Why do Chink females always go after white males

Originally Posted by Babycakes

Fred Reed's accounts of his Jap girlfriends does not square with the experiences of my friend's son who lives in Japan.

Birdman Bryant has nailed Reed as the POS that he is, Reed's effusive bowing to the jew lobby was brilliantly engaged by the Birdman, worth a read.

As far as this miscegenation goes. CNN did a report earlier this year on illegal aliens in Georgia. This White guy was fighting this, his Korean born wife, mother of his half-Asian child, was divorcing him because he was a "racist".

Now all this guy was doing was conservative style protesting of illegal aliens. Wow what a racist!

I have the feeling that Asians hate Whites.
While they may fight among themselves Asians of Japanese, Vietnamese, Cambodian, etc will unite against Whitey whenever possible.

[Antiochus Epiphanes]

I am amazed that in 4 days this thread has garnered almost 3500 posts.

I am going to give y'all a little zen story. Two monks were walking down the past, one a senior monk of great reknown for his virtue, the other a junior. In China Zen monks took ascetic vows not to touch women. The two monks came to a stream with a strong current swollen by spring rains. There a dainty and attractive woman, evidently a courtesan, stood perplexed at how to cross the river.

Well without anything more than introduction, the senior monk scooped the courtesan up on his shoulders, legs astradle his head, and carried her across the river safely. They said goodbye and walked on.

After about a mile the junior monk was trouble. He had a sour look on his face and the senior asked him what was wrong. He said, Master, how could you break your vows and touch that woman!

The senior monk said, junior, I left her at the riverbank; do you carry her with us still?

Originally Posted by Antiochus Epiphanes

I am amazed that in 4 days this thread has garnered almost 3500 posts.

I am going to give y'all a little zen story. Two monks were walking down the past, one a senior monk of great reknown for his virtue, the other a junior. In China Zen monks took ascetic vows not to touch women. The two monks came to a stream with a strong current swollen by spring rains. There a dainty and attractive woman, evidently a courtesan, stood perplexed at how to cross the river.

Well without anything more than introduction, the senior monk scooped the courtesan up on his shoulders, legs astradle his head, and carried her across the river safely. They said goodbye and walked on.

After about a mile the junior monk was trouble. He had a sour look on his face and the senior asked him what was wrong. He said, Master, how could you break your vows and touch that woman!

The senior monk said, junior, I left her at the riverbank; do you carry her with us still?

Always a good story, that one.


New Order, on Fred Reed: like Alex Linder writes, he's a leader who refuses to lead. He will avoid naming Jews and he'll give stupid reasons for some conflicts between Whites and muds, but in other moments he's right on target and worth reading. These libertarians are at their best when attacking liberals, at their worst when coming up with an alternative.

Asians don't hate Whites; they watch movies and TV shows from the West, they listen to Western music, they wear Western clothing, many get married in church even though they're not Christian, and the women color their hair light brown. If we keep them from living in our countries there needn't be any hostility, until, Fate willing, the day we're strong enough to take their countries away from them.

Originally Posted by _DC_

Either your kind are telling other posters they're too obsessed with Jews, or you're telling other posters they are not purist enough. Still you're all the same: web warriors looking for a fight just because. Now I expect you to do some more flaming, so take it away.

Just put him on ignore. You can't deal with the bullyish type. Everything you say is cause for him to puff himself up on stupid condescension.

[Kind Lampshade Maker]

Originally Posted by Ronen

Does this extend to whitening non-white nations? Why would we waste our genetic supply on them and create more off-white mulattos and mestizos rather than breeding with our own women? I sincerely hope you don't answer yes to this and add to the absurdities I've read on this forum lately...

Yuck!! Another board member shoveling a slice of humble pie into my gob.
If you are asking me if I'm trying to promote Whites going out of their way to redirect spermatazoa away from White nations to dump it into non-White ones, the answer is no.
I specifically wrote that I don't care if they do, as long as they don't bring back the results here. At the point they start bringing back their results is when my disapproval begins. There's nothing we can do about it, anyway, except to covertly kill such Whites overseas. We have neither time nor resources to waste, in the meddling in the internal affairs of non-White nations.
It would teach those nations a lesson about what it's like to experience racial extinction, as how we're threatened Maybe racial extinction wouldn't be that bad for them. Might dull their Cooley style subservience. If White genes get them to organize trade unions, we'll get our economic competitive edge back

Originally Posted by Ronen

Really, it's getting to the point where I'm starting to clearly understand why even some whites who might otherwise be sympathetic to some of our stances won't touch us with a 10-foot pole...

It may be even worse to impose travel restrictions on fellow Whites, as a pre-emptive measure to insure no White genes exit. For the actions of a few, we may be scaring most everybody from our movment, that way. Or would you approve of such measures?

[Antiochus Epiphanes]

Originally Posted by Invisible Umpire

........It concerns the religious aspect of sex, specifically the general xtian obsession with any kind of sex as sinful/guilt-ridden/evil and the lack of this obsession among Orientals. As far as I can tell, Buddhism doesn't preach that sex between man and woman is somehow sinful/evil as does xtianity, with the whole Adam & Eve crap. .........

