Is Race Replacement Acceptable?

Originally posted by Cythraul

Originally posted by UngoodWatermelon
And "races" (as if such a thing actually existed outside of the realm of human imagination)

Wow! Now that's a lie so enormous any Dictatorship would be proud of. To deny the beautiful diversity of planet Earth like that, and to ignore the sciences of geneticism and anthropology. Racial variation does exist and we should enjoy it, not attempt to destroy it by denying facts that some of us find uncomfortable.

Genetic...ism? Sigh.

Actually genetics and biology in general render the concept of "race" or "ethnicity" completely superfluous. The reason is simple; people like to screw. we screw like bunnies, and "race" has never actually been a barrier (if it was, there would never have been any need for segregationist laws, for example.) Thus, over the last million-and-whatever years of our species' history, there have probably never been any instances of "pure" races, since invariably everyone is descended from someone who looked rather different from them, somewhere down hte line.

This isn't to argue there's not lots of diversity out there. of course there obviously is. it's just that with a few small exceptions (such as sickle-cell anemia or lactose tolerance) these things are biologically meaningless - and those exceptions are not at all tied with what we regard as "race."

For an example, take president Obama. What race is he?

Biologically he's descended from African, West Asian, and Northern European populations
In the United States, he's "black," just as is anyone else with notably "African" features. They can be as dark as Grace Jones or as light as Beyonce, in the US they're all "black."
In Brazil, he's "moreno," that is, brown. Brazil has a different racial categorization system than the US or Great britain, and it has more to do with one's skin tone than actual ancestry.
However we go to South Africa and he is "colored," a designation that unlike the US or brazilian systems, acknowledges his mixed parentage - as opposed to being "white" or "black" in South African standards.
Go a little north into Chad, and odds are he'd be taken as a white person, or maybe even an Arab.
Now fly him to Japan, and all that falls aside and he is "American."

Which system is right? Biologically speaking, it's largely pointless. So it comes down to culture. Which cultural race determination system do you think is "correct" with regards to barack obama?

reply to post by Cythraul


"Is race replacement acceptable?" My reply to that would be absolutely not. I'm a big supporter of immigration, but a huge advocate to close down the borders and stop mass-immigration. We're not helping anyone in the long run except a very minute few. There's a good video floating around that describes what I'm talking about that I'll post shortly.

All mass-immigration is, is cultural suicide. People claim that there isn't any race. But there is. We may all be human beings, but like animals (take bears for that example), there are different kinds. There's the grizzly bear, black bear, panda etc. Same with us humans. We're just an advanced animal. Should we kill all the grizzly bears because hey, why not? There'll still be tons of black bears around, and a bear is a bear right?

But race in my opinion is the lowest denominator in all of this. What worries me is my culture being destroyed and forgotten. It's already happening in Norway. The number one fast food just a few years ago was a wiener in bread. Now? Kebab. We've used piggy banks in our banks for years. Now they're "non-offensive" cubes. These are only a couple of very minute examples, but they show a bigger picture of what's happening culture wise.

I don't mind Mr. and Mrs. Joe Immigrant coming in to find a new life. But when you increase those numbers substantially, you're no longer giving them a chance to find a new life, you're just providing them with a new area to continue their existing life. Nothing wrong with preserving your own culture too, but when it comes to the scale I'm talking about, the host country is the one losing out.

Like my family when we moved to the United States in the 80's. We learned English. We flew the American flag and celebrated the 4th of July. We didn't demand to fly the Norwegian flag during YOUR holiday like many immigrants do in Norway during our 17th of May parades. We didn't refuse to speak English like many refuse to speak Norwegian here. We integrated. We assimilated.

When it boils down to it, I guess that's the point I'm trying to make. Too little come to this country and assimilate. They'd rather we bend over to accommodate them. And that's because we allow too many in too fast. If we cut the amount of immigrants down, we can successfully integrate them into society. They'd chose to follow our way of life instead of trying to make us bend over for theirs.

But I digress, people will call you racist for anything these days so I guess I better get my flame suit on.

Here's the video I was talking about.



If we really want to help people, we'd stop immigration all together and start working on ways to help them in their own country. I.e. through the use of schools, agriculture projects and various academical tutors to help them establish a working infrastructure for them that works for them.

