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

©2025 Poal.co

940

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

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

I’m not going to disagree however I will state it’s pretty damn hard to preserve your children’s happiness when they have racial identity issues to deal with on top of all the bullshit they have to deal with in our society. We’ve forgotten what’s important staying married strong families generations of people have completely disregarded why that is important.

[–] • 0 pt

It seems like you are part of an older conservative culture that just sees different cultures and the problems that come up with mixing them safely. My post is more directed to a newer, ideological form of Identitarianism that wants to preserve "The White Race".