Incredible racism at World Wildlife Federation

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Here is the lunacy of this argument:

"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. 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."

So let's just give into racist impulses and stop trying to eliminate it...is the suggested thinking.

Now, consider this argument in the same form:

Americans have been trying their damndest for the last fifty years to make crime go away, and yet the problem is said to still be pervasive. Americans have been trying their damndest for the last fifty years to reduce crime, and yet the problem is still be pervasive. Culture appears to be resilient stuff. We appear no more likely to alter it than to alter genes.

So let's just give into criminal impulses and stop trying to reduce criminal behavior.

or:

Here is further evidence lunacy of this argument:

Americans have been trying their damndest for the last fifty years to eliminate cancer, and yet the problem is said to still be pervasive. Americans have been trying their damndest for the last fifty years to make cancer vanish, and yet the problem is said to still be pervasive. Cancer appears to be resilient stuff. We appear no more likely to alter it than to alter genes.

So let's stop trying to cure cancer.

What total horsecrap...

 

[spect8or]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Here is the lunacy of this argument:

"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. 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."

So let's just give into racist impulses and stop trying to eliminate it...is the suggested thinking.

Now, consider this argument in the same form:

Americans have been trying their damndest for the last fifty years to make crime go away, and yet the problem is said to still be pervasive. Americans have been trying their damndest for the last fifty years to reduce crime, and yet the problem is still be pervasive. Culture appears to be resilient stuff. We appear no more likely to alter it than to alter genes.

So let's just give into criminal impulses and stop trying to reduce criminal behavior.

or:

Here is further evidence lunacy of this argument:

Americans have been trying their damndest for the last fifty years to eliminate cancer, and yet the problem is said to still be pervasive. Americans have been trying their damndest for the last fifty years to make cancer vanish, and yet the problem is said to still be pervasive. Cancer appears to be resilient stuff. We appear no more likely to alter it than to alter genes.

So let's stop trying to cure cancer.

What total horsecrap...

No, because there is a ready solution for racism -- segregate the races; stop adding multiracial fuel to the fire. Society simply refuses to employ this (most obvious) solution. It's only multiracial societies that have race problems. Living in those societies then is simply, in the words of a colleague, "an agonizing, never-ending ordeal". If people are happy to propagate multiracial problems to no obvious benefit, then, sure, by all means, keep pursuing multiracialism. But why not also allow people the freedom to form monoracial societies, that avoid the inherent problems of multiracialism?


Racism, then, is a man-made problem that could be undone any time we choose. Its undoing might be a messy, unfortunate affair -- for it would be nice if a happy, satisfying multiracialism were possible -- but its undoing would prove a solution; indeed, quite a humane solution, all things considered. (Though of course you refuse to consider all things; only what your liberal mind will allow you.)

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Oh sure, and slavery was a solution to the need for cheap labor...

Illegal aliens are a solution to the need for cheap labor...

Genocide of the American Indians was a solution to U.S. expansionism...

The Iraq war is a solution to terrorism...

Again, folks like you give conservatives a bad name...

Quote from spect8or:

No, because there is a ready solution for racism -- segregate the races; stop adding multiracial fuel to the fire. Society simply refuses to employ this (most obvious) solution. It's only multiracial societies that have race problems. Living in those societies then is simply, in the words of a colleague, "an agonizing, never-ending ordeal". If people are happy to propagate multiracial problems to no obvious benefit, then, sure, by all means, keep pursuing multiracialism. But why not also allow people the freedom to form monoracial societies, that avoid the inherent problems of multiracialism?


Racism, then, is a man-made problem that could be undone any time we choose. Its undoing might be a messy, unfortunate affair -- for it would be nice if a happy, satisfying multiracialism were possible -- but its undoing would prove a solution; indeed, quite a humane solution, all things considered. (Though of course you refuse to consider all things; only what your liberal mind will allow you.)

 

[spect8or]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Oh sure, and slavery was a solution to the need for cheap labor...

Illegal aliens are a solution to the need for cheap labor...

Genocide of the American Indians was a solution to U.S. expansionism...

The Iraq war is a solution to terrorism...

Again, folks like you give conservatives a bad name...

I don't hold to a single one of those statements. Maybe I do give conservatives a bad name, but it's not because I believe the above -- I certainly do not believe.

Segregation harms no one. It is infinitely more humane than enslaving people or slaughtering them. And it protects one's own.

Since spasms of hysterical defiance in the face of evidence have been absent from your posts lately, I might remark that the evidence also bears out that the only people really capable of -- or interested in -- maintaining a certain culture are the people who created it. Again, as my colleague explains, when the Italians invaded Libya, they found Arab tribes living among the remnants of a Roman culture -- Roman ruins -- that they didn't understand and could not have created. As blacks, hispanics and everyone else seeps into America, they too are seeping into a culture that they did not create, do not understand, do not care for and will not maintain in the absence of the white man. That is why wherever whites abandon ceases to be recognizably American. Detroit, Miami, New York, (increasingly LA and all of California); these are all effectively lost to American culture, because whites simply do not and cannot (refuse to) live there.

As Rabbi Schiller remarked -- a Jew, of all people -- the essential ingredients of Western civilization are not democracy and capitalism, they are the white race and the Christian religion.

 

[man]

Quote from spect8or:

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?

1. i have not been too many other places either. and i
would argue that the incidents you are referring to
have much more reference to poverty than to racial
conflicts.

2. again, the difference is that the white race is not
in danger of vanishing. absolutely no idea where that
fear of disappearance comes from.

3. the "intelligent social arrangements" are in place:
freedom of choice. i have no idea where white people
are forced to marry people from other races, or, in your
words have partnerships, which do not "reflect their
preferences".

sorry if i do you wrong, but i sense simple racism hidden
in vague language.

 

[man]

Quote from spect8or:

Segregation harms no one.

no. it is only possible in a totalitarian regime which has
the power to control partnerships. there is no other way
to segregate. this lack of freedom hurts everyone. well,
that one is probably wrong: the powernazis had all the
freedom and definitely didn't suffer from it.

your concepts are either not thought-through or they
are dangerous. maybe both, but your style shows you
are an intelligent person, thus this is just dangerous
for the world i think is worth living in.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from spect8or:

If it is necessary to preserve one variety of leopard, why is unnecessary to preserve one variety of human?

I notice that you've described the two leopards as different 'species' and then as different 'varieties'.In my opinion, that represents a huge difference, and the problem in your argument re: race.

Dan, do you think that whites and blacks and orientals are different species or different 'varieties' of the same species?

 

[Rearden Metal]

Spec, there are literally <b>thousands</b> of towns in the U.S. and Australia where whites form over 99% of the local population.

You're perfectly free to pick one of these places to live, thereby removing racial diversity from your life. So what was the problem, again?

 

[acronym]

Quote from Rearden Metal:

Spec, there are literally <b>thousands</b> of towns in the U.S. and Australia where whites form over 99% of the local population.

You're perfectly free to pick one of these places to live, thereby removing racial diversity from your life. So what was the problem, again?

They hate yugoslav's in those towns