James Kelso: Non-whites should not reproduce [Archive]

harjit

11-10-2008, 05:50 PM

Here we have it, below in bold, straight from one of the most prominent members of Stormfront, and of WN in general. It's all a bigger joke than I had imagined possible. :crazy:

There is an interesting and unquestioned fallacy floating in the mental fog that the Talmudvision has created in "modern" minds. That fallacy is that each of us "individuals" has an "equal merit" to reproduce ourselves.

What an incredibly egotistical and self-centered philosophical idea. It's plainly false. Yet it appeals to individuals who think that they are the center of the universe. It appeals to self-importance. It's a great sales gimmick that's hard to beat with logic or facts. The Talmudvision spouts this fallacy on every channel all the time.

The whole idea of a race-centered philosophy is that the egotistical "interests" of an individual are not more important than the pragmatically defensible and cosmically obvious real interests of racial improvement.

What, after all, is the most glorious entity that we know of in the universe? Human races. These entities are the highest forms we know of. My own opinion of the evidence is that the White race is the finest of these highest forms. Therefore, helping this White race to survive is something that an intelligently lived-in cosmos would most ardently agree with. If I were to wake up tomorrow morning, look in the mirror, and see a Black man, or a Jew, or a Chinese, or an Amerindian.....my formed appreciation of the White race would not change one bit.

But of what percentage of any population would it be reasonable to expect that kind of detached commitment to an ideal that didn't look like what it saw in its mirror every morning? A pretty tiny little percentage, I'm afraid.

No, based on the history of humans, the reasonable expectation is that green people will be overwhelmingly biased by their greeness, purple people will be overwhelmingly affected by their purpleness. Only the very rare, and quite unusual green person would come to the conclusion that the purple model was so much better that he or she would abstain from reproducing his or her green model in order to further the purple model.

Reproduction is a psychological zone of blind and utter egotism, largely exempted by humans from rationality or scientific thought.

To answer this thread's question: if I were part-White or fully non-White I would not reproduce my racial type. I would do this for the sake of: 1) the cosmos; 2) the White race; 3) rationality; 4) honesty; 5) courage; 6) happier children, and; 7) any higher source of intelligence or love that may exist beyond our present ken.

I would be doubly, triply, and quadruply sure not to finagle a gullible White person into permanently cancelling the White genotype of their White genes by breeding mixed-race children with me. That would be a crime against that White person, against any children so produced, and against every other member of the White race.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=521110&postcount=7

Basil Fawlty

11-10-2008, 06:00 PM

It's all a bigger joke than I had imagined possible. :crazy:The best way to approach this kind of stuff is to treat it as comedy.

Jake Featherston

11-10-2008, 07:45 PM

The belief in objective racial superiority is quite lame. 99.9% of Black people are much better at being Black people then I'll ever be. And I'm much better at being a White man than the vast majority of them will ever be. Neither one is any better a thing to be than the other, anymore than its better to be a pear tree than it is to be a cockroach. According to whom? Pear trees? Cockroaches? I'm part of the White race; its ways are my ways, and my survival and prosperity, and that of my descendants, are more-or-less innately bound with the survival and prosperity of the White race as a whole. So naturally I care about the White race. I share in its sense of the esthetic, and I prefer the company of its people. Just like most Blacks do with their own kind. Now its true, White people accomplish things that members of other races, such as the Blacks, like to share in, while very few Whites give a damn about anything Blacks produce (except for superficial things of very little consequence, such as their pop music, which has never appealed to me anyway), but what does that really prove? The problem with contemporary, liberal multiculturalism is that is basically sees my people as innately evil; a problem to be removed, so that supposedly better, darker people can flourish in our stead. Forgive me if eradicating me and mine ain't exactly at the top of my agenda.

Hartmann von Aue

11-10-2008, 08:29 PM

There are a lot of white people who don't want to reproduce for similarly bizarre reasons (for the planet, etc.).

Winston

11-10-2008, 09:09 PM

Think that's weird, take a look at the stuff coming from the mouths of leftist academics who get to dine with our leaders.

Geist

11-10-2008, 10:55 PM

There are a lot of white people who don't want to reproduce for similarly bizarre reasons (for the planet, etc.).

Not reproducing for the sake of the planet is actually quite a logical position to take on the matter in the grand scheme of things. Just a shame it's white folks who do it.

Hartmann von Aue

11-10-2008, 11:07 PM

Not reproducing for the sake of the planet is actually quite a logical position to take on the matter in the grand scheme of things. Just a shame it's white folks who do it.

