Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Caucasians


ScottSA

Recommended Posts

Before a helpful moderator moves, or combines, or changes the title, or hides this thread under the bed, I'd like to rephrase a question Jerry asked; I can't support his original contention, because I find the category of "white" too indeterminant, and the exclusion of the French absurd. Besides, that thread has degenerated into namecalling and general cacophany.

But survival of a race is very much a valid question. I don't mean the euphemisms of culture and all the other sidesteps we tend to use, nor do I mean culture. For the purpose of this exercize, and to head off Momo et. al. who tend to obfuscate the genetic question, let's define race as follows:

...observable characteristics as skin color, hair type, body proportions, and skull measurements, essentially codifying the perceived differences among broad geographic populations of humans. The traditional terms for these populations—Caucasoid (or Caucasian), Mongoloid, Negroid, and in some systems Australoid...

No doubt this definition falls down on many fronts and we can beat about the bush all we want, infinitely parsing it this way and that, but we all know what people mean when they say "caucasion," don't we, really? And since my question revolves around Caucasians, the rest is really secondary.

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

Anyway, the question is this:

Is anyone concerned that Caucasians are intentionally destroying themselves as a homogenous race? It's a fair question, I think, because that is the course embarked upon many years ago when the traditionally Caucasian nations embarked upon policies, almost as one, to institute mass immigration of so-called "visible minorities."

Again, I'd ask that folks focus on the question and not get side tracked by what you might think my sinister motives are for asking it, and I'd ask that the accusations of "racism" be held to a minimum...every other racially homogenous region in the world asks these kinds of questions as a matter of course. And it is a fair question. Given the below replacement birthrates of caucasians across the board, if the west continues on this path, caucasians will become a minority in their own traditional lands, and eventually be absorbed into the other genetic pools.

I'm sure I forgot some caveats, but the question stands...is anyone concerned? Is anyone not concerned?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 657
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I;'m not concerned about skin colour per se, but I am concerned about the survival of English language and all of the traditions that go along with it. The world has been dominated by English speaking peoples for the last 150 years and it has been a boon to humanity.

When that ends, it will be somewhat disconcerting to say the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, the question is this:

Is anyone concerned that Caucasians are intentionally destroying themselves as a homogenous race? It's a fair question, I think, because that is the course embarked upon many years ago when the traditionally Caucasian nations embarked upon policies, almost as one, to institute mass immigration of so-called "visible minorities."

Again, I'd ask that folks focus on the question and not get side tracked by what you might think my sinister motives are for asking it, and I'd ask that the accusations of "racism" be held to a minimum...every other racially homogenous region in the world asks these kinds of questions as a matter of course. And it is a fair question. Given the below replacement birthrates of caucasians across the board, if the west continues on this path, caucasians will become a minority in their own traditional lands, and eventually be absorbed into the other genetic pools.

I'm sure I forgot some caveats, but the question stands...is anyone concerned? Is anyone not concerned?

Yes, it's a valid concern, and I agree that bringing the question up is not racist. Honestly, Caucasians just need to start reproducing more. The problem is the difficulties and disincentives that our societies have for doing so.

Edited by Bonam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I;'m not concerned about skin colour per se, but I am concerned about the survival of English language and all of the traditions that go along with it. The world has been dominated by English speaking peoples for the last 150 years and it has been a boon to humanity.
English is the second language almost everywhere. If the Chinese want to sell their goods overseas they need to speak English. English will not be as dominant as it has in the past but it is in no danger of disappearing.

