Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Extermination of the white race

page: 14
21
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Jerk_Idiot
 


That post is certainly more clear although I would wager that the people posting racist comments toward revenges and petty ends is in the minority. Can you prove otherwise? In general I agree with what you said though.




posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


They were corrupt, Islamic anti-modernists. While I do not necessarily see them as ‘horribly evil’ I am no supporter of their actions either. Brutally attacking women and children, using scorched earth policies against their country, and blowing up the Buddhist statues were abhorrent. So you cannot really compare my thoughts to that of the Taliban. I agree with T. S. Eliot, Joseph de Maistre, and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, not Osama bin Laden and Sami ul Haq.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by Misoir

Is it fear of change? Change is necessary, change always happens. To fear change is like fearing a cold breeze marking the start of autumn. It is irrational. But opposing 'change for change’s sake' is not irrational nor is it irrational to want change directed towards proper ends. The fact is that politically and religiously I am a Reactionary. I do not believe in racial equality or even equality within the same race or in areas that do not pertain to race. Just as I reject democracy, secularism, globalization, capitalism, and feminism. Hierarchy, tradition, organic unity, and classicism are my beliefs. But then, I guess, that all stems from my irrational fear as well.


That sounds like something someone from the Taliban would say.


Agreed... they always try to rationalize it though.

No... "opposing change for change's sake" is not irrational but opposing change that is inevitable and natural is.

Anyone who knows anything about the history of humanity understands that differences in skin color, hair type, and physical appearance are merely evolutionary responses to climate and geographical conditions.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Jerk_Idiot
 


kimish, and the jerk_idiot and many other



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 


Fear of what exactly? Am I afraid of Black people because they are Black? Do you think I tremble every time a Black person walks by me, thinking he will mug me? That would be ridiculous. Statistically while Blacks represent a disproportionate share of the crime in this country they are not all thieves, rapists, or whatever. Just like not all Asians are good at math. Nor are all Arabs walking around with a suicide vest on. Perhaps some people believe that but not me.

Is it fear of change? Change is necessary, change always happens. To fear change is like fearing a cold breeze marking the start of autumn. It is irrational. But opposing 'change for change’s sake' is not irrational nor is it irrational to want change directed towards proper ends. The fact is that politically and religiously I am a Reactionary. I do not believe in racial equality or even equality within the same race or in areas that do not pertain to race. Just as I reject democracy, secularism, globalization, capitalism, and feminism. Hierarchy, tradition, organic unity, and classicism are my beliefs. But then, I guess, that all stems from my irrational fear as well.
MOST black people are not thieves, etc., and MOST Arabs are not strapped with suicide vests. And as far as Asians are concerned,the term Asian is VERY broad, gotta be more specific than that, slick.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by poloblack
 


You are not an English major are you? Try re-reading my post there slick.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


They were corrupt, Islamic anti-modernists. While I do not necessarily see them as ‘horribly evil’ I am no supporter of their actions either. Brutally attacking women and children, using scorched earth policies against their country, and blowing up the Buddhist statues were abhorrent. So you cannot really compare my thoughts to that of the Taliban. I agree with T. S. Eliot, Joseph de Maistre, and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, not Osama bin Laden and Sami ul Haq.


Well, you have some things in common with them. All the things you said you reject are the very things they reject as well.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Well i guess British empire of 300-500 years of occupation in many countries would be conditioning to hate.

I guess people will merge with Korean or Japan cultures as well, if they occupy some countries for centuries.

Just looking at history.


Well yes it is a vicious cycle, there is nothing new, mankind has been suppressing mankind since the beginning and within its own cultures,

NA kidnapped slaves from warring tribes.

There is the cast system in India, and it still exist.

But I do think Europeans were interbreeding with the NA way before Columbus, on another forum we did a comparison of Native American, Europeans, Hawaiians and Polynesians, many distinct similarities.
edit on 033030p://bWednesday2012 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by AKINOFTHEFIRSSTARS
 


(continued)

It is an accepted fact. You just refuse to see through the veil of pride which has nothing to do with me nor does it change the fact. Facts do not require your belief for their existence.





I merely pointed out there are differences between groups.


I did the same, somewhat. I merely pointed out the differences between the human family. There aren't any groups. If race was legitimate, just for sake of the thread I will make an example, there would about 2 dozen of races that would fit the modern description of the so-called black race. About 9 different races would be found in Africa. But since it is a erroneous, out-dated, and false system which groups people by skin color it has no value or purpose on planet Earth. It is simply inaccurate and not based on science.

Peace and Blessing to all.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by poloblack

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 


Fear of what exactly? Am I afraid of Black people because they are Black? Do you think I tremble every time a Black person walks by me, thinking he will mug me? That would be ridiculous. Statistically while Blacks represent a disproportionate share of the crime in this country they are not all thieves, rapists, or whatever. Just like not all Asians are good at math. Nor are all Arabs walking around with a suicide vest on. Perhaps some people believe that but not me.

Is it fear of change? Change is necessary, change always happens. To fear change is like fearing a cold breeze marking the start of autumn. It is irrational. But opposing 'change for change’s sake' is not irrational nor is it irrational to want change directed towards proper ends. The fact is that politically and religiously I am a Reactionary. I do not believe in racial equality or even equality within the same race or in areas that do not pertain to race. Just as I reject democracy, secularism, globalization, capitalism, and feminism. Hierarchy, tradition, organic unity, and classicism are my beliefs. But then, I guess, that all stems from my irrational fear as well.
MOST black people are not thieves, etc., and MOST Arabs are not strapped with suicide vests. And as far as Asians are concerned,the term Asian is VERY broad, gotta be more specific than that, slick.