So do you agree with James Kelso that non-whites should not reproduce?

Geist

11-10-2008, 11:12 PM

So do you agree with James Kelso that non-whites should not reproduce?

In an ideal world I would put a moratorium on all human reproduction until we reach a stable limit at which point I think all races could reproduce once again.

As to the question no man should be able to answer that. It goes way beyond a simple yes or no. It contains about five-hundred ethical dilemmas in thirteen words.

Vindex

11-11-2008, 01:58 AM

Seems to me only the best of each race should reproduce.

Petr

11-11-2008, 02:16 AM

There are a lot of white people who don't want to reproduce for similarly bizarre reasons (for the planet, etc.).
I believe most, if not all, such types are in reality just typical selfish hedonists who are using the planetary welfare as a pious excuse for their lifestyle choice.

We should not gullibly take their hypocrisy and/or self-deception for its word.

Petr

Mike

11-11-2008, 03:06 AM

Jake Featherston

11-11-2008, 07:38 AM

I believe most, if not all, such types are in reality just typical selfish hedonists who are using the planetary welfare as a pious excuse for their lifestyle choice.

Yeah, its like when I didn't have a car, I told everyone I took the bus for environmental reasons. And then I got a car. And forgot all about the damn bus.

Baron_Corvo

11-11-2008, 08:16 AM

I believe most, if not all, such types are in reality just typical selfish hedonists who are using the planetary welfare as a pious excuse for their lifestyle choice.

Petr

Possibly true, but there are also people like my cousin who (when he was married) said he wasn't going to have children because he didn't like the world he would be bringing them into. Other people have an inkling that they'd make lousy parents and want to spare any potential offspring the pain of their imagined incompetence.

There are altruistic reasons for saying no to parenthood.

Basil Fawlty

11-11-2008, 08:39 AM

My own view on the matter leans more towards the view eloquently expressed by Featherston on this thread than towards the one expressed by Jamie Kelso, but I don't think Kelso is at all crazy for saying what he did. It makes total sense in a rational, objective way. Kelso is basically advocating eugenics for the betterment of humanity. Consider the other extreme, actively promoted by the system:

Angelina Jolie (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-501284/Angelina-Jolie-My-blonde-haired-natural-daughter-Shiloh-outcast-family.html): 'My blonde-haired natural daughter Shiloh is the outcast in our family'

Kelso is basically saying that if your genetics aren't up to snuff, you shouldn't reproduce. That's doubtless a controversial statement, but it can be construed as a humanitarian one, taken in a certain way. Jolie is basically saying that you should hate your own race, not only that, your own natural offspring - if you're White - out of hand, no objective or even human motive withstanding. That's a sick meme spread by the Jews. It can only be construed as racial self-hatred.Kelso is saying that one group ought to place the interest of another group over its own. That's the insane bit.
Ironically this, in essence, differs not from the message Jolie is putting out.

harjit

11-11-2008, 10:11 AM

My own view on the matter leans more towards the view eloquently expressed by Featherston on this thread than towards the one expressed by Jamie Kelso, but I don't think Kelso is at all crazy for saying what he did. It makes total sense in a rational, objective way. Kelso is basically advocating eugenics for the betterment of humanity. Consider the other extreme, actively promoted by the system:

Angelina Jolie (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-501284/Angelina-Jolie-My-blonde-haired-natural-daughter-Shiloh-outcast-family.html): 'My blonde-haired natural daughter Shiloh is the outcast in our family'

Kelso is basically saying that if your genetics aren't up to snuff, you shouldn't reproduce. That's doubtless a controversial statement, but it can be construed as a humanitarian one, taken in a certain way. Jolie is basically saying that you should hate your own race, not only that, your own natural offspring - if you're White - out of hand, no objective or even human motive withstanding. That's a sick meme spread by the Jews. It can only be construed as racial self-hatred.
Do you actually take Jolie's statement seriously? I simply can't believe that one of her daughters is an outcast in their house.

If it really is the case that the daughter is an outcast, and she seriously justifies and embraces this kind of thinking for the reason that the child is white, that would be truly evil. But I strongly suspect she is just an erratic flaky Hollywood type, not evil.

Basil Fawlty

11-11-2008, 10:29 AM

Do you actually take Jolie's statement seriously? I simply can't believe that one of her daughters is an outcast in their house.

