Is Race Replacement Acceptable?

Originally posted by UngoodWatermelon
You're quite right - I'll say exactly that. When a set of characteristics are neither unique to a nation nor universal amongst its people I find it very hard to accept it as that nation's 'culture'.

Then by your definition no country in the world has a unique culture.

Originally posted by UngoodWatermelon
As for the rest of your post, it glorifies a rural existence from a bygone era which as a city resident I simply don't identify with. If that's "Englishness", you can keep it.

And we will - increasing numbers of us will be fighting to preserve it until millions of (non-existent) English men and women are asserting their (non-existent) culture and demanding that you have some respect for it.

It was not part of their blood,
It came to them very late,
With long arrears to make good,
When the Saxon began to hate.

They were not easily moved,
They were icy -- willing to wait
Till every count should be proved,
Ere the Saxon began to hate.

Their voices were even and low.
Their eyes were level and straight.
There was neither sign nor show
When the Saxon began to hate.

It was not preached to the crowd.
It was not taught by the state.
No man spoke it aloud
When the Saxon began to hate.

It was not suddently bred.
It will not swiftly abate.
Through the chilled years ahead,
When Time shall count from the date
That the Saxon began to hate.

- Rudyard Kipling

Originally posted by UngoodWatermelon

So I’d rather just repeat what I’ve said several times in this thread – that cultures and races should not have to justify their worth to be saved from extinction.

I don't agree with this.

Then what, according to you, was wrong with the Holocaust, or any instance of genocide for that matter? Merely the deaths of individuals and no bigger picture whatsoever?

Originally posted by Cythraul
Then by your definition no country in the world has a unique culture.

Quite.

Originally posted by UngoodWatermelon
And we will - increasing numbers of us will be fighting to preserve it until millions of (non-existent) English men and women are asserting their (non-existent) culture and demanding that you have some respect for it.

I suppose you'd better hurry up then hadn't you?

Then what, according to you, was wrong with the Holocaust, or any instance of genocide for that matter? Merely the deaths of individuals and no bigger picture whatsoever?

The idea that the systematic extermination of millions of people can't be considered downright evil without accepting a concept of race or culture is ridiculous and actually slightly concerning.

Originally posted by UngoodWatermelon
The idea that the systematic extermination of millions of people can't be considered downright evil without accepting a concept of race or culture is ridiculous and actually slightly concerning.

No, it can be. But there's a difference between genocide and mass-murder.

Think about it.

reply to post by Cythraul

Genocide can also be applied to religions, nationalities and ethnic groups.

Originally posted by UngoodWatermelon
reply to post by Cythraul

 

Genocide can also be applied to religions, nationalities and ethnic groups.

Exactly. So why call a mass-murder a genocide unless it has significance beyond the murder of individuals? Reason - because with genocide, not only are human beings targetted but specifically human beings who belong to a certain group with the aim of eradicating what that group represents.

Originally posted by Cythraul

Originally posted by UngoodWatermelon
reply to post by Cythraul

 

Genocide can also be applied to religions, nationalities and ethnic groups.

Exactly. So why call a mass-murder a genocide unless it has significance beyond the murder of individuals? Reason - because with genocide, not only are human beings targetted but specifically human beings who belong to a certain group with the aim of eradicating what that group represents.

...Yes. Yes that's fairly obvious. Or more specifically, the aim of eradicating what the group represents to the perpetrators of the genocide. To an ordinary person "the Jews" would probably represent a religion with several sects, a long history (particularly of persecution) and its fair share of good and bad deeds. To the Nazis the Jews represented subhuman degenerates and the global elite who had bankrupted and betrayed their nation.

I feel that modern nations should welcome immigration from all over the world, however there must be limits.

The western world (the only societies that are truely open immigration) is in danger of being swamped by cultures that will destroy our values and cultures rather than enhance them. At no point should it be accepted for an alien culture, that is unwilling or unable to assimilate, to become a dominant force in a host nations social and political fabric.

No other cultures on Earth would dream of allowing such a thing as it means the death of the host culture.

It's complicated though, because it cannot be defined by race. It is about attitude.

The only way to prevent the usurpation of power by foriegn cultures is to set much higher standards for immigration and enforce immigration laws to remove illegals.

Here's a question that can radically shift the way that we approach the issue:

Are there objective qualities that make a given culture "better" or "worse?" If so, how far can we take this? If not, do we accept the notion that a culture that celebrates warfare and violence has the same degree of inherent "goodness" as a peaceful, stable culture?

