Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who has been posting links from stormfront? I am probably the only one in this thread that has been posting controversial links that might be anything similar to what you might see on stormfront.
But I did not post anything I wrote as a recognition of anything that is written on stormfront. And honestly many the stormfront people are flat out unrealistic. They fight over what defines a person as white. Many don't take any sort of scientific basis for their feelings, they just believe that all whites are superior to everyone else. And many don't take a cultural basis for their feelings either. They just have this failed ideology that they should just build this all white nation, and it'll be perfect. But then they talk about how the Spanish and the Italians shouldn't be considered white, or the greeks shouldn't be considered white, and then they expand it into the Balkans, etc etc. And the ashkenazi jews, who are very white and extremely intelligent, are not considered white in their eyes either, because they are jews. In fact, the vast majority of them absolutely despise the jews and would like to build more concentration camps to rid the world of the jewish "filth".
Most of them live in this fairy-tale world that they have created for themselves, and would like nothing more than to commit genocide across the entire planet. But there are a few of them that are very intelligent, and they propose very serious questions about what a society could and should be.
I read this yesterday, talking about the American education system as it has become more inclusive and multi-cultural.
You've slipped a wriggly eel into the barrel. A bit difficult to get one's hands securely on it. Not really fair and reasonale to dump it into the general class of 'groups' being discussed here, which appears to center around 'hate' as a primary agenda.
Would you admit that the ACLU has an agenda that tends not to favor traditional American values? Or are you a believer and supporter of that prganization? I quite frankly admit that I oppose them.
I found ALL your observations here interesting, but...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
When I think of the world, I try to contrast ideology with reality. And try to output the best possible outcomes.
I would love a world where no one was racist or discriminatory. But really I would love a world where we were all the same color(whatever that color might be), where we were all the same religion, where we were all the same everything. And the only thing that really differentiates us, is our individual desire to succeed. When I was young, people always told me, "you can do anything you want to do, you just have work hard". But this is obviously a lie. Not everyone can do everything, all people are born with limitations. I know, because I am one of those people.
When I look at human behavior, you realize there are always limitations to what kind of a society you can create. Because humans are biologically predetermined to be racially and culturally aware, and discriminatory. Trying to create a world where we are all colorblind or where radical muslims can co-habitate with orthodox jews, is just not realistic.
When I think of this country, or any country, and I wish for there to be happiness and stability in any of our lifetimes. A multi-cultural and multi-racial society is not the answer. Multiple races and cultures in a single territory is ALWAYS a bad thing in terms of happiness and stability. To believe that a country could ever be more stable by being multi-cultural is delusional.
I have an obsession with being happy, one of the main reasons I started paying more attention to politics, was my reading of the "happiest countries in the world" last year. At first I accredited their happiness with the fact they are all socialist countries. Because every one of them on the list is far more socialist than this country. But it didn't explain why other socialist countries were so much further down the list. The largest socialist countries of Europe, which are all very rich, were further down the list than even the United States.
So what is it that truly makes a country happy? In my opinion, its a feeling of unity of the people. They say that on average, a person does not become happier throughout their lives. That happiness does not come from wealth, or from posessions, it comes from the relationships you have with other people. The bond of your family and your community.
When I look at the happiest countries in the world, the thing that truly defines them, is that they are all small peaceful(non war'ing) countries. With very similar/relatively homogeneous populations. What is there to fight about, if you are all alike? Large countries are always much further down the list.
I guess I am a little envious of these countries, and I guess I selfishly wish for the dissolution of this country into smaller countries, that are all very culturally similar. Where there is no racism, because there is no race. Where there is one culture, and people see their country as an extended family, rather than just a conglomerate of people. Where people are eager to help each other, because they are all the same community. I believe I would feel much more free in that society, because I wouldn't feel limited in where I can go, where I can live, and never have to worry about ever having to hear about the "Race card" ever again.
...of the general nature I would describe as ruminations of an idyllic dreamer. Not a bad thing, just unrealistic. The idea of a happy nation or country to me brings forth an immediate image. A nation where all citizens fall into mute lockstep and march to a single tune. The tune of acquired boredom that feeds a sense of tranquility, but never stirs at the soul. Human beings are all different and products of their disparate genetic makeup and accumulated environmental influences. They were, whether based upon a belief in an Almighty or God presence or not, created as individuals, not clones of one another. I would submit that the challenge to man, the higher being, from the start was to go forth and do that which was necessary to make a world fit for procreating his species. Having human failings, obstacles to such stood in the way almost immediately.
That; however, should NOT be any justification for abandoning the challenge. We must as individuals always work to seek and attain the higher ground of freedom of the human spirit while respecting the rights of others. We do so by working against the elements that we perceive act to divide man, not unite him...That seek to dominate him, not free him. Failing in that commitment we are doomed.
I'm one who boldly acknowleges that as there is an inherent GOOD in man, so there is a resident EVIL also.
The disposition towards dreamily projecting and wishing for a fondly desired utopian happiness is pulling a mask over reality and deluding onesself.
Just another thinking out loud observation.
Last edited by doctorhugo; 01-19-2010 at 10:13 AM..
Reason: misspell
You've slipped a wriggly eel into the barrel. A bit difficult to get one's hands securely on it. Not really fair and reasonale to dump it into the general class of 'groups' being discussed here, which appears to center around 'hate' as a primary agenda.
