That’s not how it works. Take Person A with blonde hair and blue eyes, and Person B with dark hair and dark eyes. Mix. Is the child more likely to be dark haired and dark eyed? Absolutely. Is there a 100% chance that the child will turn out this way? Absolutely not.
I don’t know why you’re bringing ‘significant scale’ into this. I’m simply saying that the simple act of mixing races will not result in the fall of Western civilisation and/or ethnic genocide.
sorry, i can’t figure out what your point is, and i don’t think that anything has really been communicated between us here.
What, completely? And how do you propose to do that? Unless you have absolutely 0 non-white immigrants or settlers or you deport any families with mixed-race children, that is literally impossible.
oh, i suppose i should rather have said “effort towards the end of”. i don’t believe in the solving of problems through legislation and force (unless things are in a really dire state, as they are now, in which case, the most draconian of measures may be warranted), but through moral transformation — edification of the people, education with the strongest emphasis on ethics and positive values (like pride, duty, and dignity). in other words, confucianism. but clearly, this only applies to culture in the nascent stage, and not to our own modern world so far advanced in its ways of thinking.
i don’t presume to have any “plans” or proposed solutions for the problems of the modern world; my sole optimism in this regard is directed towards the total destruction and death of this age which is beyond salvation and its replacement by a return to the values of the past.
but yes, i don’t see why the complete eradication of miscegenation shouldn’t be desired and aimed towards, however improbable it is. for all those people who just can’t get by without sating their jungle fever (or yellow fever, etc), they could always emigrate to one of the inevitable decadant and standardless societies that would probably exist somewhere in the tropics.
No, I’m saying that races should be preserved. I think the UK should be at least 95% white, because that would be the natural state of things if we didn’t have such open borders. However, I see no problem with a minority of the UK being non-white or mixed-race because I don’t consider the presence of, say, 100 thousand non- or part-whites in a country of 60 million to be an issue (granted, the overall population would probably go down after immigration laws are redone).
please keep in mind that immigration does not necessarily equate to miscegenation, it just does in a world where nobody gives a shit about race. immigration is perfectly healthy in reasonable amounts, and with reasonable restrictions, and i can see no reason that it should be entirely done away with (although it is something that really only makes sense to me for a civilisation that has been developed to a certain point). i myself am an immigrant, but i understand that i am nothing more. the problem is when immigrants forget their place, and when the natives forget their place as well (which i think we can both agree on, although you probably wouldn’t word it so). but to me, this breaking down of standards and boundaries includes immigrants having children with natives and settling. had people the proper principles, this problem would be taken care of culturally — those who offended custom by breaking cultural rules would be ostracised, and harshly. again, clearly this concept does not apply to our modern world of secularism and tolerance.
True, but what is the solution to that? Is it better to simply accept mixed-race people as part of the nation and try to make them feel like part of the cause, or to cast them off as undesirables and make them bitter? Considering we are nowhere close to having a real nationalist ‘revolution’ yet, we are still in the beginning stages of trying to improve the reputation of nationalism. A guaranteed way to screw that up is to say “oh no, pure-bloods only”.
oh, is that what it comes down to? hurting people’s feelings? i should have known.
if you believe that they are undesirable, as i do, the only rational (read: not womanly) choice is the latter. if you really have your interests in the nation, and in the people as a nation, and not in the tender feelings of a few misfits, there is only one choice: to make sacrifices. if mongrels are accepted, race-mixing is accepted, and if it is accepted, it is encouraged, and if it is encouraged, people will do it, and continue to do it, and the more they do it, the more it will be encouraged, and before long the original races have been destroyed. and here, i still have no idea whether or not you agree, as you’ve given a few seemingly contradictory statements on the matter. it almost feels as if i’m talking to someone stuck in the middle of two opposite positions (metaphor only partially intended).
I’m not condemning race-mixing because there’s no point in doing so. It’s not a problem in and of itself. And I don’t see how you could even enforce such an attitude without stepping into dangerous territory. It’s one thing to prevent the eradication of a native population, and quite another to tell people that they aren’t allowed to be find non-whites attractive and have children with them. I think certain things should be discouraged for the good of society and people’s mental/physical wellbeing, but I don’t agree with thoughtcrime, sorry.
well, i guess i’ve already shown the fundamental difference in our outlooks: i’m not interested in trying to turn a dying civilisation on its head, and i don’t care about stepping into “dangerous territory”, because that’s precisely where i believe humanity should exist — in the dangerous territory of nature. you’re too much of a moderate, orwellian-word-using type of person for me to enjoy talking to you any further. i do sincerely appreciate your time, though. i thinkit hardly need be added that i don’t think poorly of you because of your genetics, just because of your opinions.