Is this racist?

**hrvojej** · 05-01-2005, 00:51

Even if it's not blatantly racist, IMHO it incites racial intolerance to say at least. With a smack of suprematist attitude too in both closed threads. It doesn't exactly say "go out and create more offspring", now, does it?

edit: removed an unnecessary comment that distracts from my main point

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 05-01-2005, 02:22

It doesn't exactly say "go out and create more offspring", now, does it?

Yes it does. In fact thats the whole point. If your white that is. Its not saying to kill or hate other races. The facts are that in many European countries the birth rate cant maintain the indeginous population . Therefore the white population, doesnt indigenous sound so much better? is decreasing in number while others are migrating there and their poulation is growing both by immigration and a much higher birth rate. Thishas nothing to do with racism unless trying to preserve your race is now racist. It also seems to me that only white people can be accussed of this. You people are demonstrating reverse discrimination here. If I told you that the spotted owls were not maintaining their population youd say we have to do something about it. But white people? Forget about it. Another thing. Is there really anything wrong with trying to preserve ones ethinisity? I mean you shouldnt make laws against it but if diversity is good why are you liberals so all fired fast to try and make everyone the same? Like I said Liberals confuse me.

**hrvojej** · 05-01-2005, 02:39

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

But white people? Forget about it.

Because we are the smartest and the strongest, right? And we are just that because we are white, as opposed to them coloreds, right? It doesn't say that the smart people, whatever their skin hue may be, should procreate, does it? It says that we should unite and do what we can against a threat posed to us by those who are different than us, and on the sole basis that they are different from us.

The BS like that OTOH hand doesn't confuse me any more in the slightest.

**barocca** · 05-01-2005, 02:50

the caucasian race has been losing ground for over 12,000 years,

(china some 10,000 years BC was inhabitied by a caucasian race, they retreated to japan as the asian races expanded, then they retreated again to the northern islands of japan (where the russians and japanese share some territory) then, finally, they were assimilated)
Called the Ainu by the japanese
even today some Japanese from the northern islands have blue eyes.

The Caucasian Race is going to be extinct(assimilated) eventually,
and that simple fact has been predicted for almost a hundred years,
why worry?
Some of the best people i work with are mixed race and suffer some form of racism from both sides of their heirtage - which is blatantly unfair.
(the best dude to work with in the factory is half yugoslavian/half vietnamese)

while your concern may be a simple truth, the simple fact is we cannot change what is definately going to happen in the next thousand years,
SO, teach your kids NOT to be racist.
AND imagine when whites ARE a minority - our great-grandkids are going to be on the recieving end of all those laws that currently protect ethnic minorities in "caucasian" countries!

Due to lower fertility inherent in being causcasian the caucasian race will eventually be extinct,
just like blonde is a recessive gene and blondes will eventually be bred out of existence.
Nothing we do will change that.

ps - i am blonde and caucasian - i am going to be doubly extinct.

**Voigtkampf** · 05-01-2005, 08:56

Originally Posted by barocca

ps - i am blonde and caucasian - i am going to be doubly extinct.

A mighty fine blonde, if I may add.

**Morat** · 05-01-2005, 13:02

Sorry Gawain but this seems pretty straightforward to me. Ser Clegane closed your first thread, told everyone why in the thread and then PMed you to further explain. You then chose to post another thread which you must have known would be at least as inappropriate to Ser Clegane. I think a warning with no points was in fact quite lenient in those circumstances. If you disagreed with the original closing, you should have started this thread at that time rather than openly flouting Ser Clegane's authority with the second one.

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 05-01-2005, 16:01

If it was just for the stats, why didn't you start the thread with the Guardian-article Ed Toner's "article" referred? Why do you think it was necessary to include Ed Toner's racist rant?

Because for one I didnt see it as racist and secondly I dont want to be accused of editing the artcle to give a false impression.

Especially after your first thread was closed I do not think it would have been asked to much to take a bit more care in selecting an appropriate article to start the discussion.

I still see nothing wrong with either article.

You had the chance to express your opinion on this issue - after all you started this thread, however, you chose to simply post the article.

My style of posting is to lead people in the direction I want the thread to go and make my points. I never had the chance to develope my arguments. You simply wrote the whole thing off as racist.

You then chose to post another thread which you must have known would be at least as inappropriate to Ser Clegane

Again I saw nothing racist in either article. I simply googled indigenous population of europe declining and those were the first two relevant articles with stats to appear. Call mr naive. I certainly had no intention of snubbing Ser Clegane . Ignoring the mods is far from my style. I made an honest if misguided attempt to find a different link.

If you disagreed with the original closing, you should have started this thread at that time rather than openly flouting Ser Clegane's authority with the second one.

Can you read. Did you not see that me and Ser Clegane exhanged PMs? We talked it over first and I also had the curtiosy to inform him that I would take it to the watch tower. A point I might add that the honorable Ser Clegane agreed to. So dont give me this crap about flouting Ser Clegane's authority .

I think a warning with no points was in fact quite lenient in those circumstances.

I thinkitsd not warrented at all for something that obviously was unintentional and can be argued has no basis in fact. There is no way what I posted can be seen as racism unless you try to make it that way.

