It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I merely pointed out there are differences between groups.
Originally posted by poloblack
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.
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.
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!
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.
Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by poloblack
You are not an English major are you? Try re-reading my post there slick.
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?
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!
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.
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.
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?
Originally posted by kimish
And how does that make me believe in eugenics?
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