Currently, it's like we're trying to save the Titanic by using tape to fix the whole. It's just not working. We're wasting our time and not doing anything for those who really need the help.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Shortened; White people are angry that there are brown people.

I started the thread by asking that we try and keep this non-emotive. You’ve done the exact opposite – I can tell by your focus on colour and your attempt at over-exaggerating the sentiment I’m trying to express. ‘White people’ and ‘brown people’ are terms I find quite offensive, even though you’re trying to be ironic in using them. I don’t see the world in terms of ‘white, black and brown’; I see it in terms of the unique ethnic groups and the culture they are inextricably linked to. I am not angry that there are ‘brown people’ – as stated, I’m actually quite in awe of diversity. Nor am I angry that there are ‘brown people’ in my country. If you made even the slightest attempt to engage with the precise topic at hand, you’d know that this thread is specifically about immigrants of any colour replacing the indigenous people of any country in the world and whether this is okay. England is just the example I know most about.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
So far you've failed to express why this is so terrible.

This discussion doesn’t require me to. Is race replacement acceptable? A ‘yes’ or ‘no’ from each participant, followed by a polite explanation is enough. My intention here is not to argue why race replacement is wrong, but rather to get an overall impression of how many people support it and how many oppose it for curiosity’s sake.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
if it's not acceptable, what is your solution? Perhaps mass murder is on your docket? 'Cause there's really no better way to rid your pure, glistening, white society of those brown mud-devils, you know.

Who said I wanted a racially pure society? Again, your emotions are causing you to over-extend your argument (which I understand, given that some ethno-nationalists, unlike myself, are quite hateful and propose extreme solutions). This isn’t about purifying England, or any other nation on Earth. It’s about whether it’s ever okay for the ethnic majority to become a minority – the very opposite of the hatred and genocide you think I’m in support of.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

Why ?

So you would really be OK with caucasian blonde women disappearing from this planet? I hate to question your sexual orientation, but..

Firstly, ''averaged out brown people'' is a ridiculous concept; the only way a race could be ''averaged out'' is if there was a concerted effort to fuse two, or more, of them together.

As long as you have huge inlfux of people of one race into some territory, which is higher than domestic race reproduction rate, then not only averaging out, but racial substitution is only a matter of time. Its just basic logic and mathemathics.

reply to post by Frontkjemper


QFT:

I don't mind Mr. and Mrs. Joe Immigrant coming in to find a new life. But when you increase those numbers substantially, you're no longer giving them a chance to find a new life, you're just providing them with a new area to continue their existing life.

When it boils down to it, I guess that's the point I'm trying to make. Too little come to this country and assimilate. They'd rather we bend over to accommodate them. And that's because we allow too many in too fast. If we cut the amount of immigrants down, we can successfully integrate them into society. They'd chose to follow our way of life instead of trying to make us bend over for theirs.

If we really want to help people, we'd stop immigration all together and start working on ways to help them in their own country. I.e. through the use of schools, agriculture projects and various academical tutors to help them establish a working infrastructure for them that works for them.

Currently, it's like we're trying to save the Titanic by using tape to fix the whole. It's just not working. We're wasting our time and not doing anything for those who really need the help.

THIS.
I am not against moderate controlled immigration, but WHY allow mass immigration? It has many negatives (both for us, and ultimately also for immigrant home countries), and I cant find a single positive which would outweight them.

Originally posted by Frontkjemper
People claim that there isn't any race. But there is. We may all be human beings, but like animals (take bears for that example), there are different kinds. There's the grizzly bear, black bear, panda etc. Same with us humans. We're just an advanced animal. Should we kill all the grizzly bears because hey, why not? There'll still be tons of black bears around, and a bear is a bear right?

A perfect analogy! And thank you for your post - some much-needed sense and balance.

As some contributors have struggled in engaging with the topic of this thread, and it seems to be resembling a 'Cythraul the accused court case', I'm only going to address points that are pertinent.

Much of the problem with immigration in the UK, is that employers and business's have become addicted to cheap immigrant labour. Unfortunately many of the natives don't want to do the jobs that immigrants do. They don't want to work in factories doing the night shift in meat packing freezers and other such horrible jobs. So employers look for those who will do those jobs, which turns out to be immigrants. These immigrants are far less likely to complain about working conditions and pay, so are a greedy employers dream.

