just to make it easier for me to put you into the right basket. hitler did a couple of good things, right? not all of it was fine, but some, right? and blacks are an inferior race and their voting right ... at least debateable? and the jews ... well, well, ... and, just for the files, women should stay at home with the children, right? thnx for your help!
Seems to me, overpopulation is the endangered forest elephant in the room. I guess you could do all sorts of things , to "save" europe, save white people, save albanian dwarf gypsies if you want, but its going to be standing room only in just a few generations. Why was the leopard thing endangered? Oh yeah, hunting/habitat destruction, caused by overpopulation. Except dont modern economies require never ending sources of cheap labour, a never ending cycle of increasing consumption and population growth to not go down the gurgler? And if they do, doesnt that make a country more vulnerable to takeover, by invasions or revolutions? Same destination, different path-maybe theres a flaw in the premise, but ive seen no evidence policy changes will occur, or would actually work that great. Like trying to protect an animal, you can pass all the legislation you want, but if people want it, see it as desirable (like working or living in europe, for example) theyll find a way to do it, and skin their golden goose. Hm.....i hope that made sense, i kinda got lost there myself.
One test for species hood is whether they can breed. Those racist bastards had to kill the thing and examine it, they could have brought in a hot female from the other set of cats and let them go at it and see what happened. Nerdy racist scientists just ain't sexy, ain't cool with nearly nothin', f^&k 'em.
Perhaps you haven't been paying attention. European fertility has been below replacement level for many years. Native Europeans' numbers are falling, not rising. The only reason European countries' populations are rising is immigration. Japan certainly doesn't. Okay, why doesn't Japan have an immigration problem; or, if a problem can be cited, why is not one hundredth as problematic as America's? Would not this be a case of a policy that works "that great"? We refuse to even try! Let's at least first make the attempt, then if it fails at least we can say we tried. Has a wall been built? Have Europeans tried sinking African immigrant boats? Why simply lay down and submit without a fight?
Perhaps that is so. But these are not the only possible frictions and tensions that can exist with multiracialism. I take it you were not in France, Nov 2005. Nor in Bradford in Jul 2001. Nor in Los Angeles in 1992. I consider it right on point. Supposedly whites marrying blacks is the highest mark of moral evolution, but on a large scale, this results in the disappearance of whites. If it is necessary to preserve one variety of leopard, why is unnecessary to preserve one variety of human? It's simply about making intelligent social arrangements that take into account people's preferences. Even liberal whites, by their actions are no different to me in who they choose to associate with, where they choose to live, who they marry, etc. Their preferences are quite clear. So then why shouldn't the societies people build reflect their preferences? We can no more demand that people display the same preferences for members of other races than we can demand that men find Roseanne Arnold as attractive as Pamela Anderson; a preference for one's own over others is as perfectly natural as one's attraction to beauty over ugliness.
What spectracist views as perfectly natural... <img src=http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=1410501>
Zzz, if the case for multiracialism is as solid as you believe, shouldn't you be able to rationally counter my arguments, instead of resorting to emotional appeals? In the case of violent "white power" groups, obviously one can be correct in one's views but excessive in one's actions. I may think it unfair of my neighbor to play loud music at 2:00am, but it would be excessive of me to pump shotgun blasts into his wall in an effort to get him to stop; should I kill him in doing so, it would spark moral outrage.
Your arguments are based in racism and ignorance....and of course comparing human beings to animals... Perhaps that's how you view yourself, as an animal, not as a human who has an intellect to act upon, not simply instinct. Racism is not a natural instinct, it is a product of cultural conditioning and ignorance. Just like what is considered beauty is a product of cultural conditioning...not instinct. All anyone has to do is look at Reuben's model of beauty and then at skinny anorexic super models of today to understand this simple concept. No one is born with racist instincts.
It's interesting the way liberals appeal to science when it suits their purposes, but shun it when contradicts them. Scientifically, there is no reason at all to view humans as anything BUT animals. Personally, I think it is clear that we are partly animals, but I also think we are more than just animals. That of course, is an unsubstantiated belief; in my case, one informed by religion. On what basis do liberals, who typically do not profess religious views -- often going to pains to belittle them -- consider humans as more than animals? The point of this thread then stands; the same liberals WWF folks think some varieties of animal are worth preserving, others are not. Indeed, they go a step further than me -- to them, leopards would appear to be above humans. Well, you are bound to believe that, of course. The evidence largely refutes you, not that I think you will care. Browsing through some liberal-penned "race and intelligence" works at my university library, there is an abundance of the most bizarre and unlikely ad hoc arguments all diligently trying to refute the sturdiest of scientific evidence that race and racial differences are real and genetic. Always enough there to lay to rest the mind of hysterical anti-racists such as yourself. To the rest of us, it appears as truth-denial in its finest form. But what is this ignorance you speak of? Any perusal of our exchanges would seem to have me consistently exposing your ignorance of even the most fundamental aspects of the race debate. See above. That obviously depends on what you mean by "racist". The evidence demonstrates that the youngest children can unmistakably identify themselves and other young children on the basis of race. What they make of such differences is another matter, but even there the evidence again -- clearly -- demonstrates that children self-segregate themselves on the basis of race. It has been remarked before that the liberal insistence on cultural explanations would have the state snatching our babies from the womb before nefarious "racist" culture seizes control of their minds. All quite insane, but it's what liberal thought leads to. Even if racism -- against all odds -- is all cultural, what are the chances anything can actually be done about it? Americans have been trying their damndest for the last fifty years to make race cease to matter, and yet the problem is said to still be pervasive. Culture appears to be resilient stuff. We appear no more likely to alter it than to alter genes. Even less likely now with the advent of the internet, since larger numbers than every before can be exposed to the flawed assumptions that liberal society rests on. It's time to pack it in.
Ignorant racist elitist white crap... Rationalization of racism in the name of science, how reminiscent of racism throughout history with every racist group having some appeal to the "science" of their day. You may be an animal and view yourself as such, but humans can reason above instincts because of their intellectual ability, assuming that social conditioning helps them understand that they are not animals, if they choose to be. Just as you rationalize your racism with your intellect, so too humans can use their intellect in a positive way to overcome such ignorant collective thinking and social conditioning. Man, it is folks like you that give conservatives a bad name...