I think intermarriage will continue to happen sure, but I'm not sure I buy the Dan Carlin hypothesis that everyone in the future will be brown (not that I'm saying that is what you are arguing, not trying to put words in your mouth). There are many places in the world where race or ethnicity is the main defining characteristic, far more than in America. In Palestine, for instance, high birth rates are used as a weapon against percieved encroaching Israeli settlements. In Tibet and the Uighur parts of China, they are getting ethnically displaced by Chinese settlers, and also attempting to use their birthrate as a way to keep their identity. I do not believe, that our grandchildren will look at this period with confusion, because I think don't think intermarriage will be universal. If any of these doomsday environmental scenarios occur, people will become more tribal and more drawn to similar ethnic groups as they compete for scarcer resources around the globe. That may not happen, and I can't see the future, but I think sectarianism is here to stay.GrumpyCatFace wrote:Well, consider the different black people around you. You can clearly tell that they come from different African tribes, just by appearance.heydaralon wrote:GrumpyCatFace wrote:
A race would be the nebulous idea of “white”, while an ethnic group would be people of Western European descent. You could probably narrow it down to regions, like Catalonian vs Frankish, etc.
Well, I'm not sold on the idea of an ethno state. That probably would have been a good discussion to have 300 years ago in America if we wanted to go that route and not take slaves etc. I think our best bet now is to just try to weather out the BLM riots and SJW nonsense the best we can despite my feelings on it. I work around black people and hispanics on a daily basis, and I get along with them, though I would not discuss politics lol. I do think this is an interesting thread though, regardless of my personal beliefs on the viability of an ethno state (I don't think it would work in America, and the costs would outweigh the benefits). I don't like this tear down everything mentality on the left, but we have gone quite awhile without another civil war, and I think splitting the country up that way would be throwing the baby out of with the bathwater. In the South blacks and whites have hated each other but managed to live side by side for generations without fullscale ethnic cleansing. This is no small feat, considering the kind of shit you see happening in third world countries like Iraq, Rwanda, Sudan, or India. That being said, I doubt the friction between different groups will ever go away.
But I'm not sure that I agree with you on race vs. ethnicity. Despite being the same species, I see strong physical differences between blacks and whites, asians and hispanics. I'm not going to open the can of worms on IQ or anything like that, because I don't know enough to make an argument one way or the other. But to me, saying that race doesn't exist is getting into an academic line of thinking that ignores the obvious. You are entitled to your own opinion of course, but it seems silly to ignore these obvious differences. I'm not talking about making value judgements on whether certain races are good or bad, I'm just saying that these physical differences are objective observable phenomena.
sorry for the long post dude. I just got to thinking about this.
Or a white ginger vs. a swarthy italian guy vs. a hearty German. With experience, you can spot the difference between a Paki and an Indian, or a Korean vs. Chinese person. There are obvious regional differences, other than a broad "race".
The problem with using something like "race" is that there is no clear boundary. There's only culture, and that's all there's ever been. We have regional differences, that are all fading into the past, as we intermarry and breed. There will never be a more divided species than we are right now. We're all turning light brown, and I'm fine with that. Our grandkids will look at this shit with great confusion.
The left vs the 23% white separatist contingent
-
- Posts: 7571
- Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:54 pm
Re: The left vs the 23% white separatist contingent
Shikata ga nai
-
- Posts: 7571
- Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:54 pm
Re: The left vs the 23% white separatist contingent
As far as race being a misnomer for a spectrum of ethnicity, I will give this some thought. It is possible that we are in more agreement than I thought, we are just defining terms differently. You are in agreement with me on the huge role that culture plays in behavior.GrumpyCatFace wrote:Well, consider the different black people around you. You can clearly tell that they come from different African tribes, just by appearance.heydaralon wrote:GrumpyCatFace wrote:
A race would be the nebulous idea of “white”, while an ethnic group would be people of Western European descent. You could probably narrow it down to regions, like Catalonian vs Frankish, etc.
Well, I'm not sold on the idea of an ethno state. That probably would have been a good discussion to have 300 years ago in America if we wanted to go that route and not take slaves etc. I think our best bet now is to just try to weather out the BLM riots and SJW nonsense the best we can despite my feelings on it. I work around black people and hispanics on a daily basis, and I get along with them, though I would not discuss politics lol. I do think this is an interesting thread though, regardless of my personal beliefs on the viability of an ethno state (I don't think it would work in America, and the costs would outweigh the benefits). I don't like this tear down everything mentality on the left, but we have gone quite awhile without another civil war, and I think splitting the country up that way would be throwing the baby out of with the bathwater. In the South blacks and whites have hated each other but managed to live side by side for generations without fullscale ethnic cleansing. This is no small feat, considering the kind of shit you see happening in third world countries like Iraq, Rwanda, Sudan, or India. That being said, I doubt the friction between different groups will ever go away.
