman because: (no reason given)

You are supremely ignorant about factors such as economics. Of course no one is wanting a bunch of non-black people to go to Africa - Africa is a very poor place and people from Africa try to leave to go to places that are better to live. Same with Latin Americans going to the US. It has less to do with race and more to do with economics.

Of course, I also think you are supremely ignorant about world history, as much as you like to pretend you know it to support your own agenda. Do you know why life is so much harder in Latin America and Africa than it is in Europe and the United States? It's because of Europe's colonialist past, which invaded Africa and turned millions of people into slaves. Europe also stole millions of Africans and transported them across the Atlantic to be slaves in the colonies that are now Haiti, the Dominican Republic, etc. These initial colonies, built by Europe, were founded on inequality. Therefore, their systems were based on keeping the rich in those countries, the slave owners, richer, and the poor people, the slaves, as slaves. The south of the US exhibited these traits as well, but the Northern US and Canada were able to exhibit major economic growth for the whole population because of their lack of slavery. Because all the people were free, those people wanted to enact policies that would help everyone, not just policies that would help the richest of the rich who owned everyone else.

So, the moral of that story is that nowadays, the US and Canada are great places to live, but Latin America and Africa, which were heavily colonized, were founded on systems of inequality that stymied economic growth for the country itself. But, as a rich person in one of those countries did not need economic growth for their entire country, why would they care if so many people are poor?

So those are the issues that are facing the world that you are so simply labeling as "black places" and "Asian places" and "white places". When someone immigrates from a "black place" to a "white place" it's not because some silly 14 year old liberal wants to create the perfect caramel tone and homogenize the planet. Honestly, it's not even possible - we are so spread out across the globe at this point that even if we were all the same color (as we originally were) we'd all turn darker or lighter depending on where we are. It's about economic growth and the desire to create a better life for their families, a desire that is pushed by the fact that European countries have screwed over the rest of the world for their own benefit.

But you will say, "that is the past, who cares? I don't own slaves." Uh, yeah, you do. All of your luxuries are based upon the slave system that Europe thrived upon 4-500 years ago. All of those inequalities I was talking about? They ensure that Starbucks and Wal-Mart can go to these countries and hire people for next-to-nothing to make your coffee and bananas and cotton. The reason that immigrants are coming to "mess up your cultural heritage" is because their families are going to die if they don't leave their own country. The reason the Western world is so great and comfortable while the rest of the world is in poverty is not because those people don't know how to use their resources industriously or because they are stupid; it is because in those countries, the rich, European slave owners' ancestors know how to keep the arcane policies in place that enable them to stay rich while everyone else gets poorer; they know how to prevent public education from becoming a reality; and we in the comfortable countries know that if we just say nothing, our lives will rock, while others will continue to be subjugated as they have been being subjugated for hundreds of years.

reply to post by metalshredmetal


I think you have a little bit of a distorted view on nature.
I could show you examples of lions eating the cubs of other lions because they were not his.
I could show you examples of wolves excluding other wolves from joining their pack.
Nature is not about holding hands, and singing songs under a rainbow.
It's about kill or be killed.
A wolf mother has to kill a deer to feed its pups
The deer has to get away so it can teech its child that it needs to get away.
There is no middle ground in nature.
There is no "caring about others over yourself."
To do that is to lay down infront of a wolf and its pups and let them eat you.
Which is insanity.
It's also insanity to demand the wolf not try and feed it's children by any means necissary.
That is what nature is.
It is cold, it is harsh and it is brutal.

In the human world, we have things called laws that demand co-existance and harmony.
Sometimes they need to be adjusted.
Sometimes they are just plain wrong.
And sometimes they need to be enforced.

Flooding all white countries and only white countries with millions of non-whites and demanding that everyone "mix together" is not co-existance or harmony. It is genocide. And there are laws against it that need to be enforced. These "anti-racists" are demanding the genocide of white children. It is evil. "Anti-racism" is a codeword for anti-white.

reply to post by SplitInfinity


Years ago I caught hell over an editorial I had written about Live Aid. I said there was a good chance that local warlords in Ethiopia would either steal the food sent to help the starving and trade it for weapons or to use it as bait to bring the people in to camps were they might be slaughtered.
Judging by reactions you would think I was Hitler reincarnate.
Sadly you know the real history of what happens to much of what we call "humanitarian aid".
Good intentions are not enough if you don't allow for the political realities.

reply to post by spacekc929


It sounds to me like all you're doing here is justifying the genocide of white children.
"FOR THE ECONOMY!!!"
"FOR JUSTICE!!!"
"FOR EQUALITY!!!"

Nothing justifies genocide.
By doing so you are just proving that you are anti-white.
That you want the genocide of white children.
Your "anti-racism" is just a codeword for anti-white.

Originally posted by RoderickBateman
reply to post by metalshredmetal

 

I think you have a little bit of a distorted view on nature.
I could show you examples of lions eating the cubs of other lions because they were not his.
I could show you examples of wolves excluding other wolves from joining their pack.
Nature is not about holding hands, and singing songs under a rainbow.
It's about kill or be killed.
A wolf mother has to kill a deer to feed its pups
The deer has to get away so it can teech its child that it needs to get away.
There is no middle ground in nature.
There is no "caring about others over yourself."
To do that is to lay down infront of a wolf and its pups and let them eat you.
Which is insanity.
It's also insanity to demand the wolf not try and feed it's children by any means necissary.
That is what nature is.
It is cold, it is harsh and it is brutal.

In the human world, we have things called laws that demand co-existance and harmony.
Sometimes they need to be adjusted.
Sometimes they are just plain wrong.
And sometimes they need to be enforced.

Flooding all white countries and only white countries with millions of non-whites and demanding that everyone "mix together" is not co-existance or harmony. It is genocide. And there are laws against it that need to be enforced. These "anti-racists" are demanding the genocide of white children. It is evil. "Anti-racism" is a codeword for anti-white.

firstly, i NEVER said a thing about "flooding other countries with whites" or any of that nonsense. you are referring to another member's post.

secondly, i NEVER said a thing about nature being about "holding hands" or that Killing is not found in nature.

i agree with your general points, but you're speaking about animal instincts on a small scale of individualism.
i was speaking about species on a scale of planetary.

of course it's normal for animals to hunt other animals....
but this does NOT happen to the point of species extinction, which is what humans do.

animals only hunt other animals because they require food. in the presence of an inexhaustible food source, you'll find that animals tend to eat and kill each other a lot less.

it's not hard to find these examples.




nearly all of these cases include "domesticated" animals, which implies that their food source is provided by humans. now all us humans need is some "spiritual domestication" in order to shed our EGOS and live like we are completely capable of: unity through diversity.

yet, us humans in the USA have a (virtually) inexhaustible food source, and we still kill every other human, species, and ecosystem that gets in our way of "getting what we want". ... thanks to EGO, yet again.