The very, very serious problem is only circumstantially related to cross breeding humans.
The actual very serious problem is:
People are being very greatly, insanely manipulated into lusting to crossbreed as well as many other unnatural behaviors. The silly thing to me is that they are so effectively hypnotized into accepting that manipulating the masses (unwittingly including themselves) is a good thing.
So now YOU explain why that YOU have ASSUMED that using media and medicine to manipulate the masses is a good thing. Or is it that you have PRESUMED that such manipulation is not happening? If you don’t see it, it must not be there, right? Would you even know what to look for? Don’t you think that making that kind of mistake is serious enough to warrant a more serious investigation and discussion?
The gradual decline in the values and principles that are the fundamental basis of a just society.
For example, I think that women deserve equal treatment and opportunity as men. When some Muslim men refuse to work with or even make casual physical contact with women, it is a challenge to that principle. And if we accommodate that behavior, then our society has suffered a setback.
I can bring up other examples. I have no desire for a theocracy or even a greater role for any church in any way. Nor do I want freedom of speech to be infringed.
Really? Then why is the title of the thread about white European preservation? If all of this was about nature/nurture/cultural issues, then why single out whites as the “victims”? I looked at the ASSUMPTIONS being made, not the rationalizations.
It’s interesting that you characterize non-whites as being “hypnotized” and “lusting” by non-whites. Perhaps you might consider your own being hypnotized and lusting?
Media and medicine? Where did you see that in my post? Or are you just ASSUMING - again, some more.
Do I think that there is a lot of manipulation of people? Yes. Perhaps that is why I suggested examining good science. You know, the studies performed by acknowledged experts in their field with published statements in respected journals and peer reviewed. Such examination is never perfect, but it is the best we can do when looking for evidence as opposed to reading some blog repeating de-bunked junk science.
Perhaps you could explain how you are certain that YOU aren’t being manipulated?
It’s because there have been a lot of posts on this forum talking about preserving white Europeans (or those of European descent in non-European countries). I wanted to know what that means specifically and how it could be accomplished without creating an unfair society.
I still don’t have an answer.
I don’t accept Autsider’s “kill the other guys” policy as reasonable.
I’m not saying that I agree with Autsider’s policy either, but as a question to you, are you so confident that the “other guys” consider it as unreasonable?
If the “other guys” consider it fully reasonable, then does it matter whether we think it is reasonable?
Is considering it unreasonable more important than survival?
What is being “preserved” when talking about “white European preservation”? I have asked and I have been ignored or blown off as a “moron” or “libtard” for asking.
Here is my interpretation:
democratic government
freedom of speech
freedom of movement
equal treatment in the legal system
equal opportunity in education
valuing of scientific method for gaining knowledge and solving problems
Those are concepts which arose in Judaeo-christian Europe. Not all of it is completely achieved but it’s a work in progress.
Am I wrong in my interpretation? Do you guys want to preserve something else?
Fair enough. There have been plenty of other groups to land here (and there) with similar values which are similarly in conflict with the prevalent values. That condition tends to mitigate over time (a generation or two). But let me ask you - is it the presence of muslim immigrants or the policies your government adopts in regard to them that you object to?
Just thought of something. A few months ago, a gentleman came to me and asked if we (I work for a small city) could provide a separate area in our city cemetery for the burial of Muslims. Pretty much a fenced off area within the existing cemetery. is that a reasonable request/ I have no objection to it.
I’d put it this way, if someone asked in the Middle Ages - “Huh, so what is this white European preservation about? You guys want to preserve feudalism, chivalry,….?”
Frankly I want to preserve the White people, their genetic integrity.
Btw. that doesn’t mean that the descendants of Europeans in a thousand years will be just like the European people today but that’s not how preserving anything works.
Either you care for something or you don’t, either you build on the past or you discard it and throw it away.
Either you learn and build on top of ancient architecture, refine it, adapt it,….
Or you throw it out the window and build a concrete brutalist soul crusher for bug men.
Additionally this is not only about the “materialistic” aspect of preservation but also about spirit.
We are not talking about preserving something, some genetics in a museum but a living reality a people and a place, their homelands.
You won’t get an answer. Firstly, society is already unfair to some in the sense that fairness is usually in the eye of the beholder. Entire books have been written about the concept of fairness. One simple dichotomy to consider is the difference between fairness of opportunity and fairness of rewards. That’s one way of expressing the difference between conservatives and liberals. At least until you start asking questions.
“Kill all the other guys” is not meant to appeal to reason. It’s the battle cry of a fearful person trying to instill fear in others.
Christianity, as a very large part of the economy in Europe during the Middle Ages, certainly played a big role. But it was the economy that allowed for the factors in your bullets. Part of that economy was the very fact that many disparate peoples lived so close together. And a lot of that was geography. Europe is a sort of peninsular spit. The real 'continent" is Eurasia, but because of the geography - the mediterranean was both a boundary and a connection - we make the distinction. Oddly, globalization was a big factor. That’s a whole book.
But the world is smaller, countries are larger and technology more widely available now. The Judeo-Christian tradition just doesn’t mean as much. Look - England, France and Spain got North America. Does that make germany a second rate economy today? Or a second-rate democracy?
For example, music is not forbidden so that produces a cultural heritage of orchestral music. And individual countries have specific styles of “folk” music and dance.
I don’t object to immigration itself. I don’t object to Muslims in particular. If Muslims come to Canada and adopt “Canadian values” then I see no problem.
I brought up Muslim attitudes to women as an example because it is being actively discussed. It represents an important conflict in values and a conflict which is not going away quickly.
In principle, I think that’s wrong. Dead Muslims can’t mix with dead Christians, Jews or atheists? What an idea.
There are people who think it’s awesome that people of different racial backgrounds are mixing together and promote this in various ways.
I am in favour of the opposite, I am in favour of thinking and policies which promote segregation, discrimination.
Outward characteristics are a potential expression of a people’s genetics.
As White European power and influence dwindles in former colonial territories we see a change, a reversion to a culture and customs, kind of thinking, which is more in tune with the indigenous people of that place. What I am saying is that to preserve any outwards expression is to preserve said people, their genetic integrity.
As America becomes less White it will also become culturally more like those places where those immigrants and their descendants are coming from because institutions corrode and at the end it’s the people, their genetics which are the basis of any institution or cultural expression.
Also, this is not about objective superiority for me.
If Europeans/European ethnicities were dumb as rocks I’d still be in favour of preserving my people and being part of their destiny.
As for appeals to the so called human race (actually species) - Those who don’t see why it’s important to preserve the races and their evolutionary characteristics would destroy and dismantle the human species as well. Just the same way they can’t help themselves but wanting to destroy the races or the European race, neither would they preserve anything about the human species, same principle via desire for destruction and or carelessness, usually hedonism and cowardice.
