Why Race?

[102387412]

Why Race?

To many people, any political party that mentions race is threatening; to most people, however, there is no impetus to explore the question of race. They're not familiar with any sources that mention it, and as they live in a cultureless void in which the only trait rewarded is willingness to serve for money, they are unaware of any of the associated issues. This document is written to introduce those who have not considered the issue to the implications of race in politics.

Most citizens perceive a clear division between those who will talk about race, and the rest who will not, but do not understand why crossing this line leads to related issues, such as distrust of internationalists or our government. It's not just the propaganda from government, news-entertainment media, public figures, academics and favorite entertainers, but a lack of comprehension of the context of this belief.

This article provides ten reasons why race is important to politics, and explains how one goes through changes in awareness when contemplating them.

1. It's controversial.

Society hides unpleasant truths behind euphemism or taboo. When one gains awareness of these truths, the actual motivations of people - as different from what they admit in public - become clear. Knowledge of these motivations is power, as it enables one to manipulate the system according to its function and not its publically-stated goals, which rarely correspong to its actual intentions. Because race is controversial and provokes a knee-jerk impulse toward censorship in much of the population, it will always have an intense draw to those who sense a truth behind closed doors. If someone explores race, and finds this truth, they will explore further.

2. It points out flaws in our current worldview.

Our current society is assembled according to several principles, including "equality" and multiculturalism. If there were a chink in this armor, it would direct us toward a re-configuration of society to fit new goals, even if it turned out those new goals were the original goals of its founding fathers. Furthermore, if we find significant flaws in our outlook, it undermines all of the justifications and rules based on top of the original assumptions now debunked. In this way, race is an important argument for the powers that be to avoid, because if it is found to be incorrect on this issue, it risks losing credibility with its citizens.

3. It shows a different view of history: populations.

In modern societies, we tend to think of all people as the same, and what differentiates them being the ways they are educated, the philosophies in which they are inculcated, and the economic opportunities to which they are exposed. Paying attention to race literally reveals an entirely different view of history, in which one pays attention to the motion of populations, and the rise and decline in the quality of those populations as their empires go through a life cycle from birth to death. It helps explain how ancient civilizations fell apart "with a whimper and not a bang," and how our own might, as well.

4. It provides a suggestion of a different world order.

Where currently we believe our society provides a measure of justice so that we can pursue individual comfort, and therefore, our highest motivation is money, Nationalism (government that groups countries by ethnic-cultural heritage) shows us a model in which money is a means to the end of maintaining a healthy ethnic-cultural population. It's an entirely different type of politics, and one that escapes most of the greed, corruption, crime and backstabbing of modern politics.

5. It gives a tangible measurement of decline.

Figures and charts surround us, as does a plethora of news-entertainment media reports on any given issue. How do we trust these, when one channel claims global warming will wipe us out tomorrow, and the next denies it even exists? We live in a time of information overload, where information is carefully branded by political symbolism in order to manipulate us. It's hard to see where we stand with that kind of information. However, when we look at past empires and how they collapsed, it gives us a yardstick by which to measure our own decline in quality of breeding. To understand race is to understand the breeding process which enables us to have high-quality raw human material in the first place, and underscores the importance of not only breeding only within our own race, but breeding well within that race.

6. It is a compelling reason to change society.

Supposing that the racial issue becomes important to us, and we decide that racial separation is important. Our society doesn't see it that way because profit motives dictate that we need more unquestioning workers with fewer cultural attachments, and it's important to get them cheap and without objections to any kind of labor. If we see the actual motivations behind our leaders' decisions, and we see thus the future that will actually await us if those decisions go through, the racial issue has provided a gateway to an overall dissatisfaction with society. In that is a good reason to make radical change.

7. It explains so many of our failures.

Why is it that multicultural education, welfare programs, government intervention and the like have not helped racial friction in our country, and that many remain impoverished and at high rates of crime and disease, while others are not? Repeating a failed idea is like beating your head against the wall, yet that is the history of our civil rights-based social welfare programs in this country. Clearly there's another explanation. Race offers it, and shows us how we're going in the wrong direction, and if we change gears, can avoid spending massive amounts of money to little effect.