Also economic, political and religious freedom are values which are not tied to the english language. They will likely exist long after english has gone the way of latin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Xman. Now any serious posts? I recognize the urge many feel to jam threads and shout down questions like this, because at least one generation has been raised to see questions of this sort as heretical, and has been indoctrinated in and assured by revisionist history that caucasians are the cause of 90% of the world's woes, but it's a rather silly view, and I was hoping to avoid that nonsense in at least one thread. I really don't care less whether I'm considered a "racist" or not, but it would be nice if we could save the nonsense for other threads. I'm doing some research on this topic, and I'm looking for serious opinions, not childish rhetoric.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calm down ScottSexAddict. Your premise is false. You and few others, whom also seem not to care that they are being racist, persist in these childish threads. If this helps, there is nothing you can do short of mass murder to stop the so-called threat. Any votes from you and the like-minds on genocide? Once again? Pal, it's all about the money. There is no money in preserving so-called White culture, so it ain't happening. The jackbooted blocked-headed thugs are too scatter-brained to organize a real movement, so it ain't happening. I guess in light of your concerns, the white man failed by selling out and accepting the Trojan horse of immigration. Give it ten years or so, and every little blonde hottie will be with something black or brown. And if not, the others will be fantasizing about it. Now deal with your response to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think your premise is wrong in that immigration itself is not the source of the problem, but rather, a symptom. Whether Caucasians are outnumbered by Asians or Arabs or Blacks is not a matter of genocide. Caucasians haven't disappeared. They're simply scattered among other racial groups. The problem lies in the culture of most Caucasian nations today, which is slack, lazy, overly permissive, liberal and self-indulgent. To the point where young people are far more interested in acquiring shiny baubles and taking fun trips than in having children - which after all, aren't seen as 'fun", at least, not in the short sighted viewpoint of the young who are expected to bear them. It used to be _expected_ that every man and woman would get married and have kids - many kids. A lot of pressure was put upon them to do so. Not today. Now it's every man and woman for his or herself. How much fun can you have in your youth? Who wants to give up those yearly trips to Cuba and the Dominican Republican for some whiny, smelly baby? Besides, how can you have a great career - as, like, a junior clerk, say - if you have lots of kids? And the daycare costs once you have more than one are a killer (actually true).

The primary problem, then, with the fact that Caucasians are not reproducing in sufficient numbers to continue their race lies not with other racial groupings but with Caucasians themselves. Society needs to bring back the concept that parenthood is the focus of life (Incidentally, I can't wait till all those DINKs get old and start looking around for the people who are supposed to take care of them. No kids are going to spring up fully grown from the nether to take them into their homes. It's the state run institution for you old woman!). Some governments have been somewhat successful in raising birth rates by implementing more family-friendly taxation programs and policies, and I really think we should look into that more. I'd even be in favour of national day care, regardless of the cost, if it would actually function to provide cheap day care to working parents as the Liberal so-called plan would most definitely NOT have done.

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calm down ScottSexAddict. Your premise is false. You and few others, whom also seem not to care that they are being racist, persist in these childish threads. If this helps, there is nothing you can do short of mass murder to stop the so-called threat. Any votes from you and the like-minds on genocide? Once again? Pal, it's all about the money. There is no money in preserving so-called White culture, so it ain't happening. The jackbooted blocked-headed thugs are too scatter-brained to organize a real movement, so it ain't happening. I guess in light of your concerns, the white man failed by selling out and accepting the Trojan horse of immigration. Give it ten years or so, and every little blonde hottie will be with something black or brown. And if not, the others will be fantasizing about it. Now deal with your response to that.

Go away please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Society needs to bring back the concept that parenthood is the focus of life
I find your comments curious because a falling birth rate is the mark of _every_ affluent society no matter what the race. It is basically a question of economics: as a society becomes wealthier the cost of raising children increases dramatically. This cost includes direct costs such as higher education. It also includes opportunity costs for women who lose out on employment income while raising children.

We no longer live in a society where more child means more free labour for the farm. You cannot alter the fundemental economics that work against having children. We could try to use the tax system to subsidize parents but such subsidies tend to be too course grained and tend to reward people who were going to have kids anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

False premise.

From what I have read of Scott's post I dont see where he is putting down other races, or that he is saying that other races are bad, so how can you call it racist. I am not particularly concerned about this issue either, but I dont see why its such a terrible thing for a person to think about preserving a race or taking steps to do so, and he certainly hasnt mentioned genocide as one of the options.

If there were two bald eagles left ...........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The premise is false. Repeat. The premise is false. How can we (in good conscience) debate about a topic that has a false premise? It's not about the debate. It's about drudging up old hatred.

Please Xman, I asked specifically to not have this thread degenerate into this childish namecalling. You obviously have nothing of any worth to add, so please don't post here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Caucasians haven't disappeared. They're simply scattered among other racial groups.

But that's what I mean. All other races have a territorial homeland in which they are largely homogenous. That used to be true of caucasians in Europe as well, but by choice, that homogeniety is disappearing. Once it does, the race itself stands no chance of surviving as an entity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find your comments curious because a falling birth rate is the mark of _every_ affluent society no matter what the race. It is basically a question of economics: as a society becomes wealthier the cost of raising children increases dramatically. This cost includes direct costs such as higher education. It also includes opportunity costs for women who lose out on employment income while raising children.