Interesting question. Actually in Buddhism, I think there is a STRONGER inclination against "the world" ie the physical carnal world, including sex (at least among the elites)-- called "asceticism"-- and there are plenty of celibate priestly orders among Buddhists. Sex in Buddhist terms may be seen as one of many carnal pleasures that just creates more attachment to the illusory world. So to attribute to Buddhism a "more healthy" or accepting view of sex is not really accurrate.

Moreover, here is where the difference between Christian sects is important. The Puritans were well known for their Buddhist-like severity and asceticism against carnal pleasures. No accident itz that Japanese Zen "minimalist" aesthetics often reminds folks of Quaker design. This certainly extended itself to sex, where the Puritan/Victorian mindset adopted the evil Jew practice of dicksnipping (circumcision) to "prevent masturbation." Of course for Jews, it has nothing to do with asceticism, but much to do with their strange tribal identity. So let's leave them out of this little exercise in comparative religions.

Back to Christian sects. One of the key differences between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism is the depth of Roman Catholic social teaching. Protestants blather on willy nilly about things, and every man's a pope with a different opinion. By contrast, on big issues Catholics at least take them seriously and tend to have something definitive to say. Roman Catholic marriage teaching is very clear: sex within marriage is a positive good both for the procreative aspect which brings forth new life, and the unitive aspect, which results from given and received intense pleasure of sexual intercourse among man and wife. Now, there's things to quibble about around the edges, but to me that seems like a pretty sensible natural and yet responsible doctrine overall. So I would not call Roman Catholicism anti-sex. Roman Catholic men who have dutiful and complaint Roman Catholic wives, can and do expect plenty of sex and kids. And that my friends is something to be greatly pursued and enjoyed!

Of course many Roman Catholics dont know or appreciate this, being adversely affected by our Judaized screwed up anti-male culture which teaches women to be bitches and constantly with-hold sex for what they want. That is a function of patriarchy vs matriarchy however, and so if people think Asian women are more complaint, to me that speaks of a general cultural difference of feminized West vs masculine East. However, the "west" ie judaizing mass-culture, once an Asian woman is immersed in it, she will usually "convert" to a bitchy feminist mode and the socalled "submissive Asian" will soon be trying to wear the pants in the family!

So dont fool yourselves boys. Go for a White woman, even if you think they're generally affected in a negative way by our defective American "culture." Better the she-devil you know than the one with slanty eyes!

Originally Posted by Antiochus Epiphanes

One of the key differences between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism is the depth of Roman Catholic social teaching. Protestants blather on willy nilly about things, Catholics at least take them seriously.

Methinks someone is letting his Catholic upbringing cloud his judgment. I see the same problems in Catholic countries as in Protestant ones. I see the same flawed teachings in Catholic churches as in Protestant ones. And the Catholic Church is one of the loudest advocates of mud imports. Not so strange, considering that there are more muds than Whites in that organization. Seems we should start calling Latin Americans "ethnic Catholics."

[Antiochus Epiphanes]

Originally Posted by _DC_

Methinks someone is letting his Catholic upbringing cloud his judgment.

That wouldnt be me since I was brought up Presbyterian.

Here is an interesting book for those who want to dig deeper into Buddhist approaches to human sexuality:

http://pup.princeton.edu/chapters/s6353.html

Chapter One

THE HERMENEUTICS OF DESIRE

By whatever thing the world is bound, by that
the bond is unfastened.
(Hevajra-tantra)

One who, possessing desire, represses desire, is living a lie.
(Candamaharosana-tantra)

After six years of ascesis, Sakyamuni realized the ultimate truth under the bodhi tree and became the Buddha, the Awakened. What is this truth according to the first Buddhist orthodoxy (for as we will see, there have been several)? It is expressed in the form of a tetralemma known as the "four noble truths": suffering, the cause of suffering, the possibility of ending suffering, and the method of achieving that end. The first two rubrics describe the world of samsara, the cycle of transmigration through birth-and-death. The driving force of this cycle is desire. Actually, desire is itself produced by ignorance, which makes one believe in the existence of an enduring self where the sage sees only fleeting states of consciousness. The third rubric deals with nirvana, the ultimate quiescence and extinction of all defilements or passions; the fourth describes the path to nirvana--the so-called eightfold path.

Some of these ideas were common in the Indian culture of the time. They were not radically new to Sakyamuni himself. Despite the attempts of his own father, King Suddhodana, to shield him from the harsh realities of the outside world, Sakyamuni had encountered these realities--in the form of a sick man, an old man, a corpse and an ascetic--during four excursions outside the palace.

