Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

896

A Race is the legacy of children you leave behind. Best to preserve is not the consistency of your childrens genes to their parents, but the prosperity and happiness of your descendants. This is consistent with the older definition of "race"

>Race

RACE, noun appears to only grudgingly agree, that Racial purity is decadent. Preserving biological race means you have no future, you cling to perceived golden days, you don't boldly look forward.

A Race is the legacy of children you leave behind. Best to preserve is not the consistency of your childrens genes to their parents, but the prosperity and happiness of your descendants. This is consistent with the *older* definition of "race" [From Websters dictionary 1828](http://www.webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Race) >>Race > >RACE, noun [Latin radix and radius having the same original. This word coincides in origin with rod, ray, radiate, etc.] > >1. The lineage of a family, or continued series of descendants from a parent who is called the stock. A race is the series of descendants indefinitely. Thus all mankind are called the race of Adam; the Israelites are of the race of Abraham and Jacob. Thus we speak of a race of kings, the race of Clovis or Charlemagne; a race of nobles, etc. > >Hence the long race of Alban fathers come. Do you want to preserve your Race ? Miscegenation is not evil. Evil is not caring for your children and giving them a happy future. Please note also, the historian Spengler thought, and [Greg Johnson](https://www.counter-currents.com/2010/07/is-racial-purism-decadent/) appears to only grudgingly agree, that Racial purity is decadent. Preserving biological race means you have no future, you cling to perceived golden days, you don't boldly look forward.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (18).
[–] • 0 pt

Respectfully I disagree. You have a far higher chance of producing a successful environment to raise children with someone that is from a similar cultural background as you. Most of the time that means the same race.

[–] • 0 pt

If you only refuse to race mix for utilitarian reasons, but your ultimate purpose is for the happiness of your children, then you haven't really disagreed.

[–] • 0 pt

Its that the entire argument against race mixing for utilitarian reasons?

[–] • 1 pt

My argument is that the happiness of your children should be more important than that your childrens children have the same color skin as you do. I defend this with a more deontological approach that

  • you should care for the happiness of your children, this is more important than that their children look like you.
  • preserving the past reflects a cynicism of the future, you are protective, not boldly exploring new possibilities.

The article by Greg Johnson is my basic reasoning, but he seems almost afraid to grasp at Spengler.

[–] • 0 pt

Your comment does not reflect a disagreement. You seem to be saying that you want a good environment so as to raise children, for which purpose you want a partner of your own culture, this suggests that you refuse race mixing because you actually agree with me.