[102387412]

8. It's compatible with environmentalism.

Ten years ago, it was doubtful that humankind was having adverse effects on nature. Now, as cancer rates have continued to rise and far less natural land remains, and as our climate changes and natural species disappear or mutate into non-existence, we have to take the environmental question seriously. What will save us from ecocide? Having some motivation other than money, because it's always profitable to exploit the land and not waste money fixing the damage. It's competitive in business. We need a higher goal than money, and focusing on the culture and heritage of a people provides it. Furthermore, nationalism bonds each ethnic group to its own land, which encourages stewardship of the land as an enduring property and not disposable resource.

9. The prospects of racial isolation mirror our own feelings.

If we honestly look deep into ourselves, we prefer people around us who share our abilities, values and genetics. Any population of a thousand or more people will avoid the problems of inbreeding, and thus we do not need other races, but recognize subconsciously that to breed with them is to permanently obliterate being what we were, and to cross a threshold into being something different. Knowing that all mixed-race empires through history have collapsed doesn't encourage us toward this path, but our innate will is one that seeks to avoid the submissive aspect of intermixing.

10. Understanding this issue gives us something to use to shatter modern society.

When we understand what has happened to us, racially, as a consequence of modern society, it unlocks a series of related criticisms against it. Why is it that culture is no longer thriving? Doesn't it seem like people in general are bred to lower standards? Are our lives as boring as they appear, shuttling between offices and shops and the desks of bureaucrats? The answer might be yes, if we were able to see history in the context of the health and genetic wellbeing of populations. Race is an entry point to philosophies which look at something larger than the self and treat nature and humanity together as an organic entity.

Conclusion

Our view on race is simple: different populations do not mix, as they have unequal innate tendencies, preferences, specialized abilities and cultural desires. We are not interested in measuring or assessing different races, or finding a "superior" and "inferior" classification, as to us all races are fine - by themselves. It is the process of mixing, or combining radically different things, that distills its product to a lowest common denominator without any cultural or ethnic background. These people are perfect as workers and consumers, as they have no value higher than money and no sense of heritage, therefore no reason not to fully indulge in the world of media and industrial products. They are the lumpenproletariat, the last men, and the end of the cycle for any given civilization.

We don't feel like lying down and letting this happen. We like our civilization, and our neighbors. Most of us even care deeply about people of other races, as friends and coworkers and neighbors. We want to do what's best for everyone, and that includes but is not limited to separating ethnic-cultural groups so each may determine its own future. When one awakens to race, other issues such as environmentalism, better quality of human breeding, more significance in our daily lives and less slavery to the dollar become naturally contiguous thoughts. We believe Nationalism is the future of politics, for these reasons, and are working to awaken others to not only race but the possibility of a better social order than modern society.

http://www.nazi.org/nazi/policy/race/

[A-Carrot-By-Dr-Riot]

Did you write this or is this just copied from your source? If you are not the author, what about the article inspired you to post it on the BBS?

[102387412]

At 1/29/06 12:48 AM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: Did you write this or is this just copied from your source? If you are not the author, what about the article inspired you to post it on the BBS?

I didn't write this article, but I posted it because I feel NG users could benefit from reading it. The reason is that this article not only sums up the taboo of racism, but also why it is important that we incorporate it into our political sphere without sinking into bigotry.

[MoralLibertarian]

Let me give you a couple reasons why it is stupid to talk about race:

1) It offers no solution to any problem: What are we going to do? Send all the blacks back to Africa and all the Asians back to Asia? It makes no sense.

2) A world based on ethnic nationalism would cause more problems than it would solve: ethnic nationalism is exclusive and often violent. Much of the causes of genocide in the 20th century can be traced back to ethnic nationalism. In stark difference to ethnic nationalism, civic nationalism is inclusive to all societies and beliefs. You can sit pretend to be a moderate nazi and say that ethnic nationalism wouldn't lead to violence and elitism, but you'd be wrong. History proves you wrong. Think of the Black Panthers, the Ku Klux Klan, the Armenian Genocide, the Genocide in Rwanda and today in Darfur, and examine the routes.

3) There are no recorded birth defects that result from mixing of the races, or at least no more than normal. By all means, if you find an accredited study that proves this point wrong (can't be from a nazi or eugenics website), send it my way. A slight drop of intelligence means nothing.

