Discussion in 'Race Relations' started by Jabrosky, Dec 12, 2017.
Cliches don't excuse dysgenic breeding and setting a bad example for society.
Actually, more diversity leads to less unhealthy inbreeding and racists set a horrible example for society.
I'm rather partial to Australia and New Zealand . Canada is nice, though the climate sucks. Likewise the UK. Singapore is great, though once again not to my tastes climatically. France, Germany, the low countries and of course the US all rate highy for me too. None perfect, but all fine places.
well, with some of the comments we see on this thread, it becomes clear that the forum's Jew haters are right wingers
^^^^^^All posts are spot on.
Racists set a bad example for society? You mean like the homogeneous societies of Japan and China? Bear in mind, it is in vogue to want to be like China with its big wall. And the Japanese, who try to claim to be the most racially pure nation on the planet? They have the third highest IQ of any nation.Come to think of it, the nations with the highest IQ break down like this:
1) Singapore - 77 % Chinese
2) According to New World Encyclopedia:
"The Korean people are the most homogeneous people on earth. Although many nations have invaded and occupied Korea, and some have left their genetic marks, for the most part Koreans have maintained their racial purity. "
3) The Japanese are over 97 percent Japanese
4) Italy is predominantly a mix of white cultures
5) Celts make up 94 percent of Iceland's residents
6) Khalkhs make up 86% of the ethnic Mongol population.
That is the top six nations ranked by highest IQ. I only included Mongolia due to the size of Iceland.
So "racists" set a bad example for society? Do you mean like the Jews, who demand their own homeland? Or maybe you had Zimbabwe in mind? That country is 99.7 percent African?
What is really being said is that if whites care about their history, their cultural integrity, destiny and contributions, they are racist and that's a bad thing... but, only if you're white. And we can ignore the fact that homogeneous societies are (on a world wide scale) the most productive, prosperous, and desirable places to live.
There are also plenty of racially homogeneous societies which are bloody awful ... third worldish poo-holes, etc.
Homogeneity of CULTURE is what makes places stable and prosperous. Race has nothing to do with it. And when I say culture, I don't mean food, I mean common values and scruples. Example: you can be an ethnically Chinese American, eat nothing but Chinese food, speak Chinese at home, and follow the lore of Confucius, yet still hold entirely western values, and live peacefully within the structure of American society, and respect the nation and it's history.
The bulk of the world's homogeneous societies are more successful than those who try to absorb every race, culture, and creed on the face of the earth. Race is not the only factor, but it is a factor. Most societies - factually virtually all societies (in terms of numbers) fare better than those who try cultural / ethnic / racial amalgamation. The third world countries that have lived in poverty for tens of thousands of years notwithstanding.
Mostly, but not entirely. Pop in to a thread on Israel & you'll find a few 'anti-imperialist' lefties who are pretty much indistinguishable from the wannabe Fascists here.
I don't think that's correct. There are many, many racially homogeneous nations which are not First World.
But getting back to race being a factor, you'd have to explain how, exactly. The colour of one's skin, or shape of one's eyes, has no bearing on behaviour. And behaviour is what decides harmony, not hair colour.
I didn't understand the first part of your post, so I'll simply respect your opinion (though I don't expect the same from you.)
Race is an indicator of some traits that humans have. BEFORE America became so infatuated with the amalgamation of races, plenty of scientific and religious texts were used in schools and churches that articulated the differences as well as their relevance.
The whole concept has been politicized to the point that the racists and race-mixers don't want the rest of us to have our own opinions. Neither side can dictate to me what to think.
I have studied enough history to realize that every society that began mixing races, cultures, and religions perished in short order. We see it happening right before our very eyes today. You have the multiculturalists who want to advocate genocide against the white people by suppressing all their rights and, on the other side of the coin, you have white racists that hate the Hispanics so much they claim to be able to walk into a hospital emergency waiting room and "see" the people they've dubbed "illegal aliens." They claim to be able to determine immigration status based upon something visual... and they will deny it's race - even while their noses begin to look like Pinocchio's
So, while you're trying to make a case for racial amalgamation I'm seeing the collapse of our society and our nation right before my very eyes.
I'm not sure that "wannabe" is correct as these forum right wingers seem to be genuine Fascists because of their Jew hatred and anti-Americanism.
Nah, actual honest to god Fascists actually did something about their vile views. They got out & demonstrated, committed acts of violence, overthrew or tried to overthrow governments & fought in wars. These guys are the equivalent of the 'People's Front of Judea' in Monty Python - lots of people sitting around talking and doing a big fat nothing. Ever been to a meeting of an undergraduate political club at University? These are the right wing version of those guys.
Actual Fascists would use these guys to dig ditches & guard the women & children at the Concentration Camp. They would be the guys 'attending to' the 'needs' of the SA leadership before the Night of the Long Knives straightened everyone out. Sad little beta males who think that owning a gun & going on line to whine about 'lesser races' is somehow proof they are part of a 'master race'. The irony is super juicy.
Sorry, not understand what old religious texts have to do with any of this?
Once again, I need you to explain how the tone of one's skin affects culture. I know people of a variety of hues, who all live according to a single (western) culture. The congregants at a church near me range from lily white to pitch black, and almost all of them are clean living, conservative, family people, who live a western lifestyle, and respect the laws of the land. Can you explain how that is a problem, please.