It is another event that led him to leave the palace, however. One night, he awoke and looked at the women of his gynaeceum, asleep around him in unflattering postures--frozen in a corpselike slumber. Sleep had stripped them of their charms, and revealed their ugliness. This scene revealed to Sakyamuni the vanity of his hedonistic life. He thus came to understand that everything, including pleasure, is ephemeral and painful in the end, and that suffering takes root in desire and the illusion of a self. More precisely, he came to understand the nature of sexual desire, which ties humans to their earthly body, to the circle of rebirths, and inscribes them in a long line of ancestors and descendants. This first insight, which led Sakyamuni to abandon his wife and his newborn son, would eventually mature into full awakening under the bodhi tree. By renouncing the world, Sakyamuni "left the family." The expression "leaving the family" soon came to designate monastic ordination, and this is why, in Theravada, the postulant ritually reenacts the founder's "flight from the palace." By an ironic turn of events, this ordination, in East Asian Buddhism, came to be seen as an adoption into another (spiritual) family, an affiliation to the "lineage of the Buddha": Chinese and Japanese monks bear the patronym Shi (Sakya). More generally, Buddhist monks and nuns are called "children of the Buddha."

Whereas Sakyamuni left his wife Yasodhara and the other women of his gynaeceum without regrets, such renunciation was not always as easy for his disciples, as shown by the case of his half-brother Nanda. After entering the Buddhist order at the request of the Buddha, on the day he was to get married, Nanda was unable to forget his love, the beautiful Sundari. To help him take his mind off her, the Buddha showed him successively the most extreme ugliness--a dead and disfigured shemonkey--and of beauty--the celestial nymphs in Trayastrimsa Heaven. Nanda came thus to realize that, from an aesthetic standpoint, the distance between the nymphs and Sundari was greater than that between Sundari and the monkey. The stratagem turned out, however, to be a double-edged sword, as Nanda now became infatuated with the nymphs. Therefore, the Buddha promised him one of them as a wife if he would only persevere in his practice. Fortunately, the mockery from his codisciples brought Nanda to his senses (or rather, away from them, back to reason), and thereafter he devoted himself to the practice of meditation. The story affirms that he was eventually able to realize the vanity of all desires and the emptiness of beauty. He consequently untied the Buddha from his promise and renounced the nymph he had so coveted.




PROTEAN DESIRE




Sakyamuni succeeded in cutting off desire, but his disciples were not always as successful. In the later Buddhist tradition, desire was usually displaced, intensified, modified in manifold ways. Even when repressed in its sexual form, desire was often merely displaced to thirst for power. Political ambition, in turn, seems to have legitimated sex. Political success multiplies temptations and opportunities and, as we all know, "opportunities make the thief." A truly vicious circle.

Sexual desire belongs to the realm of the senses, and these senses are deluding us. We might recall Laozi's saying that the five senses make a person blind and deaf. Only the mind, a sixth sense according to Buddhists, can reveal things as they really are--provided that it can detach itself from sense perceptions. Buddhist soteriology teaches that there are three obstacles to deliverance: passions, acts, and their retribution. According to the the Dazhidulun, a commentary on the Prajnaparamitasutra (Great Perfection of Wisdom) attributed to Nagarjuna: "Among these three obstacles, the act is the greatest." Indeed, it is the act that brings retribution, but only because it is itself caused by passion. The Dazhidulun insists on the inescapable nature of karmic retribution:





The wheel of transmigration pulls man
With his passions and hindrances.
It is very strong and revolves freely,
No one can stop it....
The waters of the ocean may dry up,
The earth of Mount Sumeru may become exhausted,
But the acts of former existences
Will never be consummated or exhausted.




Desire is almost as defiling as the act itself, however: "He who enjoys looking at women, even in painting, is not detached from the act." In the traditional Buddhist classification, there are three passions: hatred, love, and ignorance. Desire, in the form of love (raga, a word meaning color, but also lewdness, concupiscence, lust, attraction), is therefore one of the "three poisons" that pollute and maintain human existence. According to this conception, all existence (human or nonhuman, because this is true even for the gods) is fundamentally defiled.

The Buddhist notion of desire is not limited to sexual desire; it encompasses all sensual desires. Desire is usually described with ten similes: it is said to be like a dry meat bone, a piece of meat for which many birds are fighting, a torch made of straw carried against the wind, a pit full of burning coal, a dream of a beautiful landscape, borrowed things, a tree laden with fruit on which it is dangerous to climb, a slaughterhouse, the point of a sword, a snake's head. Carnal desires are commonly associated with hunger and thirst, more precisely eating meat and drinking alcohol, and therefore nondesire implies not only chastity but vegetarianism and sobriety as well. Buddhist desire--this "creeper of existence" according to the Dhammapada--is reminiscent of what the Romans called cupiditas, greed in all its forms. As Peter Brown remarks, the true struggle of the ascetic is as much against his belly as against his underbelly. Significantly perhaps, the Buddha is said to have died from indigestion after eating meat, not from venereal disease. In modern Theravada monasteries, the major obstacle to monastic life is not chastity but the--apparently minor--rule of fasting in the afternoon. In Japan, monks have got round this rule by calling their evening meal a "medication."