4) It's interesting science, but terrible policy. I enjoyed reading the argument that blacks are naturally better fit and more sexually active because of their original surroundings in Africa. Two problems: first of all, it is a theory and not a proven fact. Second of all, what policies could we possibly derive from such science? To put all blacks in special schools? Neo-segregation? Not in America. And besides, if evolution and development is a result of surroundings, in the long term, all dumb races would evolve in order to compete. (Bear in mind I don't believe that some races are innately dumber than others, I'm just taking the theory at face value).

5) The route of all social problems in America do not come from race. Education is probably the largest problem: our public schools teach the very basic skills very poorly and tend to stifle creative thought and critical thinking. The result is a bunch of stupid kids who can't even realize when they are being duped by credit card companies.

All in all, I'm not denying that races are naturally different, nor am I making the argument that race is a social construct. I believe that there is nothing good that can come of basing public policy on skin color.

[CountPoopoo]

In 200 years we will all be tan.

That is all.

[102387412]

At 1/29/06 01:26 AM, MoralLibertarian wrote: Let me give you a couple reasons why it is stupid to talk about race:

1) It offers no solution to any problem: What are we going to do? Send all the blacks back to Africa and all the Asians back to Asia? It makes no sense.

To me it makes more sense to do that than to destroy all races and cultures by assimilating them into a giant consumerist society (that would as a result lack any values to hold the nation together).

2) Think of the Black Panthers, the Ku Klux Klan, the Armenian Genocide, the Genocide in Rwanda and today in Darfur,

All of the examples you list are a result of civic nationalism. If you segregate the races properly, there would be no more racial bigotry and war. All a people want is a land for themselves where they can celebrate their culture - is there anything wrong with this? Of course not.

3) There are no recorded birth defects that result from mixing of the races, or at least no more than normal. By all means, if you find an accredited study that proves this point wrong (can't be from a nazi or eugenics website), send it my way. A slight drop of intelligence means nothing.

I am suspicious of race mixing and the results that would occur as a result. Nearly all traditional cultures condemn race mixing and history shows that it is generally not a good idea. Semites (arabs) are a result of race mixing and Middle Eastern societies are enough to make me think that maybe it isn't such a hot idea to race mix.

Besides, don't you enjoy human diversity? Why anyone would want to ruin such a thing by wanting miscegenation to occur is beyond me.

4) It's interesting science, but terrible policy.

No it's not.

I enjoyed reading the argument that blacks are naturally better fit and more sexually active because of their original surroundings in Africa. Two problems: first of all, it is a theory and not a proven fact.

No, there is evidence to back up that argument.

http://www.charlesda..olution_Behavior.pdf

Besides, anyone with half a brain has already figured it out anyways.

all dumb races would evolve in order to compete. (Bear in mind I don't believe that some races are innately dumber than others, I'm just taking the theory at face value).

Or the races mix and a slightly stupid hybrid is created. In any case evolution is a process that takes thousands of years and is the result of incredible hardship. Thus it is something that cannot happen in America right now.

All in all, I'm not denying that races are naturally different, nor am I making the argument that race is a social construct. I believe that there is nothing good that can come of basing public policy on skin color.

I believe there is nothing good that can come out of ignoring it. If you can admit that we are all different, then why is it so much to ask that people should be treated differently according to their unique traits? I think the ultimate evil comes as a result of ignoring diversity.

[fli]

At 1/29/06 12:40 AM, Mighty_Genghis wrote: ...Our view on race is simple: different populations do not mix, as they have unequal innate tendencies, preferences, specialized abilities and cultural desires...

Perhaps it's not race at all...
Perhaps it's social structualism.

Blacks tend to be poorer compared to their counterpart. They have higher rates of gang violence, lower high school graduation rates, etc.

But this doesn't mean it's an innate nature.
That's how it is frequently when your just dirt poor and live in a ghetto.

Although it is an interesting argument... well made... and I was a bit shocked it was from the Nazis. I mean... they actually said this? "We are not interested in measuring or assessing different races, or finding a "superior" and "inferior" classification, as to us all races are fine - by themselves."

All the same, it's still the same motive-- they want an all White society.
But man, did they ever put it so eloquently and intellectually.

Still,
that bull crap didn't convince me anything.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 1/29/06 01:50 AM, Mighty_Genghis wrote:

1) It offers no solution to any problem: What are we going to do? Send all the blacks back to Africa and all the Asians back to Asia? It makes no sense.

To me it makes more sense to do that than to destroy all races and cultures by assimilating them into a giant consumerist society (that would as a result lack any values to hold the nation together).

