Diversity is White Genocide

by corrie54 191 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  Spoletta

  LUHE,

  First of all, I would be hesitant to embrace ideas that claimed their validity because they've been around since 1919. Just saying. IQ tests are not settled science, because there's no possible way to measure exactly how much environment, socio economic status, nutrition, and test bias can affect the results. Thus, you find that there are two camps, neither with indisputable conclusions.

  Also, a study of DNA ancestry by McGill University of Montreal shows that most African Americans have some European ancestry.

  Since you have so many friends of color, and have observed the successes of others, I take it then, as long as they adhere to the customs, language, and culture of Western civilization, you have no problem with immigrants. So as long as that is a given, I see no problem with the population getting a little browner.

  You ask, how do you determine race? Obviously, you define it as the color of individuals, going by your Frank Bruno example.

  Your Gaelic example is laughable, because they would be considered white, it doesn't matter what their ethnic background is.

  So, despite your protestations, most of those commenting here would prefer to live in an all white society. Just because they admit that there are some worthy, intelligent people of color, doesn't nullify their prejudice. It's too close to that old argument, "some of my best friends are black!".

  Some here think I'm a weepy liberal, but I'm actually a liberal realist. There are two ways to look at the situation. Someone who prefers whites will complain "the world is getting browner!" You could equally claim the world is getting paler, if you come from Swaziland.

  You will never convince me that someone who wants to live in an all white country doesn't consider whites to be generally superior to other races. It has nothing to do with "Western Civilization", no matter how you try to veil it with cherry picked examples of how whites are responsible for all major achievements. Whites had superior weapons, and forced their culture upon the rest of the world. When Europeans were floundering around in the Dark Ages, Arabia kept the flame of knowledge alive. It all boils down to that old adage. "to the victor belong the spoils."

  Whether by force, or simple assimilation, there's no going back. I plan to make the most of the situation by enjoying all the new experiences and interesting people I come across. I doubt that it will harm me or my children. even if their children are darker than me.

  So you see, I plan on having it both ways, being proud of my heritage, and sharing it with others, while learning and embracing the best of others.

  "You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one".

  Good luck!
• 

  DATA-DOG

  Humans kill humans and take their stuff. That’s the way it has always been. Who benefits? The Leader, Chief, President, Corporations...

  Things are more complex because societies have advanced, but it’s still just the same old game. Biomass, and who gets it. There’s only so much to go around.

  We can Church it up all we want, but at the end of the day that’s all it is, just like every Nature documentary out there.

  Species and sub-species come and go. Humanity itself may go the way of the Do-Do bird. At any rate I’m not too worried.

  Trumps wall is going to keep the riff-raff out of my neighborhood.

  DD
• 

  cofty

  There's a refuge crisis in parts of Europe, but definitely not any white genocide crisis - Spoletta

  I agree that the phrase white genocide is a bit sensational. Having said that, there are parts of Europe where self-imposed ghettos are a threat to the indigenous population.
  
• 

  fulltimestudent

  Race - 1

  I think I'm wasting my time being involved in this, but .... The problem is the old problem, do you base your decisions in your life/mind on feelings or reason.
  

  Here's some extracts from an ABC ( the aussie one) podcast on whether such a thing as 'race' exists,' I quote it just to start a history of racism.

  I need to make one point first. There seems to be something built in to some primate animals. that regards with suspicion any group that's not your own group (more on that later) and no matter what the argued conclusions are. it does seem that most 'racist' arguments are likely based on that.feeling and not a reasoned conclusion,

  But here's the comment I wanted to post now -

  Quote: "Our modern ideas of race began with a Swedish botanist called Carl Linnaeaus who lived in the 18th century. Linnaeaus enjoyed classifying life on Earth, and he’s often described as the Father of Taxonomy. First, he grouped plants into particular categories, and then animals, which of course meant classifying primates, and eventually humans.

  According to Darren Curnoe, an associate professor of human evolution at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Linnaeaus was the first to formally slice our species into four proposed races.

  'He essentially recognised Europeans as a race, Mongoloids or East Asians, American—and he really thought of native Americans, and Africans,' says Curnoe.

  A few decades later a German physician called Johann Friedrich Blumenbach added another category called Malays and, critically, he made a hierarchy.

  'He put Caucasians at the top, followed by the Americans, followed by Mongoloids, followed by Africans,' says Curnoe.

  The hierarchy was based on early European notions of beauty, personality, temperament and Blumenbach’s study of the shape of skulls."

  Reference: https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/science-vs-podcast-asks:-does-race-exist/6525064
  ---------------------------------------------------------

  So are all you guys who arguing for a homogeneous.society/community/nation aware that's likely where your notions of 'race' started. Actually the differences you see in what you are calling 'racial groups' can better be described as, 'cultural.'

  Although some western people like to think that it's all explained in the bible ((you know, the Jewish origin myths) its hardly an explanation of what is being discussed here.,

  However, the concept of 'race' seems to have gotten a boost in the wake of European colonisation of various places in the world as (particularly the English) Europeans sought to justify what they were doing to other people. This is particularly important, because the migrations that are being complained about basically have an economic foundation,

  A clear exposition of the process may be found in John M. Hobson's* Book, :The Eastern Origins of Western Civilisation, particularly ch. 10 - Constructing European racisst identity and the invention of the world, 1700-1859: the imperial civilising mission as a moral vocation.