If it really is the case that the daughter is an outcast, and she seriously justifies and embraces this kind of thinking for the reason that the child is white, that would be truly evil. But I strongly suspect she is just an erratic flaky Hollywood type, not evil.One of the comments on that tabloid report suggested that Jolie is probably jealous of her daughter. That makes more sense than the idea that her natural instincts have been overwhelmed by extreme PC ideology even if she does largely embrace that ideology.

Winston

11-11-2008, 12:22 PM

Do you actually take Jolie's statement seriously? I simply can't believe that one of her daughters is an outcast in their house.

If it really is the case that the daughter is an outcast, and she seriously justifies and embraces this kind of thinking for the reason that the child is white, that would be truly evil. But I strongly suspect she is just an erratic flaky Hollywood type, not evil.
I doubt if it takes the form of anything more than the occasional gushing contemplation of her adopted child's 'suffering' in early life, and how her own flesh and blood child has had it easy in comparison, but it's still sick.

Basil Fawlty

11-11-2008, 12:26 PM

I doubt if it takes the form of anything more than the occasional gushing contemplation of her adopted child's 'suffering' in early life, and how her own flesh and blood child has had it easy in comparison, but it's still sick.Its the kind of gross sentimentality and detachment from reality that only the rich can indulge in. You needs millions to be able to afford such attitudes.

harjit

11-11-2008, 01:05 PM

I doubt if it takes the form of anything more than the occasional gushing contemplation of her adopted child's 'suffering' in early life, and how her own flesh and blood child has had it easy in comparison, but it's still sick.
I'm relieved you understand it's nothing more than silly gushing contemplation.

Racialist types seem to assume any mention of white people that is not gushing in the opposite (i.e. pro-white) direction is tantamount to genocidal mania against them... they're even freaking worse than Jews in that regard.

Larrikin

11-11-2008, 01:27 PM

Not reproducing for the sake of the planet is actually quite a logical position to take on the matter in the grand scheme of things. Just a shame it's white folks who do it.
Makes perfect sense. It's hard to deny that white people in general have a substantially higher environmental impact than all other today. A single German SUV driver eating his Sushi, Argentinian steaks, NZ Kiwis and African peanuts while flying for holiday to the Maledives might (only slight hyperbole here) leave a "footprint" similar to that of all of Lesotho...

And it is rather illogical to argue for a "better" world (or cosmos as said the OP) without humans (or a lower number of humans), because "good" and "bad" aren't "natural" categories here.

The earth is completely ignorant to whether it is habitable or not for any species or the number thereof or what might be the average temperature... From a "cosmic" perspective, Earth isn't a "better" planet than Venus or Neptun when you leave humans out of the picture.

Winston

11-11-2008, 02:01 PM

I'm relieved you understand it's nothing more than silly gushing contemplation.

Racialist types seem to assume any mention of white people that is not gushing in the opposite (i.e. pro-white) direction is tantamount to genocidal mania against them... they're even freaking worse than Jews in that regard.

Well it is a small piece of the larger rot which is infecting western peoples. That kind of mentality is symptomatic of a genocidal trend, and should be recognized as such.

Hakluyt

11-11-2008, 02:07 PM

Makes perfect sense. It's hard to deny that white people in general have a substantially higher environmental impact than all other today. A single German SUV driver eating his Sushi, Argentinian steaks, NZ Kiwis and African peanuts while flying for holiday to the Maledives might (only slight hyperbole here) leave a "footprint" similar to that of all of Lesotho...

And it is rather illogical to argue for a "better" world (or cosmos as said the OP) without humans (or a lower number of humans), because "good" and "bad" aren't "natural" categories here.

The earth is completely ignorant to whether it is habitable or not for any species of the number thereof or what might be the averagae temperature... From a "cosmic" perspective, Earth isn't a "better" planet than Venus or Neptun when you leave humans out of the picture.
Actually by Wiki figures, if we look at only the top 5 in the world by total carbon emissions, the non-whites (China, India and Japan) are on top with 7,611,095 thousand metric tonnes while the whites (United States and Russia) sit at 7,574,428. It does weigh a bit more in the whites' direction when you look at the top 20, but the gap isn't terribly wide, and it is closing rapidly. Per-capita emissions of course are irrelevant, since we're talking about the total effects of populations.

Save for Russia, whites are already at or near the peak of their carbon footprints on the world and many nations are actually decreasing theirs as we speak. On the other hand, the current footprints for India and China are fractions of their potential upper limits this century, and the governments in control of those nations have no intention of limiting that growth for the sake of the planet.