So let's assume for a moment that there are qualitative, non-subjective cultural traits that can be said to be "better" or "worse" than others. I believe, for instance, that a culture based in peace and compassion is better than one based in warfare and violence. What are the implications of believing that such cultural traits exist?

The existence of such traits suggest that, on a simplified scale of "goodness," change can be:

-good
-bad, or
-neutral.

So, if there are some objective, qualitative, comparable cultural traits, I do not accept the notion that simply accepting change because refusing to do so is politically incorrect and will seem insensitive is a good thing to do. It is important to analyze that change and to examine the result. Will the result be something positive? Is it merely pointless change? Or will it be negative?

If the change is pointless or negative, I definitely accept the notion that England should defend its cultural identity.
__________________________

I have another note on the issue of "race," too. I'm still seeing a lot of posts expressing emotional repulsion at the idea of fighting a *racial* replacement. I am ambivalent about the points made about maintaining a "genetic identity." I do think it is important to point out, however, that "race" and "culture" are closely tied up together. I'm not saying that that cannot be separated. I'm not arguing that being born a certain race means that you can never belong to a different culture. But it is difficult to deny the connection between race and culture. I say this primarily on the basis of experience. I live in the south side of Chicago. There are clear racial divides between "white" and "black" neighborhoods here. Those divides are, however, as cultural as they are racial.

So when expressing outrage that someone could *possibly* be taking this stance on a racial issue, please remember that race and culture are, at present, indissolubly bound.

Originally posted by Fiberx
No other cultures on Earth would dream of allowing such a thing as it means the death of the host culture.

And that's the key. It's okay for some groups to self-preserve, but not others. For example, there's an important Rabbi in London (who speaks with an American accent - I forget his name). He supports the matriarchal slant to Judaism, where one can only be considered Jewish if one's mother is Jewish, never any other way. He argues that this is the only way to preserve Jewish heritage. Yet simultaneously he appears on BBC programmes denigrating ANY form of British or English Nationalism and any attempt to preserve England's genetic heritage. His hypocrisy is astounding.

Originally posted by backwardluminary
I believe, for instance, that a culture based in peace and compassion is better than one based in warfare and violence.

Interesting point, and I agree. But very difficult to ascertain whether an ethnic group is truly inclined to violence or whether external factors come into play. For example, when met with force most healthy nations will react with force. Also, it is always the leaders of a nation who lead a country into battle. Furthermore, have the host nation had unpleasant circumstances hoisted upon them (race-replacement perhaps). These things will make almost any nation go to war but don't necessarily make the general public themselves any more prone to violence than a country fortunate enough to have avoided such circumstances.

Originally posted by backwardluminary
..."race" and "culture" are closely tied up together. I'm not saying that that cannot be separated. I'm not arguing that being born a certain race means that you can never belong to a different culture. But it is difficult to deny the connection between race and culture.

Yes. There are no doubt exceptions. I personally know non-English people who have almost wholly English values, dress like other English people, talk like us, etc. Culture can be adopted. But in my opinion, these are exceptions that prove the rule. Most of the time, culture follows blood. If the land we call England had been settled originally by non-European peoples, there's no doubt a different culture, style of architecture and language would have developed. Race defines culture. I know not many of you believe me, but you'll come to realise in time.

reply to post by backwardluminary


What one might refer to as "sub-cultures", which grow from within the super-culture are different than alien cultures. What we become internally is our own matter to contend with but allowing outside cultures to corrupt our systems is inviting disaster. You can redily see, throughout western nations, growing factions of alien cultures that do not seek to become part of the host but instead seek to force the host to adopt unwelcomed views and values to appease them.

These are the groups harnessing guilt and inflamatory accusations to blackmail their way to power.

Originally posted by Cythraul
I started the thread by asking that we try and keep this non-emotive. You’ve done the exact opposite – I can tell by your focus on colour and your attempt at over-exaggerating the sentiment I’m trying to express. ‘White people’ and ‘brown people’ are terms I find quite offensive, even though you’re trying to be ironic in using them. I don’t see the world in terms of ‘white, black and brown’; I see it in terms of the unique ethnic groups and the culture they are inextricably linked to. I am not angry that there are ‘brown people’ – as stated, I’m actually quite in awe of diversity. Nor am I angry that there are ‘brown people’ in my country. If you made even the slightest attempt to engage with the precise topic at hand, you’d know that this thread is specifically about immigrants of any colour replacing the indigenous people of any country in the world and whether this is okay. England is just the example I know most about.

