At what point can the NAACP be disbanded?

Post Reply New Topic

Now I'll call a spade a spade: that sort of thinking, that an all white or near all white population is better, is what I consider racist (maybe reword to homogeneous?).

And you need to understand that history teaches us that when the obvious differences are removed, people will start to distinguish themselves using the less obvious ones; your perceived enemy will change from the person with the different skin color to the person with a different religion, or a different nose, or some other factor.

If anything, societies overall seem to have become more peaceful the more they've been forced to confront and learn to integrate differences. Not right away, but over time.

There can be no "just let it return" to the way it was, you know that, right? That would require huge and forceful displacement, something that never goes well.

No one sat down and said, "bring in minorities! We need to be more diverse!"

If you are going to blame anyone for the unnatural pieces of it, that would be the slave traders, wouldn't it? Quite possibly our own ancestors.

Blacks don't seem to multiplying at any great rate. As long as you can speak some Spanish you should be fine.

I wonder how easy it will be for the Republicans to get elected in 2050.

When someone believes that the first one is the thin end of the wedge, when it comes to worrying about their own interests eventually being squashed, that is racist, in my opinion: a fear that has no basis in reality.

But when the fear comes at the point where a person is about to go from majority to minority, it is a lot more imminent. Sure, there is a racist element, but that is no longer the overriding element, because now some rational arguments about human nature and group think start to creep in. You can look at history and see what can potentially happen (which is not to say it will). Am I suggesting they are right to be afraid? No, I'm not. I am saying it is understandable. How people feel about things is based on a whole smorgasbord of input, and race and cultural history are included. It isn't as easy as, "it isn't right to feel that way," because people do feel that way, and they are acting within the parameters of normal human nature when they do. People who don't want to think of themselves as racist will find all sorts of PC friendly covers to avoid being the minority in the room, but they're still reacting to the fear; I've seen it with the local schools. It is that pervasiveness even in one of the most vocally accepting parts of the country that leads me to feel it is a natural fear, and not just one born of hate. I don't like it, and none of us should, but it isn't productive to call large swaths of well meaning people racist, and society can't fix what it prefers to hide under more PC covers and pretend does not exist.

If we want to evolve beyond that, we have to address it.

All that said, I don't think that fearing the upcoming demographic tipping point is a rational fear for several reasons, mostly because it really is not as simple as Jones' now being outnumbered by Smiths:

1) There is no one current minority group that will suddenly become the new majority, and the various different minority groups do not share a single agenda or otherwise act in a unified fashion.
2) The laws put on the books don't limit themselves to current minorities; they address a concept, not one group, and should turn to apply to protect any group that suddenly becomes targeted.
3) More and more families will belong to multiple groups.

Now I'll call a spade a spade: that sort of thinking, that an all white or near all white population is better, is what I consider racist (maybe reword to homogeneous?).

Careless breeding practices by minorities gets on my nerves. While I don't believe in abortion, minority groups are testing my patience on the matter. Not only does it create a burden for society, but it also encourages the least fit among them to do the most breeding. It's still a problem to a lesser extent with whites. By the time 2050 rolls around I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few generations of minorities that were so poorly bred that the only way to make voting simple enough or get them to care enough would be to have the candidates participate in luxa league wrestling or go on some type of reality show. The best and brightest (regardless of race) are putting off having kids and going to college until they can get married, settle down, and afford to raise them.

I have self-actualized past the point to where I can be bothered by such simple charges of "racism" coming from the prosaic population. Wether or not people wish to bleat the charge as the always do is irrelevant and meaningless to me, as I have moved on to a higher level of thinking and I am not confined within the parameters of the contemporary conformist ethos.

I have not observed that the fastest growing minority population in my area is doing it through anything that would be considered careless breeding. They are doing it within stable family units that work hard and know how to stretch a dollar. That isn't careless. They value children and are willing to set aside their own needs to raise as many children as God seems fit to bless them with. A different value system that you and I most likely were raised with, but it is not careless.

Now I'll call a spade a spade: that sort of thinking, that an all white or near all white population is better, is what I consider racist (maybe reword to homogeneous?).

If it is "racist" to even suggest that a homogenously white society would be superior to a "diverse" society of whites+non-whites, I think that may imply that minorities are the "Master race."

if Whites + non-whites is superior to Whites + Whites......... I think that may suggest that the non-whites are naturally superior. After all, non-whites would then be the elevating factor, would they not?

If it is "racist" to even suggest that a homogenously white society would be superior to a "diverse" society of whites+non-whites, I think that may imply that minorities are the "Master race."

if Whites + non-whites is superior to Whites + Whites......... I think that may suggest that the non-whites are naturally superior. After all, non-whites would then be the elevating factor, would they not?

Or it may just be that the combination is better. You don't want to get too homogeneous and inbred do you?

What next? Get rid of all the red heads and brunettes?

Seriously, if you are not blond haired and blue eyed you obviously don't have the proper breeding.

You should be a decent height too at least 5'10" for a man and free from imperfections. No ret*ds that's for sure.

How pure is your bloodline Hanotaux? Please submit proof to the proper authorities that none of your recent ancestors were or are non Aryan people. Only DNA tests from recognised testing centres will be accepted.

----------------

There have been majority white societies and majority "other" societies and they rise and fall with equal alacrity. Suggesting that a white society is superior to a diverse or homgenously black/asian/whatever society isn't particularly supported by history. Not to say that there haven't been successful single-race societies, but they haven't all been white, and not all white societies are exactly outstanding examples

hanotaux: who's your favorite poet?

[.

OK, what are some "successful" historically white+non-white societies?

Roman Empire