Larrikin

11-11-2008, 02:14 PM

Actually by Wiki figures, if we look at only the top 5 in the world by total carbon emissions, the non-whites (China, India and Japan) are on top with 7,611,095 thousand metric tonnes while the whites (United States and Russia) sit at 7,574,428. It does weigh a bit more in the whites' direction when you look at the top 20, but the gap isn't terribly wide, and it is closing rapidly. Per-capita emissions of course are irrelevant, since we're talking about the total effects of populations.

Err... no. Per capita emissions (and I'm not only talking about carbon emissions after all) are profoundly relevant to the individual decision whether to increase the number of said capitas or not.

Increasing population in "white countries" would cause by far more additional ecologic impact than increasing population elsewhere, though some countries like China/India are certainly closing the gap.

Save for Russia, whites are already at or near the peak of their carbon footprints on the world and many nations are actually decreasing theirs as we speak. On the other hand, the current footprints for India and China are fractions of their potential upper limits this century, and the governments in control of those nations have no intention of limiting that growth for the sake of the planet.
As said, the planet is utterly unconcerned by carbon levels and the like and has fared far worse than what mankind could ever inflict on him. It's rather a decision about human living condition than about the fate of the earth, really.

guy

11-11-2008, 02:29 PM

My own view on the matter leans more towards the view eloquently expressed by Featherston on this thread than towards the one expressed by Jamie Kelso, but I don't think Kelso is at all crazy for saying what he did. It makes total sense in a rational, objective way. Kelso is basically advocating eugenics for the betterment of humanity. Consider the other extreme, actively promoted by the system:

Angelina Jolie (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-501284/Angelina-Jolie-My-blonde-haired-natural-daughter-Shiloh-outcast-family.html): 'My blonde-haired natural daughter Shiloh is the outcast in our family'

Kelso is basically saying that if your genetics aren't up to snuff, you shouldn't reproduce. That's doubtless a controversial statement, but it can be construed as a humanitarian one, taken in a certain way. Jolie is basically saying that you should hate your own race, not only that, your own natural offspring - if you're White - out of hand, no objective or even human motive withstanding. That's a sick meme spread by the Jews. It can only be construed as racial self-hatred.
Killing off every non-white or mixed-race person while leaving every white person (including Angelina Jolie and James Kelso) to reproduce freely is hardly a sound eugenics plan, IMO.

When you read this:

To answer this thread's question: if I were part-White or fully non-White I would not reproduce my racial type. I would do this for the sake of: 1) the cosmos; 2) the White race; 3) rationality; 4) honesty; 5) courage; 6) happier children, and; 7) any higher source of intelligence or love that may exist beyond our present ken.

The only rational response can be :rofl: :nuts: :o :jew: :duh: or :tease:

As for Jolie... Her behavior is too atypical to be used as an example to make your (generally valid IMO) point regarding the west.

Dan Dare

11-11-2008, 07:01 PM

Err... no. Per capita emissions (and I'm not only talking about carbon emissions after all) are profoundly relevant to the individual decision whether to increase the number of said capitas or not.

Increasing population in "white countries" would cause by far more additional ecologic impact than increasing population elsewhere, though some countries like China/India are certainly closing the gap.

I’m not sure that anyone, in the course of this thread at least, is advocating an increase in the population of the “white countries”, as you put it. Although such a proposition is occasionally put forward by some who imagine that the only way that ‘we’ can prevail in the ongoing global struggle for resources and real estate is to engage in, and win, a rutting contest with ‘them’, it’s really a specious argument.

In reality, the ‘white countries’ are not underpopulated. In fact the opposite is true. The population of the Eurosphere has almost tripled since 1900 and now stands at something over a billion; the USA has increased by 100 million in less than two generations. According to some observers (the Optimum Population Trust (http://www.optimumpopulation.org/), for instance) the world in general, and the developed countries in the west in particular, have already exceeded their long-term, sustainable carrying capacity.

The real question, and one which will come to haunt future generations, is how the planet can accommodate the aspirations of the billions of present and future non-westerners in whom ‘we’ have raised expectations that they should expect, and demand, a western level of material living standards. Starting with a billion and a half Chinese, closely followed by a similar number of Indians.

Count Sudoku

11-11-2008, 08:50 PM

Bob Whitaker of

http://www.whitakeronline.org/

has stated many times that when genetic engineering becomes cheap and widespread, that non-whites will turn their children into whites.