Read what you just said very carefully. I understand damn well what you're saying, just as i understand you damn well hope other people pay attention to the fluff around it rather than the actual message you're presenting. You've got no problem with brown people... just so long as they either stay the hell over there, or don't have kids while in your neighborhood. Really, that absolutely is what your position amounts to.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
This discussion doesn’t require me to. Is race replacement acceptable? A ‘yes’ or ‘no’ from each participant, followed by a polite explanation is enough. My intention here is not to argue why race replacement is wrong, but rather to get an overall impression of how many people support it and how many oppose it for curiosity’s sake.

Of course by doing so one has to buy into your faulty premise that first, there is such a thing going on, and second, that it actually merits debate if it is. And again, I'm fully aware of the "just asking questions" approach. I hope you don't think it actually fools people.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Who said I wanted a racially pure society? Again, your emotions are causing you to over-extend your argument (which I understand, given that some ethno-nationalists, unlike myself, are quite hateful and propose extreme solutions). This isn’t about purifying England, or any other nation on Earth. It’s about whether it’s ever okay for the ethnic majority to become a minority – the very opposite of the hatred and genocide you think I’m in support of.

Actually it wasn't me being "emotional" (and if it were, what's the problem there? Contrary to #ty television, emotion and reason are not incompatable in the least). it was me asking YOUR position. Again, I'm under no illusions that you are an impartial, disinterested party simply "asking questions." It's abundantly clear from your posts that you think "race replacement" is an unarguable travesty. So I wanted to know what your "solution" would be.

You want your question in this paragraph answered? Okay, how about you eat a little science. Every generation, one "ethnic group" is replaced by another. This is the parents dying and their children inheriting. As I'm sure you understand, each of us has numerable differences from our parents, genetically; mutations, odd alleles, that sort of thing. As you are genetically unique from your parents, you are not actually the same "race" or "ethnicity" as they are - nor are htey the same as each other, or the same as their own parents.

Scientifically your entire premise is ridiculous.

Culturally, one has to define what each ethnicity and race actually is. This is an exercise that would take decades of effort... and all of it would be completely ruined in a generation anyway, as people swap genes faster than you can define their ethnicities. You're left having to make completely arbitrary decisions, much as we have in the states, where someone is "black" no matter their actual skin tone, while there's a difference between "Indians" and "Mexicans" despite being closer genetically than your average Finn is to an average Swede. if you make such arbitrary decisions, your entire premise becomes pointless and falls apart.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
You've got no problem with brown people... just so long as they either stay the hell over there, or don't have kids while in your neighborhood.

Where exactly did I say that?! Methinks you like to try and read between the lines because arguing with me is easier if you dislike me.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Of course by doing so one has to buy into your faulty premise that first, there is such a thing going on, and second, that it actually merits debate if it is.

The statistics are not faulty and if it doesn't merit debate, why are you here?

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
So I wanted to know what your "solution" would be..

Halt immigration and reinstate a dominant native culture, whilst affording immigrants and their offspring the same rights and privileges as anyone else and helping them to adapt to native values.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
You want your question in this paragraph answered? Okay, how about you eat a little science. Every generation, one "ethnic group" is replaced by another. [...] As you are genetically unique from your parents, you are not actually the same "race" or "ethnicity" as they are - nor are htey the same as each other, or the same as their own parents.

No-one is the same race as their parents? Only true for mixed-race children. What you're essentially saying, through the medium of utter-nonsense, is that race doesn't exist. If you'll be so kind as to admit that then I can stop wasting my time with you.

Originally posted by Cythraul
Where exactly did I say that?! Methinks you like to try and read between the lines because arguing with me is easier if you dislike me.

No, I read between the lines to expose to others the subtext of what you're saying. You're vehemently anti-immigration (that's the "so long as they stay over there" part) and you're just as vehement about hte notion of being "replaced" (that's the "I don't want them breeding in my neighborhood" part)

I'd have a fragment more respect for people like you if you would stop trying to obfuscate your actual meaning. of course you know that if you didn't, people would excoriate you.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Of course by doing so one has to buy into your faulty premise that first, there is such a thing going on, and second, that it actually merits debate if it is.

The statistics are not faulty and if it doesn't merit debate, why are you here?