If there is a discussion on the history of anti-semitism and somebody quotes Hitler to point out how anti-semitism was propagated in the Third Reich and/or to point out parallels to anti-semitic speeches that might be held today by other people, I would consider this to be in line with what is allowed on this forum.

Way back when I started a thread that the Jews were the cause of all evil. I started it with a speech by Goebbels. I didnt give him credit and chaged a word here or there to make it look like mine. To my astonishment many here agreed with what I wrote. The thread remained open for days until until it was realised that this thread was only started because another member had started a thread that said Christianity was the root of all evil and I mentioned that a certain mod didnt close it so I started that one. The mod in question took offense and then closed both threads. Talk about a a racist thread that was it and it wasnt closed. I guess Jews are still sub human and fair game as were Blacks in the other thread I started to protest at the same time in this case I took a speech of a white supremesist site. Neither thread was closed because of racist comments.

I closed Gawain's first thread because I felt the article he used to start the thread was racist and offensive and would rather lead to a discussion about the racist content of the article than to the discussion about the issue Gawain was trying to point out - the course the thread had taken until I closed is in line with this reasoning.

Again it was those on your side of the isle that drug racisim into the matter. It is they who should have recieved the warning not I. I challenged you all to show me one racist thing I or the article said, So far no one has been able to do so although Sat I believe gave it a nice try.

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 05-01-2005, 03:06

ecause we are the smartest and the strongest, right? And we are just that because we are white, as opposed to them coloreds, right?

Wrong. Again your looking for racisim where there is none. We are the smartest and strongest but it has nothing to do with our being what and I said as much in the thread. You tell me why we are the strongest nations and have the most advanced technology. Dont put words or ideas in my mouth that have nothing to do with my believes or or what I think. Many of them coloreds are a lot smarter than me. Being white doesnt do you much good but being an American or a German does. Almost every rich and free nation is one that was or is based on christianity and the white race. This is a fact just as is the declining population. Its not racism its the truth. I guess like NY pizza it must be in the water. Its our system of government and morals Im concerend with not the color of ones skin.

**Ser Clegane** · 05-01-2005, 08:00

OK, I did not reply to this thread so far because I felt it would be appropriate to first let people take a look at what happened and let them form their own opinion.

I will now try to clarify a few points regarding this whole issue:

1) I made it clear in the warning that Gawain received and in the exchange of PM that followed - I do not consider Gawain to be a racist. If anybody got the impression that Gawain has been accused of being racist I can only repeat that this is not the case and I apologize if this wrong impression has been created.

2) Gawain and myself had indeed an exchange of PMs before the thread here has been started. In the end we simply kind of agreed to disagree on this issue. I, personally, see nothing inappropriate in how Gawain chose to follow up on this issue.

3) I closed Gawain's first thread because I felt the article he used to start the thread was racist and offensive and would rather lead to a discussion about the racist content of the article than to the discussion about the issue Gawain was trying to point out - the course the thread had taken until I closed is in line with this reasoning.

4) Gawain received no warning for the first thread - he received a PM from me on why I closed the thread in which I also pointed out that objective a discussion of immigration policies, integration problems and low birth rates of the native population is not discouraged and that he would be free to start a new thread if he refrained from using racist articles to start the topic.

5) The second thread was, IMO(!), started with an article that not only was at least as racist as the previous one, but that also contained a link to a racist website. Due to this I not only closed this thread as well but also sent a "light" (i.e. without effect to the warning level) to Gawain.

Some comments on statements made in this thread:

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

No and I dont care to read it. I only posted the article for the stats and for opening remarks to start the debate. I have no interest in promoting racisim in any manner. I agree with his premise not his ideals.

If it was just for the stats, why didn't you start the thread with the Guardian-article Ed Toner's "article" referred? Why do you think it was necessary to include Ed Toner's racist rant?
Especially after your first thread was closed I do not think it would have been asked to much to take a bit more care in selecting an appropriate article to start the discussion.

But thats something I hoped to get to in the thread but never had the chance to express it.

You had the chance to express your opinion on this issue - after all you started this thread, however, you chose to simply post the article.

I ask then that no one may quote Stalin, Hitler or any number of other known racist.

I think most of the people on this board are old and mature enough to understand that posting racist content is not just an yes/no issue, but that the context is crucial to the decision whether a post/thread is appropriate or not.
If somebody decides to start a thread by posting e.g., an anti-semite Hitler-speech and an accompanying link to a Nazi-website and merely says "Hey, I am not a Nazi or anti-semite but this Hitler-guy brings forward some interesting facts and while I not agree with him I think the issue he points at make for a good discussion" I will close such a thread.
If there is a discussion on the history of anti-semitism and somebody quotes Hitler to point out how anti-semitism was propagated in the Third Reich and/or to point out parallels to anti-semitic speeches that might be held today by other people, I would consider this to be in line with what is allowed on this forum.

In the end, what will not happen is that you receive a 500-page, detailed guideline of what is allowed and appropriate and what is not.

Best regards and thanks to all people for their input to this discussion

Ser Clegane