Felix the Cat

11-11-2008, 09:06 PM

^^ then discrimination will be based on the colour of your parents or grandparents rather than of yourself

Larrikin

11-11-2008, 09:11 PM

The real question, and one which will come to haunt future generations, is how the planet can accommodate the aspirations of the billions of present and future non-westerners in whom ‘we’ have raised expectations that they should expect, and demand, a western level of material living standards. Starting with a billion and a half Chinese, closely followed by a similar number of Indians.
True. Conditions on earth will change substantially with billions of non-westerners claiming our standards and way of life.

It is not the planet that's endagered though. Environmentalism and sustainable developement is in the end not about "protecting the Earth". It is about protecting (sustaining) a status quo that we find profitable/enjoyable/beneficial to ourselves according to human (and rather arbitrary) standards. This is a truth many semtimental tree-huggers don't like to see, but instead think of themselves as defenders of Earth.

From a truly (planetary) environmental perspective, a non-changing environment with stable factors and a stable number of species and populations, would be extremely "unnatural" and wether tigers roam Russia or blue whales cruise the seas is utterly unimportant. Million of species died without any human doing, nature (earth) doesn't care. WE care. We care about the fragile temporal snapshot of nature we came to know.

If push comes to shove, "nasty" environmental effects will make life for humans and some selected species we chose to cherish difficult and maybe extinct both them and mankind. That, of course, is just a rather unimportant sidenote from a planetary perspective, but a very fundamental change for conscious life...

PS:
I am in favor of limiting human impact, but not because of any altruistic vocation, but because the world as of now seems very nice to me, compared to possible future scenarios that I'd rather like to avoid for selfish purposes (I count concern about my children as rather selfish here).

PPS:
I think I'm losing the topic here. Sorry.

Alvo

11-11-2008, 09:22 PM

James Kelso is a die-hard racist-neo-Nazi whose UN-American Nazi philosophy should never be taken seriously. Period.

Mike

11-11-2008, 09:51 PM

Kelso is saying that one group ought to place the interest of another group over its own. That's the insane bit.
Ironically this, in essence, differs not from the message Jolie is putting out.Well, not quite. It would be insane for a person of group X to realistically expect group Y to place the interest of another group over its own. It would be sane (however wrong on other grounds) for a person of group X to openly advocate group Y to place the interest of another group over its own. Of course, organized Jewry has been doing the latter - demanding that non-Jewish groups diminish their ingroup loyally - for a long time now, and have been well rewarded for it. So maybe it's not so insane to expect outgroup loyalty after all, is it? So, what we're seeing here is not so much insanity as a non-Jew starting to adopt a very rational, effective strategy designed by Jews, just as Kevin MacDonald predicted they will eventually do.

Angelina Jolie, for her part, is truly sick: She deliberately adopts kids from around the world for the express purpose for reducing the proportion of her own group in the world. To put it another way: Taking a rational ingroup/outgroup world view, Kelso is rational and Jolie is irrational.

Mike

11-11-2008, 10:22 PM

Do you actually take Jolie's statement seriously? I simply can't believe that one of her daughters is an outcast in their house.

If it really is the case that the daughter is an outcast, and she seriously justifies and embraces this kind of thinking for the reason that the child is white, that would be truly evil. But I strongly suspect she is just an erratic flaky Hollywood type, not evil.I think she is dead serious. Jolie also admitted (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=32815) she would have been happy not to have a biological child.

Hakluyt

11-11-2008, 10:32 PM

Err... no. Per capita emissions (and I'm not only talking about carbon emissions after all) are profoundly relevant to the individual decision whether to increase the number of said capitas or not.

Increasing population in "white countries" would cause by far more additional ecologic impact than increasing population elsewhere, though some countries like China/India are certainly closing the gap.
I think we could do with fewer white people on earth, FWIW. But when we contrast continents that threaten high levels of growth over the coming centuries (non-white) with other continents which mostly do not (white), we are firstly interested in total numbers. We can predict that per capita emissions will increase in the latter and will not particularly increase in the former, or decrease.

As said, the planet is utterly unconcerned by carbon levels and the like and has fared far worse than what mankind could ever inflict on him. It's rather a decision about human living condition than about the fate of the earth, really.
Except that the human presence threatens to sustain these levels indefinitely, and in the case of the Asian continent, increase them exponentially.

Humans are certainly the most vocal about these problems, but countless other lifeforms are affected as well. Less anthropocentrism please.