I think that I can assume you've been on the internet long enough that you've seen this graph:

Clearly the statistics are not faulty; temperatures are rising, pirates are in decline. The fault isn't with the statistics, but rather the entire premise of the graph; that is, the question of whether pirates are a factor in climate change.

This is the same as your argument. "Replacement" implies one static thing being removed and another static thing put in its place. So if I have three apples, and remove one, then add an orange, I've replaced an apple with an orange.

On the other hand, if I have a jug of orange juice and a jug of apple juice, what happens if I pour the orange juice into the apple juice, while pouring from the jug the apple juice is in? Does the apple juice get replaced, leaving me with a full jug of pure orange juice and no apple juice? No, I end up with a apple-y, orange-y slurry of juice in a jug.

cultures and people don't get replaced. They change. it's an important distinction, and the reason i'm here is to hopefully hammer through that thick shell of panic and fear you've wrapped around yourself, and let some reality in.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
So I wanted to know what your "solution" would be..

Halt immigration and reinstate a dominant native culture, whilst affording immigrants and their offspring the same rights and privileges as anyone else and helping them to adapt to native values.

Which again brings us to the question you so blithely dismissed earlier in the thread - what is the definition of any given culture? At what point in history must we return to for say, English culture to be unquestionably, purely "English"? Name a date, please. Explain why this is the defining moment of "English culture," if you will.

Odds are you can't accomplish this, for the simple reason that I outlined above - cultures are forever altering and changing, innovating, adopting, and excising tradition and practice, style and look, language and habits.

Now if you can't accomplish this feat - and I assure you, you cannot, unless you do like a tabloid psychic and just ramble off a list of vague positive traits you think define English-ness, which any person from anywhere would also use to define Anywhere-ness - how do you expect it to be institutionalized, much less have that institutionalization enforced?

No-one is the same race as their parents? Only true for mixed-race children. What you're essentially saying, through the medium of utter-nonsense, is that race doesn't exist. If you'll be so kind as to admit that then I can stop wasting my time with you.

Biologically speaking, race doesn't exist. For race to have any scientific meaning, there would have to be "pure" races, i.e, races that only exist within themselves, totally divergent from any other neighboring races, ever since the point of the split from the larger group. Maybe, maybe the Tasmanian aborigines could have qualified as some sort of biologically useful race - they'd been utterly isolated from the rest of the world population for something close to twenty thousand years - but due to disease, war, and intermarriage, that example no longer exists. The rest of the world, however, has been so busy swapping genetic material back and forth that any attempt to draw a biological meaning for the concept of "race" would be a pointless endeavor. Basically at some point in our genetic history, one of our ancestors is bound to have been quite different-looking from the rest of out ancestors. And then when you consider the simple reality of things like genetic drift and sexual selection (i.e., casual mutation, and varying standards of "sexy" appearance) well... You probably look very different from an Englander of the 12th century, let's say.

However, Race does exist as a cultural construct. I've pointed this out twice now, and you seem to ignore it every time. Basically, any given culture has its own list of definitions for who belongs to what race... and htey're often wildly divergent. People in China can pick out Han, Miao, Hakka, Koreans, Uigyers, and label them all, while to our eyes, they're "chinese" or perhaps "Asian." To Americans, the president is "black," but in other nations, sometimes he isn't. Get what i'm saying? Race is a rather arbitrary categorization that variesfrom culture to culture. it does exist in this context, but it's really hard to make it mean anything.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
No, I read between the lines to expose to others the subtext of what you're saying.

How can this ever be a fair discussion when you're allowed to make assumptions about me and then present those assumptions as fact? The problem you've got is that you just don't know how to deal with a 'fascist' who isn't actually fascist, racist, hateful or extreme. Admittedly, we're a rarity, but you can't make assumptions about my character or intent based upon your past experiences of what patriots secretly want. That would be judging an entire group rather than each individual on his/her merits. In all honesty, that's very similar to the mindset of a racist and I'd take a good, long, hard look in the mirror if I were you.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Biologically speaking, race doesn't exist.

Because of this nonsensical claim, and because you're employing forceful, immoral tactics to try and turn a mature discussion into a lynching (as detailed above), I'm going to gracefully bow out and find some rational debate elsewhere.

reply to post by Cythraul


1) I don't believe I ever called you a fascist. And I'm judging you on nothing but the posts you've made on this thread.

2) I'm explaining actual science to you. if you'd pull your head out of your butt and try to read what's on your screen, you might increase your understanding of how all this actually works.

But, have fun scurrying off.