Are we allowed to discuss race on this forum?

[cajuncocoa]

Thanks for letting us all know you are a racist.

LOL....but you didn't recognize that in PCP's post I guess. Little wonder.

 

[acptulsa]

LOL....but you didn't recognize that in PCP's post I guess. Little wonder.

Some people think reverse racism isn't racism. Some think only reverse racism is racism.

Both are equally wrong, of course.

 

[otherone]

LOL....but you didn't recognize that in PCP's post I guess. Little wonder.

 

[LibertyEagle]

As noted, the community guidelines explain what is allowed; promoting any type of negative collectivist mindsets is the antithesis of our values. That said, having some discussions to explore your mindset without actually promoting anything can be of value for the purpose of improving thought processes for all who participate and read in this thread.

Does this mean that it is against guidelines to point out facts and statistics? If not, this is purely political-correctness and certainly is not conducive to a free society.

With that, could you please answer the following questions?

Why? And for the sake of argument, how do you propose to achieve this? What if others don't agree?

It depends on whether you allow AcpTulsa to continue browbeating anyone who doesn't agree with him. Look just at his responses in just this one thread. PaleoCon had just asked a question. Are we now too scared, or politically-correct, to discuss topics? If the person cannot back up his assertion, then it should be easy to destroy.

Let's say that you have a nation right at this 90% mark and some non-majorities types want to move in -then what? What if one of the 90% wants to bring in and marry a non-majority type - then what?

First of all, Bryan, since when were we required to let anyone move in who wants to; whether it be race, ability to support oneself, skills they had, etc? No other nation on earth does allows everyone to move in. What do you believe is to be gained from doing so? Our Founders most certainly did not agree with doing this. Too many people have fallen for the slogan that we were ever a "melting pot".

For the sake of argument, why?

He said he didn't agree with multiculturalism and for good reason.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=multiculturalism+site:thenewamerican.com

 

[LibertyEagle]

LOL....but you didn't recognize that in PCP's post I guess. Little wonder.

I understand that some of you would like to shut down discussion about the perils of multiculturalism. But, this discussion needs to be had.

 

[acptulsa]

Of course, those who whine loudest about how SJWs should mind their own business and not be so arrogant as to think all of society should be re-molded to suit their preferences are also usually the first to call for the execution if gays, too.

Just as some people think those who say, 'Yeah, advocate your collectivism here and get yourself roasted, I dare you,' are stifling free speech and should be silenced.

As for whether native Americans are too savage for their native homelands, and should therefore be removed by those savage enough to have massacred them, no. I don't agree that's a conversation that really needs to happen.

I'd have a good time laughing at the hypocrisy if it did. But I don't see a crying need for it.

 

[otherone]

Of course, those who whine loudest about how SJWs should mind their own business and not be so arrogant as to think all of society should be re-molded to suit their preferences are also usually the first to call for the execution if gays, too.

HEY HEY, PAL.
If government isn't exclusionary, then what's the point?

 

[LibertyEagle]

Of course, those who whine loudest about how SJWs should mind their own business and not be so arrogant as to think all of society should be re-molded to suit their preferences are also usually the first to call for the execution if gays, too.

Just as some people think those who say, 'Yeah, advocate your collectivism here and get yourself roasted, I dare you,' are stifling free speech and should be silenced.

As for whether native Americans are too savage for their native homelands, and should therefore be removed by those savage enough to have massacred them, no. I don't agree that's a conversation that really needs to happen.

What? lololol

 

[Bryan]

Does this mean that it is against guidelines to point out facts and statistics? If not, this is purely political-correctness and certainly is not conducive to a free society.

Of course you are welcome to point out facts. Trying to draw conclusions from those is a different issue.

If the person cannot back up his assertion, then it should be easy to destroy.

Agreed, which is why we're having the discussion.

He said he didn't agree with multiculturalism and for good reason.

Thanks, that in itself does not guarantee an answer to the question however.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I understand that some of you would like to shut down discussion about the perils of multiculturalism. But, this discussion needs to be had.