But I'm not sure that I agree with you on race vs. ethnicity. Despite being the same species, I see strong physical differences between blacks and whites, asians and hispanics. I'm not going to open the can of worms on IQ or anything like that, because I don't know enough to make an argument one way or the other. But to me, saying that race doesn't exist is getting into an academic line of thinking that ignores the obvious. You are entitled to your own opinion of course, but it seems silly to ignore these obvious differences. I'm not talking about making value judgements on whether certain races are good or bad, I'm just saying that these physical differences are objective observable phenomena.
sorry for the long post dude. I just got to thinking about this.
Or a white ginger vs. a swarthy italian guy vs. a hearty German. With experience, you can spot the difference between a Paki and an Indian, or a Korean vs. Chinese person. There are obvious regional differences, other than a broad "race".
The problem with using something like "race" is that there is no clear boundary. There's only culture, and that's all there's ever been. We have regional differences, that are all fading into the past, as we intermarry and breed. There will never be a more divided species than we are right now. We're all turning light brown, and I'm fine with that. Our grandkids will look at this shit with great confusion.
Shikata ga nai
-
- Posts: 5991
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 1:54 am
Re: The left vs the 23% white separatist contingent
Just because it seems to need repeating: There is a world of difference between laws based on race and almost any other category of law.
I can, if I am inclined, propose a law that says you can't go to Mosque, own a Koran, or speak Arabic. Odious and oppressive as it may be, it is still comprehensible, as a law, since you can choose to follow it or risk punishment.
I can not pass a law that concerns itself with being Arab, because that is a law that cannot be followed. Passing laws that cannot be followed is contrary to having a rule of law.
Laws that concern themselves with race are for uncivilized morons.
I can, if I am inclined, propose a law that says you can't go to Mosque, own a Koran, or speak Arabic. Odious and oppressive as it may be, it is still comprehensible, as a law, since you can choose to follow it or risk punishment.
I can not pass a law that concerns itself with being Arab, because that is a law that cannot be followed. Passing laws that cannot be followed is contrary to having a rule of law.
Laws that concern themselves with race are for uncivilized morons.
HAIL!
Her needs America so they won't just take his shit away like in some pussy non gun totting countries can happen.
-Hwen
Her needs America so they won't just take his shit away like in some pussy non gun totting countries can happen.
-Hwen
-
- Posts: 7571
- Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:54 pm
Re: The left vs the 23% white separatist contingent
Not if you pull a rachel dolezal. Change it up npHanarchy Montanarchy wrote:Just because it seems to need repeating: There is a world of difference between laws based on race and almost any other category of law.
I can, if I am inclined, propose a law that says you can't go to Mosque, own a Koran, or speak Arabic. Odious and oppressive as it may be, it is still comprehensible, as a law, since you can choose to follow it or risk punishment.
I can not pass a law that concerns itself with being Arab, because that is a law that cannot be followed. Passing laws that cannot be followed is contrary to having a rule of law.
Laws that concern themselves with race are for uncivilized morons.
Shikata ga nai
-
- Posts: 38685
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:59 pm
Re: The left vs the 23% white separatist contingent
I think these white liberals living pretty far out of the affected areas have not discussed their dream of a brown utopia with blacks in Southern California. There's already sectarian conflict (i.e. race war) going down in Southern California between blacks and Latinos.
This idea that everybody is just going to get along is fucking bonkers and not based on reality at all.
La Raza helps illegal immigrants from Mexico at the expense of poor blacks. It's fucked up beyond belief.
My favorite part is South American LEGAL immigrants telling these Mexicans to take a hike. The reality is not what you get programmed with on CNN, folks. Wake the fuck up.
This idea that everybody is just going to get along is fucking bonkers and not based on reality at all.
La Raza helps illegal immigrants from Mexico at the expense of poor blacks. It's fucked up beyond belief.
My favorite part is South American LEGAL immigrants telling these Mexicans to take a hike. The reality is not what you get programmed with on CNN, folks. Wake the fuck up.