Would you admit that the ACLU has an agenda that tends not to favor traditional American values? Or are you a believer and supporter of that prganization? I quite frankly admit that I oppose them.
Well, I'll get comfortable here and wait for you or the person who initially brought them up to explain why you oppose them.
By "traditional American values," I take it you mean values that are unconstitutional.
...of the general nature I would describe as ruminations of an idyllic dreamer. Not a bad thing, just unrealistic. The idea of a happy nation or country to me brings forth an immediate image. A nation where all citizens fall into mute lockstep and march to a single tune. The tune of acquired boredom that feeds a sense of tranquility, but never stirs at the soul. Human beings are all different and products of their disparate genetic makeup and accumulated environmental influences. They were, whether based upon a belief in an Almighty or God presence or not, created as individuals, not clones of one another. I would submit that the challenge to man, the higher being, from the start was to go forth and do that which was necessary to make a world fit for procreating his species. Having human failings, obstacles to such stood in the way almost immediately.
That; however, should NOT be any justification for abandoning the challenge. We must as individuals always work to seek and attain the higher ground of freedom of the human spirit while respecting the rights of others. We do so by working against the elements that we perceive act to divide man, not unite him...That seek to dominate him, not free him. Failing in that commitment we are doomed.
Don't you see, anytime you work against the elements that divide man, you are actually going to unite man, and through a smaller/global world and the spread of ideas/culture, you will eventually create a world that is very similar to all the rest of the world. The multi-culturalists desire to combine cultures is actually counter to cultural preservation.
If you desire for the world to not be boring, the best way to do this is by creating separate groups rather than breaking down barriers. Blacks have their own culture in this country, because they perceive themselves to be different. They have a separate history than we do. Once no one is really different, will people still perceive there to be any differences?
I am part Cherokee Indian(but im only 1/16th), but I don't have any great affinity for them. To me, their culture and traditions hinge on silly. About the only people that are involved in preserving their culture are the ones that are full blood Cherokee or close to it. I believe at some point many of the native-american cultures will be lost forever, because people who are a fraction American-Indian won't identify with them anymore. This can be said for all cultures.
In our lifetimes, we are creating a society that is split culturally and racially, and therefore it is not harmonious. In the distant future, we are creating a huge world that is not distinct. But unlike small countries who have a community feel from their small size, the world will just be a soul-less mass of people, who are all alike, but have no true geographical attachments to each other.
Like I said before, the people who hate nature are the ones who preserve nature. Not because they really want to, but because they don't come into contact with it, so they do not change it. The people who love nature want to live there, and they build roads, and houses, and communities.
If you, as a person, hated black people or white people or asian people, you are much less likely to affect them in any way. I hate Africa, I am never going to go there, so the Africans will not be affected by me. Their religions, culture, and genetic makeup will not be affected by me. But if I was a white Christian and I loved Africa, I would move there, and try to convert their people to Christianity, and I would mate with them and have mixed blood children, which would slowly destroy their national identity.
If you truly cherished our differences, and wanted to preserve them. Then you would be absolutely opposed to any cultural or racial mixing. But there is nothing wrong with the free flow of ideas and technology. Japan is a great example of trying to block out non-japanese cultural or racial mixing, at the same time, being a great trading nation, with superior technologies.
You've slipped a wriggly eel into the barrel. A bit difficult to get one's hands securely on it. Not really fair and reasonale to dump it into the general class of 'groups' being discussed here, which appears to center around 'hate' as a primary agenda.
Would you admit that the ACLU has an agenda that tends not to favor traditional American values? Or are you a believer and supporter of that prganization? I quite frankly admit that I oppose them.
Well, I'll get comfortable here and wait for you or the person who initially brought them up to explain why you oppose them.
By "traditional American values," I take it you mean values that are unconstitutional.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That was not I, if you'll check you'll see BentBow first mentioned it. You're waiting for naught...and also stalling on my question, which you were asked first. What are you afraid of? I don't bite! Afterwards I'll answer your question.
By traditional American values I mean "traditional American values". Since you find that you must fall into your sardonic routine right off the bat and dodge around committing to a legitimate opinion, again your routine, you force me to make assumptions that you demean that which all true Americans would call their traditional values because you are the antithesis of such values. Being as evasive as you love to be has it's disadvantages to be certain.
Well, I'll get comfortable here and wait for you or the person who initially brought them up to explain why you oppose them.
By "traditional American values," I take it you mean values that are unconstitutional.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That was not I, if you'll check you'll see BentBow first mentioned it. You're waiting for naught...and also stalling on my question, which you were asked first. What are you afraid of? I don't bite! Afterwards I'll answer your question.
By traditional American values I mean "traditional American values". Since you find that you must fall into your sardonic routine right off the bat and dodge around committing to a legitimate opinion, again your routine, you force me to make assumptions that you demean that which all true Americans would call their traditional values because you are the antithesis of such values. Being as evasive as you love to be has it's disadvantages to be certain.
In other words there's nothing to attack the ACLU on other than the Constitution's divergence from your personal preferences, when you have to actually think about it instead of just setting out shallow knee-jerk party-line pronouncements.
That's okay.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Delusianne