Shut it down? No, not at all. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with their opinions, and when I see they're being bigoted (and negatively lumping an entire race together in one fell swoop) I'll call them out on it.

 

[acptulsa]

What? lololol

So, going to tell us what tickled you? Did you suddenly realize how it must have looked to others to see you trying to parlay a rant about 'savage Native Americans' into a sales pitch against multiculturalism?

 

[MelissaWV]

So, going to tell us what tickled you? Did you suddenly realize how it must have looked to others to see you trying to parlay a rant about 'savage Native Americans' into a sales pitch against multiculturalism?

The truth is somewhere in between. While the OP (who hasn't come back to answer, probably because they achieved the desired result) mentioned "Native Americans" as savages, they also separately mentioned multiculturalism. You can address one part of a post without involving every other.

 

[LibertyEagle]

So, going to tell us what tickled you?

Your entire post.

Did you suddenly realize how it must have looked to others to see you trying to parlay a rant about 'savage Native Americans' into a sales pitch against multiculturalism?

Reading is a good skill to master.

Well first of all, I'm not a Libertarian. Second, I'm not looking to do ANY of the things that you listed. I am not a racist( although I may be if you agree with the modern definition of "racism" ) I think sites like Stormfront are a joke. Race isn't the be all, end all for me. I am STRONGLY against multiculturalism. I believe that a nation should be composed of one majority ethnicity and religion. Around 90%. ( notice I said "majority", not all.) I believe that Western culture is VASTLY superior to other cultures. I'm not afraid to call "Native Americans" savages.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Of course you are welcome to point out facts. Trying to draw conclusions from those is a different issue.

In what way? I know you aren't asking for deductive reasoning and logic as a whole, to be excluded from this forum. I hope not, anyway.

Agreed, which is why we're having the discussion

Thanks, that in itself does not guarantee an answer to the question however.

Well, he said this..

Originally Posted by PaleoConPrep
I believe that a nation should be composed of one majority ethnicity and religion. Around 90%. ( notice I said "majority", not all.)

Your reply:

Why? And for the sake of argument, how do you propose to achieve this? What if others don't agree? Let's say that you have a nation right at this 90% mark and some non-majorities types want to move in -then what? What if one of the 90% wants to bring in and marry a non-majority type - then what?

What PaleoConPrep is describing is how and why nations were formed. The fact that they had common peoples with a common culture and traditions, is what distinguished nations from countries.

A review of our immigration laws prior to 1965 is very interesting. I recommend it to all.

 

[acptulsa]

The truth is somewhere in between. While the OP (who hasn't come back to answer, probably because they achieved the desired result) mentioned "Native Americans" as savages, they also separately mentioned multiculturalism. You can address one part of a post without involving every other.

But the logical fact remains that the only cures are whites being exiled back to Europe, or genocide. Unless they want to forcibly exile all Native Americans to some island somewhere.

Which turns 'Which side are you on?' into a very interesting--and loaded--question.

And no, I think the OP was deprived of the 'desired result'.

 

[presence]

Thanks for letting us all know you are what you have tried to assign to him.

I didn't assign shit.
Dude wants a recreation of antebellum alabama,
he's clear only white people can be royalty,
he as an infatuation with exiling,
a woman's role as breeder,
porn is the death penalty,
and he wants a YUGE wall to keep everyone else the fuck out.

The only thing he didn't mention is banning the cotton gin.

Reading is a good skill to master.

So is picking up on the implied message.

here's an outline of what an ideal society would look like
[]
1. Aristocracy- in my ideal society, there would be an aristocracy made up of men from old money families.
[]
It would have absolute power over the country.
[]
Abortion, rape, sodomy, fornication, adultery, creation/distribution of porn, [] punishable by exile or death.
[]
Drug use [] Insane asylums would be opened up for the mentally ill.
[]
Left-wing speech, writing, or action would be punishable by death.
[]
Schools and colleges would be single-sex
[]
Very high tariffs on foreign imports.
[]
huge focus on agriculture. It would be a cornerstone of the nation.
[]
9. Immigration- None whatsoever. (legal or illegal) Build walls around
all boarders, and have them militarized.