Basil Fawlty

11-11-2008, 10:34 PM

Well, not quite. It would be insane for a person of group X to realistically expect group Y to place the interest of another group over its own. It would be sane (however wrong on other grounds) for a person of group X to openly advocate group Y to place the interest of another group over its own. Of course, organized Jewry has been doing the latter - demanding that non-Jewish groups diminish their ingroup loyally - for a long time now, and have been well rewarded for it. So maybe it's not so insane to expect outgroup loyalty after all, is it? So, what we're seeing here is not so much insanity as a non-Jew starting to adopt a very rational, effective strategy designed by Jews, just as Kevin MacDonald predicted they will eventually do. Your point would be correct if Kelso was saying that whites should devise cunning straetgies to get non-whites to serve the interests of whites. But he didn't say that, he said "If I were non-white I would . . ."
if I were part-White or fully non-White I would not reproduce my racial type. I would do this for the sake of: 1) the cosmos; 2) the White race; 3) rationality; 4) honesty; 5) courage; 6) happier children, and; 7) any higher source of intelligence or love that may exist beyond our present ken.
Kelso is rational and Jolie is irrational.They are both irrational, based on what Kelso says above. We already agree on Jolie.

Mike

11-11-2008, 10:49 PM

Killing off every non-white or mixed-race person while leaving every white person (including Angelina Jolie and James Kelso) to reproduce freely is hardly a sound eugenics plan, IMO.

The only rational response can be :rofl: :nuts: :o :jew: :duh: or :tease: I don't endorse that plan, but it's much sounder eugenically than importing the third world into your country and encouraging rampant race-mixing. So however nutty you want to paint Kelso, I think it should be pointed out that we live under a regime of enforced diversity that is far, far nuttier.

As for Jolie... Her behavior is too atypical to be used as an example to make your (generally valid IMO) point regarding the west.Jolie's behavior is not atypical; it's just very extreme. Admittedly, most White parents are not going to resent their own offspring for being "privileged" or disparage them as "outcasts". But to some degree, a very substantial number of Whites have internalized the crazy loathing of their own race that motivates Jolie's family planning model. See: Michael Moore, Keith Olbermann, the rise of the Obamatards, etc.

guy

11-11-2008, 11:05 PM

I don't endorse that plan, but it's much sounder eugenically than importing the third world into your country and encouraging rampant race-mixing. So however nutty you want to paint Kelso, I think it should be pointed out that we live under a regime of enforced diversity that is far, far nuttier.

They are not mutually exclusive. Both are nutty IMO. Why not simply have a rational, balanced POV?

EDIT: This thread is about Kelso, so my comments were referring to him. I realize that America's PC madness is also nutty, and have pointed that out in pertinent threads.

Larrikin

11-11-2008, 11:15 PM

Humans are certainly the most vocal about these problems, but countless other lifeforms are affected as well. Less anthropocentrism please.
Ecological conservation is inherently anthropocentric, as it is not about saving the Earth, but about human self-interest of survival and preservation of some status quo we define as "good" because it favors us. The whole thought that"we" are destined to care about balancing out environmental developements and protect "nature" is anthropocentric. Even the species we deem worth saving (often at expense of others) are just arbitrary human categories.

Whether most current species on this planet (including humans) go extinct and if mankind plays an active part in this or not is in unimportant the long run for all but mankind itself. Even without any life Earth would still be Earth and not worse a planet than any other in the universe. Just that we wouldn't be there to notice it.

I think we should not try to deny anthropocentrism, as we are (I'm vaguely following Descartes here) in the end unable to think existence without ourselves and our observation.

harjit

11-12-2008, 02:01 AM

Its the kind of gross sentimentality and detachment from reality that only the rich can indulge in. You needs millions to be able to afford such attitudes.
Don't know, it could be viewed in a "normal" way too, and occurs among us non-millionaires as well.

For example, on our last trip to Canada a number of relatives were at my parents' place, and one of my uncles was gushing about how dignified, feminine and even "Indian" my wife is. He said her personality is more similar to our late grandmother (a huge compliment in our family) than any of the biological grand-daughters turned out to be (they're all saucy, irreverent and aggressively feminist).

It's partly humour, and partly an effort to make someone who might feel (or be seen) as part of the "out-group" feel welcome.

A far more trivial example might be, e.g. a Japanese guy saying during lunch that I use chopsticks better than he does.

Jolie's use of the word "outcast" was too strong, IMO. And I can't speak for her specifically (you and Mike have indicated other things she's said that could make her suspect, I know very little about her although I thought she was great in Gia) but I'm just talking about the general idea here.