  During the nineteenth century, social Darwinists claimed that 'the Anglo-saxon race had a duty to take over the world' because 'the inferior races of the world were going to become extinct' (hence the use of Darwin's name) and 'progess and civilisation was safe only in the hands of the British.'

  If you attempted to chart this notion you would chart three groups of nations/race. First would be the 'Civilised' peoples of the First World ( at term still used). At the top of this group was Britain, followed by various other Western European nations Then came the Barbaric peoples, The Ottomon empire, the Chinese empire, Japan, Siam, and finally the Savage group, including African peoples etc. Much of what our contemporary western culture believes originated in that nineteenth century process.

  * John Montagu Hobson, is a political scientist, international relations scholar and academic. Currently he is Professor of Politics and International Relations at the University of Sheffield. This John Hobson Is the great grandson of John A Hobson.(if that matters)
• 

  fulltimestudent

  Quote: " a threat to the indigenous population"

  I wondered when I read, this, what parts of Europe still have the original indigenous population, extant?

  As I;m sure you already know. the mass movement of people like the Huns westward caused massive population movements all across Europe.
• 

  cofty

  FTS - you are equivocating. NOBODY is advocating Victorian attitudes of social Darwinism FFS.

  Of course race describes something real. HOWEVER every attempt to define or classify races is imperfect and subject to numerous exceptions an anomalies.

  We can squabble over pedantic definitions all night or we can admit that there are differences in groups of people who originate in different parts of our planet.

  Where is the freckled ginger kid in this 100m final? Perhaps we are just not socialising ginger kids to believe they can run fast.

  
  
• 

  Diogenesister

  😂😉

  https://youtu.be/IvG3is7Bm1w
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  I would be hesitant to embrace ideas that claimed their validity because they've been around since 1919. Just saying. IQ tests are not settled science - so, anyone can be a member of MENSA.

  Because 'IQ tests are not settled science', right?
  

  You will never convince me that someone who wants to live in an all white country doesn't consider whites to be generally superior to other races - Jesus Christ, there's so much wrong with this comment.

  You are deliberately misrepresenting me. I said as much when I said this thread is an excuse for you to get offended on behalf of other people and wail 'racist!'

  If you care to look at all my comments in this thread, I've been careful to clarify that, while I think races are different in multiple ways due to many millennia of evolution, I don't think whites are the superior race. No race is better than any other.

  Plus, I've never said I want to live in an all-white country. I said my county, the UK, is majority white and I want to keep it that way. I've given additional examples of Jordanians wanting to keep Jordan majority Arab, and Kenyans wanting to keep Kenya majority black. I even said if I were African-American, I'd rather live in America than in Africa.

  All to no avail, I fear.

  Spoletta doesn't want to listen or engage in honest, frank debate. This person just wants to shout 'racism!', that's all.

  Sad, when you think about it, isn't it?
  

  It has nothing to do with "Western Civilization" - it has everything to do with Western civilisation, numbnuts.
  

  Since you have so many friends of color, and have observed the successes of others, I take it then, as long as they adhere to the customs, language, and culture of Western civilization, you have no problem with immigrants - yes, but all immigrants don't want to integrate, that's the problem. I like and admire those who do make the effort.

  Whether by force, or simple assimilation, there's no going back - ominous ... sounds like a threat to me.

  Well, I got news for you. The majority of the public in western countries feel differently. 'No going back' is bullshit, countries can change tack on all sorts of policies. That's the main reason why Trump got elected. It's the main reason why Britain voted to leave the EU.
  

  You ask, how do you determine race? Obviously, you define it as the color of individuals, going by your Frank Bruno example. Your Gaelic example is laughable - simple question: does race exist? Y/N?
  
• 

  SouthCentral

  It’s interesting, yet not surprising that these beliefs were in the Kingdom Hall!!!
• 

  fulltimestudent

  Quote: "FTS - you are equivocating. NOBODY is advocating Victorian attitudes of social Darwinism FFS."

  Ummm, cofty, are you sure about that? A dictionary definition of equivocation is to use ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself.

  I clearly stated near the beginning of that post that I was presenting a history of racist thinking. I suggest that the era of British racism is close enough to our own era to influence our thinking, whether it is overt or subconsciously.

  In my own country the White Australia policy persisted into the life memories of a generation that may still be active. Of course, few today advocate social Darwinism, its now a discredited concept, but to what extent does it influence the thinking of people who want to set a color/social bar to prevent undesirables moving into the neighbourhood?

  So rather than 'hiding' anything my post should have illuminated your mind.

  I also suggested in that post that the best word to describe what some are advocating is culture. The objection seems to be to strange customs (or culture). Of course, there may be other factors. Some years ago on a visit to Taiwan with a business friend, we were driven to a special lunch in a company car. On the way we had to pick up the President of the company. To get to his home we entered a gated community and had to pass another 4 checkpoints before reaching his home. The motive for this was surely economic. Only people of a certain status lived in that community.

  I've seen a similar project in China, Only one checkpoint at the entrance, and only 20 homes. but essentially the same goal. On a guided tour by a friend (who knew of my interest in attempting to understand contemporary China), I was told that the President of large company would not live in that gated community, but the Vice-President could. This community also included a central 'club' house where the residents could entertain guests. Clearly another attempt to exclude persons of the wrong economic status.

  I will continue my attempt to illustrate the origins of group related attempts to bar the wrong elements. The next on takes us into the far past.