There are already values holding America together, although sometimes I admit that they seem to be under attack. We believe in individual liberty, self-sufficiency, equality, charity, Republican Democracy, Judeo-Christian morals (for the most part) and patriotism. Not everyone believes in these values (it is impossible for every person in a country to subscribe to a list of values), but they have held this country together for some time. Note these have never had anything to do with race.

2) Think of the Black Panthers, the Ku Klux Klan, the Armenian Genocide, the Genocide in Rwanda and today in Darfur,

All of the examples you list are a result of civic nationalism.

What? That doesn't make any sense. You don't even know what civic nationalism is. Ethnic nationalism is the belief that a culture or race is superior to all others. As a result, you get these kookie KKKlanners who run around killing blacks.

If you segregate the races properly, there would be no more racial bigotry and war.

History makes mince meat out of this argument. First of all, isolationism and autarky doesn't exist anymore: virtually all economies are interdependent. Second of all, the races began in one area and eventually worked their way to different continents. Europe colonized Africa and the Americas, Britain colonized India, the US colonized the Phillipines, etc. And generally all of these colonizations were triggered by two things: fervent desire for expansion and the desire to spread European (or in America's case, Republican Values) to other cultures while marginalizing the original cultures. Bigotry existed the moment the two races found each other. Sending all blacks back to Africa and all Asians back to Asia isn't going to solve any problem.

I am suspicious of race mixing and the results that would occur as a result. Nearly all traditional cultures condemn race mixing and history shows that it is generally not a good idea. Semites (arabs) are a result of race mixing and Middle Eastern societies are enough to make me think that maybe it isn't such a hot idea to race mix.

Why would you think that? Arabs had their own version of the Renaissance way before the Europeans did, and probably would have had their own industrial revolution if it weren't for the way they interpreted their scripture. The reason they are all a bunch of screw-ups today is because of their big oppressive governments. And they were talked into big oppressive governments because they were deafly afraid of European, American imperialism.

Besides, don't you enjoy human diversity? Why anyone would want to ruin such a thing by wanting miscegenation to occur is beyond me.

I am for nature taking its natural course. You are suggesting moving all blacks to Africa, which is completely absurd and will not solve problems.

I enjoyed reading the argument that blacks are naturally better fit and more sexually active because of their original surroundings in Africa. Two problems: first of all, it is a theory and not a proven fact.

No, there is evidence to back up that argument.

There is evidence to back up global warming, it's still a theory. There is evidence to back up Darwin's original theory of Evolution, but it is still referred to as a theory. This is an easily contestable issue: belief that race is a social construct is almost as convincing.

all dumb races would evolve in order to compete. (Bear in mind I don't believe that some races are innately dumber than others, I'm just taking the theory at face value).

I believe that there is nothing good that can come of basing public policy on skin color.

I believe there is nothing good that can come out of ignoring it. If you can admit that we are all different, then why is it so much to ask that people should be treated differently according to their unique traits? I think the ultimate evil comes as a result of ignoring diversity.

My defintion of diversity is that everyone can come to this country regardless of race or ethnicity and be proud of America. Your definition of diversity is that every race should be given their own continent.

That's just not how it works in America. We believe that everyone deserves to be treated as we would like to be treated. We also believe in free will: blacks can voluntarily move back to Africa if they like: Asians can voluntarily move back to Asia. And if they want to come to this country instead, that is fine too provided they do it legally. If you are uncomfortable with with interracial mixing, marry a woman of your race. You have that freedom.

[The-Dran]

The first definition of race was base on differences of genetical design. It was based off of looking different by a large degree.

Like for instance, the black race and the white race. And they also had the yellow race and the red race. All four representing different ethnic backgrounds base off of skin color.

However most unintelligent people, the same people that associated the word ghetto (which means poor and sufferable) as cool, now associate the word race with different culture or nationality.

Here is the stupid part of that. "People" is the word that associates with nationality. The American people as in the American population. So race is not needed, it is a superly over used word for that definition. And with culture, we have ethnicity for that. A person of different ethnicity. Race is not needed for that definition either.

What race is though and should be used for to stop the stupid confusion of using it for more than it should be used for, is to associate it with sub-species. It should be put into an account with biological classification, being under species.

But how would that associate with ourselves? Humans are of one race, we have always been of one race, thanks to killing off all the others that had existed.