Winston

11-12-2008, 12:27 PM

For example, on our last trip to Canada a number of relatives were at my parents' place, and one of my uncles was gushing about how dignified, feminine and even "Indian" my wife is. He said her personality is more similar to our late grandmother (a huge compliment in our family) than any of the biological grand-daughters turned out to be (they're all saucy, irreverent and aggressively feminist).

Sounds like something only a non-White could get away with saying without being called racist.

Hakluyt

11-12-2008, 01:07 PM

Ecological conservation is inherently anthropocentric, as it is not about saving the Earth, but about human self-interest of survival and preservation of some status quo we define as "good" because it favors us. The whole thought that"we" are destined to care about balancing out environmental developements and protect "nature" is anthropocentric. Even the species we deem worth saving (often at expense of others) are just arbitrary human categories.

Whether most current species on this planet (including humans) go extinct and if mankind plays an active part in this or not is in unimportant the long run for all but mankind itself. Even without any life Earth would still be Earth and not worse a planet than any other in the universe. Just that we wouldn't be there to notice it.

I think we should not try to deny anthropocentrism, as we are (I'm vaguely following Descartes here) in the end unable to think existence without ourselves and our observation.
Typical n00bish response. I hear things like this all the time at Green Party meetings from Christians etc. who think we need to be 'less radical' or whatever. So I am just going to cut and paste from a recent email exchange I had with someone:

Obviously ecologists don't really think the Earth is a conscious organism, and they don't really think they are anything but human, doing as humans should do. And it's not as if we don't think humans are wonderful things, in part because of our capacity to care about things that are non-human. Preserving the diversity of life on Earth serves human interests because it makes us feel good as humans. There is no need for binary thinking when it comes to the interests of man and nature. We can combat the assumptions surrounding irrational growth and overconsumption without rejecting our humanity.

Anthropocentrism means putting non-human interests first, but 'interests' is precisely defined. It doesn't mean denying the pleasure we receive from nature, from prudence, and from the knowledge that our future is safe.

harjit

11-13-2008, 03:14 AM

Sounds like something only a non-White could get away with saying without being called racist.
It would be the same as an Italian family saying their caker daughter-in-law is "just like an Italian girl!". Nobody would think that is racist.

Italian, like Indian, is a nationality, with an associated culture. There is a difference between nationality and race. No Indian family would say "Oh, your wife is just like a non-European Caucasian!", any more than a Japanese family would say that she's "just like a Mongoloid!".

Whereas an assertive identity of "white" is only ever used by white racialists, and 90% of the time in a discriminatory or belligerent way. Until "whiteness" can be established as a valid and recognized nationality and culture without animus in doing so, this is the PR battle you (meaning your side) will keep having to fight.

Winston

11-13-2008, 01:06 PM

It would be the same as an Italian family saying their caker daughter-in-law is "just like an Italian girl!". Nobody would think that is racist.

Italian, like Indian, is a nationality, with an associated culture. There is a difference between nationality and race. No Indian family would say "Oh, your wife is just like a non-European Caucasian!", any more than a Japanese family would say that she's "just like a Mongoloid!".

Whereas an assertive identity of "white" is only ever used by white racialists, and 90% of the time in a discriminatory or belligerent way. Until "whiteness" can be established as a valid and recognized nationality and culture without animus in doing so, this is the PR battle you (meaning your side) will keep having to fight.
If I was to say that a non-White was "feminine, dignified, and 'English'" it would be seen as condescending and racist. Believe me.

Susan

11-13-2008, 01:10 PM

Personally, I'm hoping that all the muds that Jolie and Pitt have adopted gang up on them as soon as they're old enough and machete and strangle them in their sleep one night. Fingers crossed!!!

As for Kelso's statement, considering the state of the world, it makes perfectly good sense. Especially the state of our country. No more muds. Period. Some Whites I'm sure aren't having children because of the godawful mess this country is in, and they simply don't see this country's future as something that they would wish upon their children. Life was good back in the fifties, and people were having children and families. Made sense.

And what's wrong with being a die hard racist neo nazi anyway? My kind of guy, if you ask me.

If this country were what it should be--all White or mostly White, we wouldn't be having any discussion of this nature about having children. There would be Whites of all intelligence and educational levels having children and they would fill any and all available and necessary niches in our society. Most Whites would marry and have families. Some would remain single and childless.

What each race brings to the table is not equal and should not be viewed as such. Blacks as a race don't raise their children very well. Whites do. Of course, blacks don't have much to work with to begin with, either. That's why they should be on another continent.