The nation would be composed of mostly conservative WASPs.
[]
Women would be in the same position they were in before the 20th century;
[]
There'd be social pressure to have large families.
[]
contraceptives were not available.
[]
difference between an Isolationist and a Non-interventionist is that an Isolationist is a Protectionist on trade. I'm an Isolationist.

I believe that a nation should be composed of one majority ethnicity and religion.
[]
Around 90%. ( notice I said "majority", not all.) I believe that Western culture is VASTLY superior to other cultures.
[]
I'm not afraid to call "Native Americans" savages.

 

[MelissaWV]

But the logical fact remains that the only cures are whites being exiled back to Europe, or genocide.

Which turns 'Which side are you on?' into a very interesting--and loaded--question.

And no, I think the OP was deprived of the 'desired result'.

Eh I think the point was to get certain people to snipe at one another for their amusement. That part worked.

No, those aren't the only cures. People who advocate for a 90% homogenous population tend to stretch the definition so it fits their own group, otherwise they would not make the argument. It's the reason that I asked what the requirements for that group would be. In the past, the forums have spat out things like "American culture" as being the requirement, but the entire premise is about race here. Is it being white? Does that exclude certain groups traditionally characterized as white? Who gets deported? Why a 90% limit? What about "traitor to the race" types that would marry into the 10% or seek to exhibit the traits that made the 10% undesirable to begin with? Why cede 10% as a wildcard (for instance, a 10% made up of people of Western culture who weren't in the 90% ethnicity group would be more desirable than a 10% made up of people of Eastern or Middle Eastern culture, per the OP, so why not further restrictions? Is it a reliance on the mob majority to keep others in line?

Those kinds of questions tend not to get discussed because it devolves into English only and illegals and other related topics that still don't answer the questions posed by the hypothetical utopia in the OP.

 

[Suzanimal]

As noted, the community guidelines explain what is allowed; promoting any type of negative collectivist mindsets is the antithesis of our values. That said, having some discussions to explore your mindset without actually promoting anything can be of value for the purpose of improving thought processes for all who participate and read in this thread.

With that, could you please answer the following questions?



Why? And for the sake of argument, how do you propose to achieve this? What if others don't agree? Let's say that you have a nation right at this 90% mark and some non-majorities types want to move in -then what? What if one of the 90% wants to bring in and marry a non-majority type - then what?

That's my question. And also what about mixed race people? For example, I identify as "white" but my ethnicity is mixed. What percentage are we talkin' about to live in PCP utopia? What about people who look white but have a DNA make up that says otherwise?

 

[LibertyEagle]

I didn't assign $#@!.
Dude wants a recreation of antebellum alabama,
he's clear only white people can be royalty,
he as an infatuation with exiling,
a woman's role as breeder,
porn is the death penalty,
and he wants a YUGE wall to keep everyone else the $#@! out.

The only thing he didn't mention is banning the cotton gin.

So is picking up on the implied message.

I guess you are a mind-reader, eh?

I am curious as to why he desires an aristocracy though. Because, to me, that is asking for the same rule as we have now; albeit they are a globalist aristocracy, rather than a national one. heh

This discussion would be interesting, I think. No reason to get all mad. It should be easy to argue against, right?

 

[klamath]

I didn't assign $#@!.
Dude wants a recreation of antebellum alabama,
he's clear only white people can be royalty,
he as an infatuation with exiling,
a woman's role as breeder,
porn is the death penalty,
and he wants a YUGE wall to keep everyone else the $#@! out.

The only thing he didn't mention is banning the cotton gin.

Funny. I didn't realize he posted those things but the OP had that same sneaky agenda the trumpys have been pushing. No we are not really racist and if you say so you are a progressive liberal!