Nah... he's perfectly happy to label groups of people based upon skin color or country of origin. He's never met a "man" and he feels that each "class" of people should remain in their own little group and those groups should never ever interact to produce offspring. That would really screw with his head because that offspring could not be so easily classified into one of his neat and tidy little groups!
edit on 28-11-2012 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 





Nah... he's perfectly happy to label groups of people based upon skin color or country of origin. He's never met a "man" and he feels that each "class" of people should remain in their own little group and those groups should never ever interact to produce offspring. That would really screw with his head because that offspring could not be so easily classified into one of his neat and tidy little groups!


are you kidding?



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by poloblack
 


You are not an English major are you? Try re-reading my post there slick.
I read and understand english quite well, and I've been out of college since '92, so I don't need schooling from the likes of you. My past posts reflect that, SLICK. Anyway, the point is you said ''not all'', not, ''most'', as if you were implying that a small percentage of said races didn't indulge in the type of activities you described, but most do. There. Capisce?? And the term ''Asian'' doesn't narrow anything down. Chinese people are Asian, so are the Japanese, and many others. Hope you catch my drift.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 





Nah... he's perfectly happy to label groups of people based upon skin color or country of origin. He's never met a "man" and he feels that each "class" of people should remain in their own little group and those groups should never ever interact to produce offspring. That would really screw with his head because that offspring could not be so easily classified into one of his neat and tidy little groups!


are you kidding?



Nope... from my perspective Misoir and the OP are operating under the false pretense that there is a reference human type that all others deviate from; a so called "core type". Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no "core type" in modern humanity, and if there ever was one it probably originated in Africa.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
Nah... he's perfectly happy to label groups of people based upon skin color or country of origin. He's never met a "man" and he feels that each "class" of people should remain in their own little group and those groups should never ever interact to produce offspring. That would really screw with his head because that offspring could not be so easily classified into one of his neat and tidy little groups!


People have always ascended and descended the social ladder. That is quite simplistic to claim I do not believe such a thing possible. And it would not screw with my head to see someone of two different castes produce a child. Naturally the child would belong to the father’s caste, as would the wife after marriage. Those lacking a caste are called pariahs; people rejected by society. With each passing day in the Modern world it only reinforces the wisdom of that societal formation.

"In a superior civilization, as, for example, that of the Indo-Aryans, the being who is without a characteristic form or caste... would emerge as a pariah. In this respect America is a society of pariahs. There is a role for pariahs. It is to be subjected to beings whose form and internal laws are precisely defined. Instead the modern pariahs seek to become dominant themselves and to exercise their dominion over all the world." ~ Julius Evola



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by AKINOFTHEFIRSSTARS

First of all its genocide. Secondly you can NOT really believe that this goes on in Africa because it doesn't. People on the continent of Africa DID NOT and has never systematically deprived anyone because of race, or skin color. Period.




Of course not, it's all puppy dogs and rainbows in Africa. The Boer Genocide is happening though, but that doesn't count because white people are expendable.





posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by kimish


You're wrong, biologist label us as one race because otherwise they'd be labeled racist. Race is a biological construct, not social. Science proves this over and over again through various traits. But to discuss those differences is a taboo subject, as you can tell by this thread.



Negative ghost rider. Same race. Every species has distinct traits that differentiate. Still the same species. Race is a sociological construct, not biological.


Originally posted by kimish

If there is only one race, which would mean that race is a social construct, why then can the "race" of an individual be determined by skeletal remains?



You answered this. Traits.


Originally posted by kimish

And how does that make me believe in eugenics?


Uh, because eugenics introduced the philosophy that homo sapiens are not all the same species. If the basis of your beliefs are corner stoned by eugenics then that is what is making you believe what you believe. It is the first filter you apply.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
Nah... he's perfectly happy to label groups of people based upon skin color or country of origin. He's never met a "man" and he feels that each "class" of people should remain in their own little group and those groups should never ever interact to produce offspring. That would really screw with his head because that offspring could not be so easily classified into one of his neat and tidy little groups!


People have always ascended and descended the social ladder. That is quite simplistic to claim I do not believe such a thing possible. And it would not screw with my head to see someone of two different castes produce a child. Naturally the child would belong to the father’s caste, as would the wife after marriage. Those lacking a caste are called pariahs; people rejected by society. With each passing day in the Modern world it only reinforces the wisdom of that societal formation.

"In a superior civilization, as, for example, that of the Indo-Aryans, the being who is without a characteristic form or caste... would emerge as a pariah. In this respect America is a society of pariahs. There is a role for pariahs. It is to be subjected to beings whose form and internal laws are precisely defined. Instead the modern pariahs seek to become dominant themselves and to exercise their dominion over all the world." ~ Julius Evola


*grin*

Well there you go...

Does not surprise me that you would quote a well known anti-semite...



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


What era do you live in? It is 2012.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Do you mean race = genus or race = species? (under could mean is or the next in this case).

If you mean Genus? Do you mean we are the same race as all of genus Homo?
If species? It would imply all Sapiens are the same race. Traditionally "race" (this is pre modern understanding of genetics) would be subspecies.

There is no such thing as race biologically, because one can not define what a race is, what exact features it has etc. In the end people usually mean ethnicity, when they say race, and that is a social construct.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by KentuckyMan
 


What colour were the first humans to leave Africa ?

I am a white Irishman ......... those Africans are my distant ancestors. ....... your ancestors too !





new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join