It's only because everything is so wrong that we are even having this discussion.

harjit

11-13-2008, 01:37 PM

If I was to say that a non-White was "feminine, dignified, and 'English'" it would be seen as condescending and racist. Believe me.
OK, I hadn't realized you were talking about how it came across linked with the positive adjectives. You may be right then, although I guess it depends on how uptight the listener is.

Larrikin

11-13-2008, 02:00 PM

If this country were what it should be--all White or mostly White, we wouldn't be having any discussion of this nature about having children. There would be Whites of all intelligence and educational levels having children and they would fill any and all available and necessary niches in our society. Most Whites would marry and have families. Some would remain single and childless.

Odd, because that's not happening in most European countries which are mostly all White. Your "analysis", as usual, fails to address reality.

Death

11-13-2008, 03:27 PM

Odd, because that's not happening in most European countries which are mostly all White. Your "analysis", as usual, fails to address reality.

I think the reason why is that many whites in Europe have been brainwashed by Jews to not have kids to save environment and because they have been made to feel guilty for having so much while others around the world are poor.

Count Sudoku

11-13-2008, 08:18 PM

I think the reason why is that many whites in Europe have been brainwashed by Jews to not have kids to save environment and because they have been made to feel guilty for having so much while others around the world are poor.

That's part of it. Another part is that there is effective birth control, legal abortion (final solution of birth control), and a socialist system with pensions where you don't have to worry about your retirement that much.

One thing that is 100% right is that we don't need any more niggers in this country or anywhere else.

Columnist

11-28-2008, 09:15 PM

Starr

11-28-2008, 09:51 PM

There are a lot of white people who don't want to reproduce for similarly bizarre reasons (for the planet, etc.).

Yes, white western people are encouraged to think that the world would be better off if there were less of them in it to destroy the planet and use up valuable resources,etc. Who remembers the article about the large white Dugger family and the hostility expressed by a commentator on the thought of this large white family? I believe terms like hick were tossed around. Is anything Kelso said any more ridiculous than comments like those which are much more acceptable to make?

Atlas

11-30-2008, 01:14 PM

If Non-White would reproduce a bit less, I'll be happy enough.

Starr

12-01-2008, 12:22 AM

Not reproducing for the sake of the planet is actually quite a logical position to take on the matter in the grand scheme of things. Just a shame it's white folks who do it.

It would be if it were not all too often the best and the brightest who were the ones choosing not to have children for this reason. The people who buy into this thinking are often smart and educated white people. The very kind of people who are going to be the ones producing the next generation of scientists and others who would have been the ones who actually has what it takes to attempt to do something about the problems these people are so concerned with. People like this taking themelves out of the game does not seem too logical. The people who do not do much more than take up space will continue to breed like it is going out of style on the other hand. They pay no attention whatsoever to this.

Opus131

05-30-2009, 02:58 PM

The belief in objective racial superiority is quite lame. 99.9% of Black people are much better at being Black people then I'll ever be. And I'm much better at being a White man than the vast majority of them will ever be. Neither one is any better a thing to be than the other, anymore than its better to be a pear tree than it is to be a cockroach.

That's just about the dumpest thing i ever read in my entire existence. Hey guyz, Beethoven is no better at being Britney Spears then Britney Spears herself, that means that neither of them is better then the other. :otard:

If the white race really represents all that he says, then obviously he is right. Whites are better then the darker races as they are to other primates. The problem of course is that:

1) The white race, while still great, isn't as good as he thinks it is, not anymore at least

2) The darker races have a right to exist regardless, and it would be immoral to prevent them from fulfilling their own destiny.

This is why separation is the only just system. Let each race live in their respective environment and leave it at that.

varg

05-30-2009, 04:05 PM

The best way to approach this kind of stuff is to treat it as comedy.
Are there any actual WN's who run this site?

Petyr Baelish

06-04-2009, 02:12 PM

I believe most, if not all, such types are in reality just typical selfish hedonists who are using the planetary welfare as a pious excuse for their lifestyle choice.

We should not gullibly take their hypocrisy and/or self-deception for its word.

Petr

This is one of the very few things on which you and I are in full agreement. Whites - and intelligent, affluent, middle-to-upper class people of other races as well - who do not reproduce do so for typically selfish, sybaritic reasons and only dellude themselves into a post hoc "it's for the environment, anyway" rationalization as a way to assuage whatever guilt they may feel about the decision.