Preservationism vs Racialism

[Liffrea]

I’m just preservationist; I regard the question of supremacy or inferiority to be unimportant beyond academia.

[Gooding]

I voted for the first option. In my humble opinion, every race, including my own has an innate right to survival. I do think that certain cultures are more advanced than others, but that's it.

[The Lawspeaker]

Option 1 for me. I believe in diversity but each in his own country. And while we Europeans may be, heck we are, better people then let's say Africans and Middle-Easterners we are still outclassed in some ways when it comes to Japanese and Chinese.
Well of course that isn't a problem but it shows that imperialism is bad.

So my idea is- let the other races do what they like- in their own country and we don't have to go there either.
Every culture in the world, every race has a right to survive without being harmed by other cultures and whether that is done in a peaceful manner (the "Coca-Cola culture vs traditional culture) or by subjugation and genocide is not important- both are equally wrong.

[asulf]

i voted for 2 ème option, even if I am for the conservation of the tribes ofl age of stones d Amazonia or moreover. They possess a knowledge a symbiosis with the natural mother and a knowledge of the pharmacopoeia that we lost, when in the other ethnic groups or the civilizations which look has to impose us their faith and their vision of the world, I protect my culture without states souls nor remorse
When has to protect breeders' big culture of goats(tackles) of the east country of sands of the desert and the others not from that to make a cheese!!!
You want a proof? Great pyramids are only graves d a disappeared civilization

[asulf]

The result(profit) of the automatic translator is not terrible sorry

[anonymaus]

I think the right to choose our mate is the same as our right to alter our genome directly; that genetic integrity is as important as it is fragile; that genetic hybridization becomes destructive when widely disparate convolvement occurs --- can be referred to as genetic omnidominance: the creation of a genetic discontinuity (a "race mixed" person).

[Loki]

I voted for the first option.

Whilst I know and realise that there are obvious biological and genetic differences within human biodiversity, assumed superiority/inferiority is not a necessary requirement for the pursuit of biological and cultural diversity preservation. Rather, the uniqueness itself of the said groups is reason enough.

To believe in fixed racial superiority/inferiority is not scientific. Human races and groups have evolved over many thousands of years, and they are still undergoing that process. Evolution never stops.

[Poltergeist]

I am astounded by the number of people who have voted for the first option, when even "Western science" would contradict such a position.

Can you elaborate a bit on that supposed Western science, which would, according to you, scientifically prove something so utterly abstract like "superiority"?

[Lahtari]

"I'm not a preservationist, I'm not interested in saving the culutral and genetic heritage of human populations other than my own and related, and I think there's drastic, innate differences between groups of people which in some cases makes equal competition impossible."

Sure, preserving everything as it is might sound like a noble and just cause, but it's a futile one. The stone age is over. If some people want to live in a stone age culture that needs huge amounts of hunting grounds per person and with a stone age technology level, sooner or later there WILL be someone kicking their arse and taking their land to build cities, mines, oil refineries and missile silos in it. And there's nothing we can do, expect to pressure our own governments away from doing so and letting a competing power do it instead.

And at least for now I'm not particularly interested in preserving other peoples than European and those of European origin, primarily my own. And culture has to be dynamic, it can't be preserved if it has lost the basis of existence and the people don't want to upkeep it. And how am I going to tell for example an East Asian who wants to live in a western(ized) culture (in his own country) that "no, you can't do that, stop listening to rock immediately and listen to your own pentatonic screeching instead"?

[Lahtari]

As to Africans not doing as well as whites, no of course they won't they are competing in a white system that we set up for us.

Then how come that Asians and Jews are doing at least as good as whites in that same "White System(tm)"? (A trademark of Pepsodent Corp., 2009 )

IQ?

I'm simply a nationalist. Skin pigmentation worship aka rac(ial)ism is incompatible with traditional nationalism.

I can definitely understand people who want to distance themselves from certain forms of globalist, thuggish racism. But incompatible? That's a bit like saying "paganism and nationalism are incompatible". Rather, they simply have nothing to do with each other.