Why would business's employ a local native, who has become dependent on welfare, who may or may not turn up to work and will want to be paid at least the minimum wage. When Business's can employ an immigrant who is desperate for work and wouldn't dream of complaining to the boss about pay or conditions.

This is why immigration needs to be controlled and why workers unions need to become stronger. If you had strong unions in the first place, business would never have got the addiction to cheap immigrant labour as the Union would have defended against it.

reply to post by woodwardjnr

Fair points. Welfare-dependency and cheap imported labour are big issues which need to be addressed. The key aspect, with regards to this thread, is: why are so many average Britons so averse to even discussing these issues openly? The existence of an entire ethnic group is at stake, yet anyone who dares mention this is gagged, socially (by accusations of 'racist') or politically (by a denial of platform).

You suggest, woodwardjnr, that there are economic reasons for mass-migration, rather than saying outright that mass-immigration is positive regardless of its cause. So can I assume that the next time someone talks about peacefully tackling the root causes of mass-immigration and preventing the replacement of the English people that you'll not instantly villify them?

Originally posted by Cythraul
You're writing with it for a start.

The English language isn't unique to "English culture", as I'm sure any American, Canadian, australian or New Zealander might tell you.

Rather than have you put me on the backfoot, I'll ask you to define what is NOT England's culture and then we can go through what's left and confirm how much of it IS England's culture. I've been asked to outline England's culture many times in many discussions, and have done comprehensively. But I've come to realise that it's such an offensive question - with its implications of England having no unique culture - that it doesn't dignify a response.

I don't know what *isn't* 'English' culture, as I struggle with the idea that we have a unifying culture at all. Please tell me, what exactly are the ties I have with a farmer in the west country, an unemployed ex-miner from Newcastle or - god forbid - one of the yobbos who recently spent their time burning and looting much of my home city, and why are they to be valued more than those I share with a person of similar interests and socioeconomic status from another country?

Originally posted by Cythraul

Originally posted by Frontkjemper
People claim that there isn't any race. But there is. We may all be human beings, but like animals (take bears for that example), there are different kinds. There's the grizzly bear, black bear, panda etc. Same with us humans. We're just an advanced animal. Should we kill all the grizzly bears because hey, why not? There'll still be tons of black bears around, and a bear is a bear right?

A perfect analogy! And thank you for your post - some much-needed sense and balance.

It's a terrible analogy - different kinds of bears are different species, not different races. If we were talking about replacing human beings with chimpanzees it might be an appropriate analogy.

Human genetic material varies more within each "race" than it does between "races".

As some contributors have struggled in engaging with the topic of this thread, and it seems to be resembling a 'Cythraul the accused court case', I'm only going to address points that are pertinent.

It'll be interesting to see how you judge this.

reply to post by UngoodWatermelon

Before I waste my time addressing something irrelevant to the thread - is it your assertion that there is no such thing as an English culture and/or people?

Originally posted by Cythraul
why are so many average Britons so averse to even discussing these issues openly?

My experience in pubs and black cabs leads me to disagree with you on this.

The existence of an entire ethnic group is at stake, yet anyone who dares mention this is gagged, socially (by accusations of 'racist') or politically (by a denial of platform).

The BNP get an awful lot of media attention considering their general irrelevance in UK politics. The Conservatives and UKIP are also big on preventing mass immigration, although they don't speak about it in racial terms.

Originally posted by Cythraul
reply to post by UngoodWatermelon

 

Before I waste my time addressing something irrelevant to the thread - is it your assertion that there is no such thing as an English culture and/or people?

I don't really consider there to be a unifying English culture, unique to England and universally applicable to all English people, no. That may change if you give satisfactory answers, however. I simply want to know what you consider English culture to be, why you value it and why it should be preserved.

Originally posted by Cythraul
Why not? A nation's identity is defined culturally and genetically.

What genetics are you talking about in relation to white British people ?

White Britons are the product of inter-ethnic breeding between Celts, Romans, Vikings, Anglo-Saxons, Normans, Jutes and numerous other more recent additions to the genetic make-up, such as Huguenots, people from the Low Countries and, even more recently, refugees from the two World Wars and immigrants from other EU countries.