If that was the conclusion your 'study' of history came to then it was a very poor attempt indeed. I suspect that like most people obsessed racial/ethnic explanations for everything you have been very carefully shifting definitions and self-editing information to get the answer you decided you would get from the start.
All societies 'perish' eventually if you craft a suitable definition of 'perish'. People like to create historical 'continuities' when it suits them, often based on no more than continuity of language and geography. Modern Greeks have next to nothing to do with ancient Greece. Modern Arabs have stuff all to do with the great Caliphates and there is a distinctly comedic edge to watching Mongolians act like Ghengis Khan has anything much to do with them. The examples roll on. 'New World' societies do better, but even then great transformations have taken place. Versions of almost every society on earth have 'perished' at some point, yet I'm betting your definition is based on a very, very, very tiny set of examples using an incredibly narrow and self serving methodology.
and virtually all societies mix 'race' culture & religion. Of course, the definition of 'race' conveniently shifts over time. When Hitler was busy murdering Slavs were considered a separate and inferior race. In earlier times the constituent peoples of the British isles were seen as different 'races' - Welsh, Scots, Irish, English. Of course, that doesn't even include Norse settlers or other Celtic & Gaelic peoples like the Cornish. I suspect most outsiders would look at a nation like Ethiopia and see 'Africans', but talk to the locals and they can tell you all about the differences between the Amhara, Oromo, Tigrinya, Somalis, Afar, Dinka, Nuer etc. 'Mon' and 'Multi' aren't some fixed & simple definition, especially 'mono'.
Multi-ethnic Roman, Arab, Hapsburg, Byzantine, Ethiopian & Persian Empires & societies lasted in various forms for centuries before they 'perished'. Then they reconstituted in different forms. Mono-ethnic Japan has 'perished' a number of times and reconstituted in different forms. I'm actually struggling to think of many genuinely mono-ethnic nations. I suspect you have a different definition.
How is it a problem that a guy takes his family twenty miles back in the woods and only congregates with people like him?
I'm sure your ability to criticize me and evaluate what I think really has cut me a new one...NOT.
"He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him." Proverbs 18 : 13
For you to suggest that I was a one dimensional thinker with that idiotic comment "I suspect that like most people obsessed racial/ethnic explanations for everything..." shows the lack of depth you have in reading skills. I even bolded the word factor when discussing race.
You don't pack the gear to be in a conversation with me if the best you can do is a cheap shot.
You should have seen americans lose their **** over a half black president.
Bible verse, evasion and a link that amounts to a lengthy, if enjoyable, list. That all you've got? No attempt to address anything I said.
Oh, and the longest lasted empire on your list, Aksum, was multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-religious from its beginning to its end. So, not a lot of 'perishing' there.
You come onto this thread with an insult and a stupid allegation and then pretend I owe you something. The you want to try and B.S. your way through the thread. I can't force you to be right.
The real question is, isn't it a big bigoted and uninformed to inquire of those people for some factual data before making such a conclusion? Apparently, you didn't want a logical conversation here when you started right off the bat presuming all those people were dumb and "dipshits" as you call them. I'm not on either side and look at the poster going out of his way to bait me into an argument... over exactly what? His / her lack of accurate knowledge of history?
Clearly you know that you can't argue your case based on facts. Duly noted.
right wingers on this forum frequently call patriots like me "socialist" "stalinist" or some other such nonsense even though we applaud capitalism when it is at its best
we do not call for extermination of anyone or call any race superior to others
Hitler and his followers did and always do.
You are full of crap. I simply don't owe you the time it takes to respond to your arrogant flame baiting insults. You don't have any facts. What you have are cheap shots.
Trying to further bait me with more insults won't help you. Add to that, your flamebait has nothing to do with the OP.
The real subject of the OP, as I understand it is whether or not there was some kind of "Jewish conspiracy" at play in the Harry met Markel story that ends with a Prince wanting to marry a bi-racial woman.
But, to answer your issues, in debates the first person to begin insults and name calling loses the debate. So, you lost and there is nothing else left for me to prove regarding any alleged "facts" you thought you had. IF you would have had a point, being insulting wasn't necessary. Next time you want to have a conversation on this board, try civility.
I think your link gives us some insight as to the benefits of practicing racial and cultural integrity. Nobody said it had to be practiced with force. Thanks. I found the link very appropriate and applicable in addressing an aspect of this issue most would like to pretend doesn't exist.
Still dodging I see. Easier than admitting you can't back up your posts.
I provided both facts and observations based on those facts. You threw a hissy fit and refused to respond to any of them. I am drawing the obvious assumption.
You were the one who just had to tell us about your historical research. As someone who has done a LOT of historical research I chose to reply to that. You still haven't engaged with any of my points, which suggests that you are much better at making assertions than backing them up with facts. All you have provided so far is a link that completely undermines your assertions (I'm guessing you haven't read it properly).
Gosh, how thin skinned. You make sweeping assertions that denigrate hundreds of millions of people, but that is fine. I point that out & provide a well argued response and you have a meltdown because you don't like my tone. Every non response simply confirms my suspicions - you can't back up your claims.
Take a chill pill sweetie, it will help your blood pressure.
Separate names with a comma.