We no longer live in a society where more child means more free labour for the farm. You cannot alter the fundemental economics that work against having children. We could try to use the tax system to subsidize parents but such subsidies tend to be too course grained and tend to reward people who were going to have kids anyways.

I disagree that you cannot alter the fundamental economics that you mentioned. In fact, I think it's quite possible, and that it is especially easy to encourage a family that has already had 1 kid anyway to have more.

As you mentioned, the main reasons people don't have kids or don't have as many kids are, of course, money and time. Time spent raising the kids and losing out on career opportunities, time lost parttaking in funner activities that a couple without kids could enjoy, and money spent on the various needs of raising a family, including more food, larger housing, education, etc.

What needs to be noticed first is that the time requirement is basically a few years after birth in terms of lost career opportunities, and about 15-20 years after birth until (roughly) you are more or less free from spending the majority of your time on your kid. Having more than 1 kid in a short period of time (say 3 kids in 4 years) increases the timespan until you can return to a "kidless" life by only 3 years, compared to just having 1 child. And most families do still have at least 1 child. That means that the first kid basically takes away 20 years of freedom from your life, whereas each of the next take away only a year and a half more (given the 3 kids in 4 years example). Thus, the added time expenditure to increase fertility from 1 to 3+ is minimal, compared to just having that first one, which most couples still do. So if they already had 1, and there was an incentive to have more, chances are they'd go for it.

Secondly, as lifespans increase, taking say 20-25 years out of your life to raise 3+ kids becomes less of a sacrifice. If your life expectancy is 60, and you're old and sickly by 55, then having kids at the age of 30 means you've spent your entire healthy life after that point raising them. But if your life expectancy is 80, and you remain in good health til 75, that means you still have 20 years of healthy life to enjoy after you're all done raising kids. If you live healthy to the age of 120, it becomes a much smaller sacrifice. Life expectancy has been rising, and will continue to rise, and as it does, the fraction of their lives that people have to devote to raise a certain number of kids will decrease.

That leaves the issue of money, and this is where government policies can definitely help. First, as was mentioned, a national daycare system would be a huge help for parents. Not only would it save money, but it would also lower the time period that parents (the ones that are willing to use the system rather than raise their kids themselves) have to spend before they can return to work. Anyway, we already have national daycare starting from the age of 6 or 7 (school), and there's no reason this couldn't just be extended down to a younger starting age. Also, additional incentives should be given to families, and these should be progressively higher for each additional child, so that it makes sense to have more, and couples can actually see it as a profitable rather than costly thing to do.

Furthermore, post-secondary education shouldn't cost money, rather, it should be payed for. Companies have an interest in recruiting trained and well educated new employees. These companies could provide funding to students to complete their education, and in exchange, students would have to agree to work for a given period after graduation for that company. Large corporations looking for rapid growth could even open up their own post-secondary education centres, focused on teaching the students the skills and knowledge they need for that specific company. Programs like this could also be supplemented by the government, to get them off the ground, but would quickly become profitable and self-sustaining.

These initiatives may sound expensive, but you gotta remember that a country with a youthful population has a much stronger economy. An aging population, like we have now, means a shrinking workforce and ever-increasing healthcare costs.

Having birth rates up in the 3+ children/couple range would make reproduction of the existing population a much higher component of overall population growth than immigration, and would thus ensure the continued survival of Caucasians as a distinct race, without any thought of racist policies or decrease in the openness of our societies.

Edited by Bonam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Society needs to bring back the concept that parenthood is the focus of life
I find your comments curious because a falling birth rate is the mark of _every_ affluent society no matter what the race. It is basically a question of economics: as a society becomes wealthier the cost of raising children increases dramatically. This cost includes direct costs such as higher education. It also includes opportunity costs for women who lose out on employment income while raising children.

We no longer live in a society where more child means more free labour for the farm. You cannot alter the fundemental economics that work against having children. We could try to use the tax system to subsidize parents but such subsidies tend to be too course grained and tend to reward people who were going to have kids anyways.