If you go to Cornwall, I'm sure your average white Briton will have more Celtic DNA than average. If you go to Lincolnshire, then your average white Britain will have more Scandinavian DNA than average. If you go to the South East, then your average white Britain will probably have more Anglo-Saxon and Norman DNA than average.
If you go to east London, then your average white Briton will have more Semitic DNA than average.

How can you define a culture as genetic, when the white British population is a random genetic mix of a variety of ethnicities ?

Originally posted by Cythraul
Is it automatically deemed racist to talk about the preservation of genetic identity?

The dictionary definition of racism is something along the lines of: ''a belief that genetic racial characteristics largely determine an individual's abilities, and that, consequently, some races are superior or inferior to others''.

''Preserving genetic identity'' is, by definition, racist.

Now, I consider myself to be an open minded chap, and I deplore Political Correctness, so I'm not closed minded to the possibility that some people of a particular ethnic group may, on average, be superior or inferior to others in terms of a particular trait. However - due to the time-frame of human migration - I consider that these differences would be, in all intents and purposes, negligible, and would largely occur in ethnic groups who have remained isolated for tens of thousands of years.

To this date, though, I have not seen any compelling evidence to suggest that there are large-scale, objective differences between races, apart from superficial traits which came about through natural selection, due to the environment in which the people lived in.

Most of the arguments for racism which I see are not based on anything scientific or rational, but are largely formed due to prejudice, stereotypes and confirmation bias.

Originally posted by Cythraul
Culture develops as a result of race. That's why with all the beautiful unique races we have in the world - of all colours - each has a distinct culture (per ethnic group).

Culture develops because of isolation.

It seems strange to me that you'd link English culture with the superficial, phenotypic trait of ''whiteness''.

Non-white people from ex-British colonies have far more in common, culturally, with British people than white people from countries such as Armenia or Albania.

Even within England, there are regional sub-cultures which flourish.

Obviously, culture is inherent in human society, so it's no surprise that one group of people who are separated from others will culturally evolve differently to another group. The same would happen if you separated groups of white British people.

Originally posted by Cythraul
England's culture cannot survive without the blood that created it

What blood ?

Imagine the Anglo-Saxons were white, the Vikings were black, the Normans were brown and every other historical white group of immigrant to Britain were East Asian looking.

What do you think the ''average Briton'' would look like today ? They would be a complete racial mix. Yet, since the average Briton is descended from a variety of white immigrants, you somehow think that immigration and inter-ethnic mixing is ''OK'' in that case, but not when the immigrants are non-white.

"Culture" is not a fixed value. Every culture changes over time, and trying to prevent this is a losing battle.
Look at how the "culture" of the UK has changed in the last hundred years. There's no point in trying to keep any culture frozen in time. It's going to change, regardless.

People don't realize this, generally. We can see this in both the people who try to to bring their "culture" with them, unchanged, when they move to a new country, and those who want their "culture" to remain unchanged when new influences arrive. Both sides are destined to be disappointed.

When proclaiming that a country's "culture" should remain "pure", you have to think of the vast cultural differences between your own countymen. I know that here, in the US, the "culture" of NYC is vastly different than, say, the "culture" in Garden City, Kansas. The people don't look, sound, or act the same as they are, in fact, culturally different. Which culture is American "culture"?

When we see that "culture" is not carved in stone, so to speak, but is an ever changing mix of customs and values, we see that the entire question of "losing one's culture" is actually a moot point, as you're losing it anyway, at least in the exact form that you're accustomed to, which makes the whole issue of "race replacement" about race, and not culture, as we should have been able to tell by the fact that it's being called "race replacement" and not "culture replacement".

I think you are confusing colour with culture.
Plenty of English people have relatives who aren't snowy white.
Hell, watch match of the day, look at the crowds, there are plenty of people of every shade in the crowd and screaming at the ref. That's English culture. More so than the Daily wail's idea of village greens, church on Sunday and tugging your forelock when the squire rides past.

If you are just afraid that white people will disappear, then ask yourself where all the black people that lived in regency England went. (Or more correctly, where their descendants went). The answer is that they got progressively whiter until even Nick Griffin would be happy to live next door to them.