-
- Posts: 38685
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:59 pm
Re: The left vs the 23% white separatist contingent
That's a founder of La Raza talking about white genocide because we won't allow them to have socialism. Now we have quite a lot of judges who belong to this association. We have a large segment of the California legislature belonging to it. We even have a congressman who belongs to it who a few years ago called for total open borders to punish whites in pursuit of the interests of "his people".
This is the same organization to which that judge belonged who presided over a case that affected Donald Trump. When Trump suggested he probably wouldn't get a fair trial from a racist ethnic-nationalist judge who belongs to an organization that wants to take over America from the "gringo", a lot of you bozos attacked Trump for being a "racist". I can't think of anything that better sums you up than that.
But God forbid one of us dare to suggest that this can't possibly work out and we need to preserve our majority status in this nation before these people take over and actually carry out what they profess to want to do.
Last edited by Speaker to Animals on Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 5991
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 1:54 am
Re: The left vs the 23% white separatist contingent
Sounds to me like American citizens of all races have an issue they can work together on.Speaker to Animals wrote:
La Raza helps illegal immigrants from Mexico at the expense of poor blacks. It's fucked up beyond belief.
My favorite part is South American LEGAL immigrants telling these Mexicans to take a hike. The reality is not what you get programmed with on CNN, folks. Wake the fuck up.
HAIL!
Her needs America so they won't just take his shit away like in some pussy non gun totting countries can happen.
-Hwen
Her needs America so they won't just take his shit away like in some pussy non gun totting countries can happen.
-Hwen
-
- Posts: 5991
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 1:54 am
Re: The left vs the 23% white separatist contingent
You are the mask, bruh.heydaralon wrote: Not if you pull a rachel dolezal. Change it up np
HAIL!
Her needs America so they won't just take his shit away like in some pussy non gun totting countries can happen.
-Hwen
Her needs America so they won't just take his shit away like in some pussy non gun totting countries can happen.
-Hwen
-
- Posts: 38685
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:59 pm
Re: The left vs the 23% white separatist contingent
Hanarchy Montanarchy wrote:Sounds to me like American citizens of all races have an issue they can work together on.Speaker to Animals wrote:
La Raza helps illegal immigrants from Mexico at the expense of poor blacks. It's fucked up beyond belief.
My favorite part is South American LEGAL immigrants telling these Mexicans to take a hike. The reality is not what you get programmed with on CNN, folks. Wake the fuck up.
Your multi-racial kumbaya isn't panning out.
When elected officials openly state that they are going to work only to advance the interests of "their people", by which they mean their racial group, against the interests of every other group, a warning alarm should have gone off in your head, but it didn't. You were too busy policing other whites for perceived "racism".
This is just how multi-racial societies operate. You can't ignore human nature and we are a tribal species. What happens when you have lots of different tribes in a single democracy? Bad times.
-
- Posts: 2528
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 11:09 am
Re: The left vs the 23% white separatist contingent
Part of the problem in the U.S. that needs to be understood and acknowledged is the serious possibility that the idea of reverse race discrimination, which since the death of Travon Martin is catching on with, and being openly advocated by groups like BLM, will lead to a legitimization of the idea that making race-based distinctions among groups is acceptable. The idea that minorities always enjoy free rein to discriminate against the white majority, and that somehow when you discriminate against a majority based on race, it isn't "discrimination," is wrong-headed, short-sighted, and is going to backfire in a severe way when enough people in that majority feel sufficiently threatened that they abandon the notion that ours is a race-neutral country. If the minorities in this country increasingly adopt the attitude that what MLK was talking about in the '60s is a dead letter, the white majority may not be far behind. After all, why defend a principle when the the intended beneficiaries of that principle reject it? When and if those attitudes change and become mainstream, life in this country will become even more difficult and fractious than it presently is. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment is not going away soon, but there are plenty of ways that people can make one another miserable that don't involve state action. There are a lot of important questions that you can criticize StA for not answering, but it is not difficult to understand him as simply being in the vanguard of what might become a serious backlash if the militant anti-white attitudes emanating from the Left continue.Hanarchy Montanarchy wrote:Just because it seems to need repeating: There is a world of difference between laws based on race and almost any other category of law.
I can, if I am inclined, propose a law that says you can't go to Mosque, own a Koran, or speak Arabic. Odious and oppressive as it may be, it is still comprehensible, as a law, since you can choose to follow it or risk punishment.
I can not pass a law that concerns itself with being Arab, because that is a law that cannot be followed. Passing laws that cannot be followed is contrary to having a rule of law.
Laws that concern themselves with race are for uncivilized morons.