A quick background check if I may? Humans, present-day humans, are part of a large diversity of life. But the existence of the truely first humans begins about 2.4 million years ago with the emergence of Homo Habilis, the first of the "man" genus. About 1.9 to 1.1 million years ago Homo Ergaster existed. About 1.2 million years ago Homo Erectus emerged. That was roughly six hundred thousand years between each of them. The first of our species emerged roughly four hundred thousand years ago, Homo Sapien heidelbergensis, the Heiderlbergen race. Roughly about 200,000 years ago, the Neatherthal race, Homo Sapien Neanderthalis, apeared. The Idaltu race, Homo Sapien Idaltu, appeared roughly 160,000 years ago. Modern day humans first appear between 80,000 and 40,000 years ago, Homo Sapien Sapien, the Sapien race.

There were also another race that had existed, the Rhodesian race, Homo Sapien rhodesiensis, which had existed between 300,000 and 125,000 years ago.

So in actuality there are four races of humans, three which are extinct.

The Sapien Race (that's us)

The Neanderthal Race

The Heidelbergen Race

The Idaltu Race

The Rhodesian Race

If you must know, our evolution was a lot like this...

Homo Habilis (2.4 - 1.8) mya
Homo Ergaster (1.9 - 1.1) mya
Homo Erectus (1.2 - .6) mya
Homo Antecessor (.78 - 3) mya
Homo Sapien Heidelbergensis (.4 - .2) mya
Homo Sapien Rhodesiensis (.3 - .125) mya / Homo Sapien Neanderthalis (.2 - .03) mya
Homo Sapien Idaltu (Cross between Rhodensiensis and Neanderthalis) (.16 - .05) mya
Homo Sapien Sapiens (.06 mya - present) (somewhere between 80,000 and 40,000)

There is some speculation that Homo Sapien Sapiens might have been a cross between Homo Sapian Idaltu and Homo Sapien Neanderthalis.

Be minded that Homo Sapien, our species, first appeared 400,000 years ago.

And by the way Neanderthals are homo sapiens, some people are just too racist to understand it and accept it. Darn racist mongrels.

[x-Toadenalin-x]

At 1/29/06 01:50 AM, Mighty_Genghis wrote: No, there is evidence to back up that argument.

http://www.charlesda..olution_Behavior.pdf

I'm enjoying reading this, but could you possibly re-post the link? My browser won't let me view it.

[ImmoralLibertarian]

I completely agree. Different races cannot live together in harmony. But then of course, under biological definitions all homosapiens are one race.

[The-Dran]

At 1/29/06 02:03 PM, o_r_i_g_i_n_a_l wrote: I completely agree. Different races cannot live together in harmony. But then of course, under biological definitions all homosapiens are one race.

All Homo Sapien Sapiens are of one race.

All Homo Sapiens are of one species.

A Neanderthal is not a Sapien, therefore... a Sapien is not a Neanderthal.

Two races cannot co-exist for that long, unless we were speaking of the Neanderthals, which were around for a long time with different human races. But they are gone.

Two of the reasons why human races tend to not co-exist is because of imbreeding and extinction carried out by the new race.

Homo Sapien Sapiens killed out the Neanderthals as they have done with the Idaltus.

[Draconias]

At 1/29/06 12:40 AM, Mighty_Genghis wrote: http://www.nazi.org/nazi/policy/race/

I don't see how no one else really seemed to focus on this:

If it's about ethnicity and Nazis posted it, there's a good (99%) chance that it's destructive, dangerous, counterproductive lies.

Those 10 reasons are what caused 11 million deaths in Germany. By proof of implementation, those ideas are bad. Case closed.

[102387412]

At 1/29/06 09:17 PM, Draconias wrote:

At 1/29/06 12:40 AM, Mighty_Genghis wrote: http://www.nazi.org/nazi/policy/race/

I don't see how no one else really seemed to focus on this:

If it's about ethnicity and Nazis posted it, there's a good (99%) chance that it's destructive, dangerous, counterproductive lies.

Those 10 reasons are what caused 11 million deaths in Germany. By proof of implementation, those ideas are bad. Case closed.

Or you can just *gasp* read about it and think for yourself. The problem with making absolutist judgements about things is that the world doesn't necessarily function in absolutes. Thus whenever you do so you are also setting yourself up for imminent failure.