I know that was a bit of a ramble, but you were rather vague about our culture.

reply to post by UngoodWatermelon

Because I’m feeling generous, and because it pains me to see English culture so widely deprecated, I’ll summarise what English culture is:

Firstly we must ignore the relatively modern promotion of ‘multicultural Britain’ and accept that England had a strong culture prior to the arrival of curry, Kashmir, reggae and Karate. English culture, though generally deemed less exciting, still exists alongside imported foods, styles and ideas.

Secondly it is important to acknowledge that the English are a predominantly Germanic people, and as such share traits with the Germans and Scandinavians, though in ways that are unique. For example, the first writing system of the English was a Runic alphabet called the Futhorc. It was derived from the Germanic Futhark which contains many of the same runes, but is nevertheless distinct.

It is the language, Anglo-Saxon place-names, English-style thatched roves, wicker fences, oak beams and horseshoes. It is yorkshire puddings, roast dinner and spotted dick. It is the unrivalled sense of animal welfare, dog ownership and sheepdog training; It is folklore, shepherds warnings and burial mounds. It is democracy and secularism. It is organized sport, village fayres, tug-o-war and toffee apples. It is Sutton Hoo, Taeppes Lowe and West Stow. It is the naming of days-of-the-week after Anglo-Saxon gods, Easter after the Anglo-Saxon goddess Eostre, and the May Pole Dance. And it is the common characteristics of the Anglo-Saxon – Respect for privacy with a sense of community, etiquette and ‘my home is my castle’. A unique sense of humour and sense of fair play.

Sadly, I know exactly what you’re going to say (particularly about character traits – that they’re not specific to Englishmen, even though they are nevertheless part of the English identity.

As for your other question about why is it worth saving. If I were to say “because English culture has been a positive force in the world”, then I’d probably get painted a supremacist. So I’d rather just repeat what I’ve said several times in this thread – that cultures and races should not have to justify their worth to be saved from extinction.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
''Preserving genetic identity'' is, by definition, racist.

Even according to your definition of 'racism' this isn't true.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
It seems strange to me that you'd link English culture with the superficial, phenotypic trait of ''whiteness''.

Non-white people from ex-British colonies have far more in common, culturally, with British people than white people from countries such as Armenia or Albania.

I didn't! I have repeatedly and clearly stated that the English shouldn't be defined as 'white', even though the English happen to be white. Armenians, Albanians and Poles are no more English than non-whites from ex-British colonies. It's not clever trying to put words in my mouth to make attacking me easier.

I'm done discussing whether England and the English exist. It's such deeply offensive (and not to mention racist) propaganda to deny the existence of an entire people that it doesn't deserve a response. England was used as an example of race-replacement, and I'm here to discuss generally the merit of race-replacement as applied to any race in the world.

Interestingly, it seems as though it is okay to replace First World groups but not non-white ones. For example, the same so-called 'Liberals' who would think my beliefs abhorrent are the ones protesting against the occupation of Tibet. What's happening there is more blatant and forceful, but the end result will be the same.

Originally posted by Cythraul
Sadly, I know exactly what you’re going to say (particularly about character traits – that they’re not specific to Englishmen, even though they are nevertheless part of the English identity.

You're quite right - I'll say exactly that. When a set of characteristics are neither unique to a nation nor universal amongst its people I find it very hard to accept it as that nation's 'culture'.

As for the rest of your post, it glorifies a rural existence from a bygone era which as a city resident I simply don't identify with. If that's "Englishness", you can keep it.

As for your other question about why is it worth saving. If I were to say “because English culture has been a positive force in the world”, then I’d probably get painted a supremacist.

Is it lonely up on that cross?

So I’d rather just repeat what I’ve said several times in this thread – that cultures and races should not have to justify their worth to be saved from extinction.

I don't agree with this.

Originally posted by Cythraul
I'm here to discuss generally the merit of race-replacement as applied to any race in the world.

Generally, it has happened again and again throughout history, is a natural process and I see nothing intrinsically wrong with it at all.

Interestingly, it seems as though it is okay to replace First World groups but not non-white ones. For example, the same so-called 'Liberals' who would think my beliefs abhorrent are the ones protesting against the occupation of Tibet. What's happening there is more blatant and forceful, but the end result will be the same.

Could it be possible - just possible - that they're protesting the brutal occupation, oppression and numerous human rights abuses rather than the replacement of one race with another?