Examine the birth rates in some European nations. We may not be talking about the end of Caucasians, but we can definitely see the rapid downsizing of ethnic groups - ie, Italians. Does anyone care if there are no more Italians? Or if the ones in that area area have no genetic, ancestral or cultural links to ancient Rome? And speak Arabic? I mean, this is a major problem for a lot of countries. Our birth rate is below replacement level, but still well above many European nations. Curiously, only the United States seems, without any real effort on the part of the government, to be maintaining a replacement level of births. And they are unquestionably an affluent society. To say there is nothing we can do is patently wrong. Some European countries have had good success with a mix of policies. Yes, it's economics, to a certain degree, which is why we need taxation policies and government programs which make it easier on young families. The "career" of most women today consists of low level work that is somewhat far from glamorous. I know several women who have recently had kids and without the economic need they would have preferred to have stayed home with their child - and perhaps had more. That is the kind of thing we need to encourage. Else we can just go on replacing ourselves with foreigners to what end we cannot predict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Caucasians haven't disappeared. They're simply scattered among other racial groups.

But that's what I mean. All other races have a territorial homeland in which they are largely homogenous. That used to be true of caucasians in Europe as well, but by choice, that homogeniety is disappearing. Once it does, the race itself stands no chance of surviving as an entity.

Well, this was our decision, wasn't it? I mean, no one in Africa or Asia put a gun to our heads and demanded we let in millions of their people. That was our cultural elites, and we, as a people, stood by apathetically and let them do it. So if there are no pure white countries left outside of perhaps Iceland, we have only ourselves to blame.

Although, actually, there are still a number of nations with very few non-whites, and I think generally that is simply because they were too poor to be attractive to immigrants, or to want or need immigrants. How many non-whites are you going to find in Hungary or Romania or Ukraine or Georgia? Probably aren't too many in most of Russia either, as the old Soviet government discouraged its non-Slav population from moving west, and so far as I know that hasn't changed.

As for surviving as an "entity" I'm not sure what that entails. The only similarity among White nations is western liberalism - and despite its many flaws I think what we really want to ensure is that non-white immigrants to these countries embrace western liberalism and cast aside their primitive cultural backwardness. That isn't happening as much as it should, and that's what we really need to be concerned with. Not that the guy standing next to you on the bus doesn't have white skin, but that he doesn't believe in democracy or free speech.

Besides, if you want to take the long view, the reason we look the way we do is because of environmental factors which are largely still at play. In other words, leave the family of that pitch black African immigrant here in the north eating meat for a few hundred generations and his descendants are gonna be as white as Don Cherry. Likewise, all those South African Boers are going to have Black descendants eventually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Culture is also a big part of it actually... while I haven't read a study showing this, I'd be willing to bet that the average number of kids in immigrant households (especially immigrants from Asia, Africa, Middle-East) is a lot higher than the average number of kids in "Canadian" households, even in the case of immigrants that are well to do and "affluent". Perhaps we just need a big add campaign glorifying having kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides, if you want to take the long view, the reason we look the way we do is because of environmental factors which are largely still at play. In other words, leave the family of that pitch black African immigrant here in the north eating meat for a few hundred generations and his descendants are gonna be as white as Don Cherry. Likewise, all those South African Boers are going to have Black descendants eventually.

Physical evolutionary factors are not really at play any more. A black person living in the north isn't going to die from vitamin D defficiency from insufficient sunlight, because he can just take some vitamins. A white person living on the equator isn't gonna die from sunburn, he can just put on some sunscreen. Those are simplifications of course, but the point is that modern technology removes a lot of evolutionary factors that originally made peoples in certain geographic areas differ in the way they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides, if you want to take the long view, the reason we look the way we do is because of environmental factors which are largely still at play. In other words, leave the family of that pitch black African immigrant here in the north eating meat for a few hundred generations and his descendants are gonna be as white as Don Cherry. Likewise, all those South African Boers are going to have Black descendants eventually.

Physical evolutionary factors are not really at play any more. A black person living in the north isn't going to die from vitamin D defficiency from insufficient sunlight, because he can just take some vitamins. A white person living on the equator isn't gonna die from sunburn, he can just put on some sunscreen. Those are simplifications of course, but the point is that modern technology removes a lot of evolutionary factors that originally made peoples in certain geographic areas differ in the way they do.

Well then, presumably, we'll all blend together into one homogeneous race again, as we were in the beginning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...