[fli]

At 1/29/06 09:26 PM, Mighty_Genghis wrote: Or you can just *gasp* read about it and think for yourself. The problem with making absolutist judgements about things is that the world doesn't necessarily function in absolutes. Thus whenever you do so you are also setting yourself up for imminent failure.

True...
but being a Nazi doesn't really help out anyone when it comes to "giving recomendations to races", etcetra...

A bad reputation is all what it takes as many cases in the past has shown.

At 1/29/06 12:38 AM, Mighty_Genghis wrote: Why Race?

Nazi rhetoric

Like most Nazi/ KKK writings , your arguments started soft at first almost seemingly innocent hiding its true intentions with careful wording of every sentence written and then half way in the argument, it takes a bizarre turn and shows it's true colors and what it is all about. It's a common fear of Nazis and KKKs alike of what a miscigenated population would be like , since I am from Brazil ( by far, the #1 mixed population of the world) I will gladly dispel your racial myths. White people and Black people wouldn't "die off" in the mixing , they would just give way to rather different shades of white and black that would appear in all sorts of way and appearance just like when you experiment with colors instead of creating a "brown "race . Neither white nor black are "threatened" by miscigenation ... you're just afraid of it because you don't know a damn thing about mixed races , never seen nor talked to someone who's mixed and you've probably never had the luxury to see the endless possibilities in it... I recommend you to travel to Rio de Janeiro and go see it for yourself on the beaches.

[Politics]

Why race?

Just do it.

This may be so in America, where it is a melting pot of cultures to an American one.

But in Canada and in other countries, multi-culturalism is supported. Naturally, we will morph into one culture. One culture where ethnicity is a matter of what food you eat, not your lifestyle and one unified culture.

However, the United States is culturally crippled. There is a sect of the population with a strong view that all have to conform to one culture and language - American (hot dogs, baseball, MTV, etc) and English.

However there is another part of the population that is struggling to keep it's culture (blacks and minorities in general). These clash at the front lines, where racism and black power gangs confront. And at further back where they have PC discussions on CNN about these issues.

Racism is a touchy issue in the US due to it's strong nationalism, which is the root of Nazi and Fascist movements.

[The-Dran]

Sure it is.... Mojo... sure it is...

[WolvenBear]

At 1/29/06 12:38 AM, Mighty_Genghis wrote: Why Race?

Why indeed? Is it just me, or do all your arguments have to go there? Everytime you start a post it's about racial seperatism, or isolationism or some such crap. It doesn't matter.

1. It's controversial.

Only if you're a fool. Normal people don't hide theirchildren's eyes when someone of a different color walks down the street. Race is only controversial when someone uses it as a way to sperate the races or assert superiority/inferiority. Which you do here. And then it just pisses people off.

2. It points out flaws in our current worldview.

No it doesn't. We believe people are people. That's part of the reason for Iraq. That's why we helped out in Bosnia. You're being childish and arrogant. Just because YOU are racist.

3. It shows a different view of history: populations.

BS. Throught history, whenever race has mattered, it has led to tears. ALWAYS.

4. It provides a suggestion of a different world order.

I disagree. See #3.

5. It gives a tangible measurement of decline.

Same as 3 and 4. Just because you think that people coming together is a bad thing. I don't.

6. It is a compelling reason to change society.

You're an idiot. Poverty is a goal to get rid of, not race relations. AIDS< cancer, those are things to get rid of. Not white and black people interacting. The KKK/nazi mentality shows through finally.

7. It explains so many of our failures.

Because they offer dependance. They tell black people they can't succeed and cause more problems than they solve. It's that simple.

8. It's compatible with environmentalism.

So a black woman having a white baby will end the world by speeding up global warming. Gotcha. Dear God, the racism is so thick you can cut it.

9. The prospects of racial isolation mirror our own feelings.

Bullshit. Some of my best friends are black. And some are asian. Just because you're a racist doesn't mean everyone else is. What about white guys who can't stand being with a woman who's NOT black? Or who only find asians attractive. Racism is a social construct. This has been repeatedly and scientifically proven.

10. Understanding this issue gives us something to use to shatter modern society.

Society being shattered! Yes that's the solution. Total anarchy. That'll make everything better!

I repeat. Do you ever offer something that's not blatantly blame whitey racist?

[The-Dran]

At 1/29/06 01:49 AM, CountPoopoo wrote: In 200 years we will all be tan.

That is all.

Tan with dirty brown hair and green eyes.