jon°

What is racism, the dictionary describes it thus:.....:
.......................
rac.ism n (1936) 1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human
traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent
superiority of a particular race 2: racial prejudice or
discrimination --rac.ist n or adj
.......................
Note though, the word only came into usage in 1936. Probably invented to be
used as a weapon by the Jews against Nazi Germany. Therefore the modern
use of the term racism, is only one interpretation of what it is to wish to
mix with people of one's own race and culture. Albeit this description is a
new way of looking at things......It is most certainly unjustified.

So.........If we then call "racists" all who prefer their own company as
neighbours and friends. We must include many peoples.

1. The Jews are brought up to only inter-marry and prefer to mix only
amongst themselves (socially that is, they will mix anywhere when doing
business is the order of their day) In Israel they have recently passed a
law that prohibits a Jew living with a Gentile (in Israel) if they marry.
Try joining a Jewish club and see how far you get? A strict interpretation
of the modern dictionary version of racism therefore must conclude that Jews
are racists.

2. Arabs and Asians (in the UK) stick together like glue, most of them are
Muslims and they prefer their own company. They even send "back home" for
unsullied virgins to marry (whilst they try to sully our girls) They speak
their own languages in their homes, will not become part of British culture
and hold no allegiance to this country. Just watch them when Pakistan plays
England. at cricket. Listen to the ****ney, Brummy and Yorkshire accents
yelling out in support of Pakistan. Even though they are born here they
still despise the Brit Infidel. They have even been known to kill members
of their own families if they stray with a white indigenous Brit. Here again
a strict interpretation of modern racism must include most of them.

3. Germans, French, Greeks, Poles, Americans and many other national types
have their own clubs in London and other provincial cities. They enjoy being
with their own types and who can blame them?...However some would call this
racism. I would just call it a natural desire to be with their own people on
occasions.

In the UK therefore it would seem, that the modern usage of the
description..."Racism".....Is discriminatory in itself. What liberal-bigots
really believe is that racism is purely a white indigenous Brits crime and
one always and only committed against immigrants. They never seem to stop
and think and ask..........If white Brits cannot have exclusive clubs that
restrict the membership to their own types.....Why should Jews, Arabs,
Asians and other foreign nationals be allowed to do so? "Oh! no, Racism is
a word to condemn white British people with, none of the others", they
postulate. "If Jews and Asians wish to congregate together it is for their
own security, if white residents wish to it is because they are racist",
they yell.

In fact I believe that much of what is called racism is the natural desire
of human beings to congregate together in company of their own choosing. So
remember the nest time that you have a party and only invite those that you
want.....To enter your house.........That is not racism at work, it is the
natural way of things. We all prefer our own types on many occasions, surely
this is true and obvious?

the enlightenment

That's why white boys and girls in the USA,UK,Brazil have to miss out on
university places because they were the wrong color (white)

That's why millions of white people have to be excluded from employment
opportunities on the basis of their whiteness rather than competence or
merit.

That's why white men (and women) have to be defamed by massively over
representing them as criminals and molesters in the media to conform with
the ever repeated message: "colored victim: white oppressor"

That's why parents are not given freedom of association for their school
children. They must be indoctrinated with the 'anti-white' message of
ethno-marxism: The victimology, the rubbery cultural relativism, the
"colored victim: white oppressor" formula all designed to shame him away
from absorbing his own tradition and culture. To make her feel selective
nihilism.

That's why we need to spend billions per year in the UK on diversity
management parasites at all levels of government and business. Pure
totalitarianism. (The Nazi word was "Gleichschaltung"

That's why UK elections have become ethnic head counts often based around
cultivating ethnic resentments complete with victims, champions and
oppresors.

That's why we have to lie about the economic beneftis of mass repacemtn
immigration but can't talk about the costs: the overcrowding, the ecology,
the untrained doctors and programmers, the wage lowering effects.

That's why we ignore the crimes and costs to our community. Why
inter-racial white on colored crimes that occur in the underclass's are
hyped, propagandised and even hoaxed while the white victims have to suffer
in silence and fear.

That's why white children are loosing self determination "the kurdification"
of white people with endless compromises to appease the regular race riots
that started occurring in this country since 1957.

That's why we have white flight.

Nice world you've created Holly. I don't expect much from you; I expect
you are to much of a 'tolerance bigot to concede the suffering we are
beginning to see.

sherbs

While the rest of your comments are just opinions I happen to disagree
with, this statement seems to be misleading. We do actually need more
young people and less old people. That is a harsh fact of life in the UK,
with the current birth rate dropping under 1.6 and the only way we have of
subsidising these old people is with young immigrants, unless you are
going to make childbirth compulsory?

jon°

We do actually need more

.................................................. ...........................
..
Therefore would you agree that if we allow in essential workers they should
be tested for their suitability. As in: educational and vocational tests,
past character and their psychological suitability to become part of the
British nation?

If you do agree with this, you will be called a racist by the politically
illiterate, the liberal fringe and most of Nu Labour.

If you don't agree you will be one of those responsible for letting into our
country: Black Yardie gangsters, illiterate and unemployable types from Asia
and Africa, terrorists, conmen and the flotsam and jetsam of the worlds
population that just drifts around looking for an easy way of living without
working. As many of the unemployable types will have large
families............... You will also be responsible for allowing in
unproductive human's who tend to breed at a much faster rate then the
indigenous Brits and thus swelling the ranks of the unemployed and those
on state benefit. The age of these people is inconsequential, 20 or 80 makes
no difference to the drag on the national purse if they are being kept by
working taxpayers.

Then again perhaps you believe in state provided euthanasia for the
elderly, voluntary at first (of course?) but eventually made compulsory by a
"Ministry of Euthanasia". In this way those old folk who have paid their
contributions to the state and insurance companies could be quietly put
away if they inconveniently live past 75? What a bonus that would be for the
exchequer and the PLC pension providers eh!? The fact that they have paid to
live out their lives in peace could be talked away by liberal-elite
sophists, any that argued against this could be called white racists, as
most of the ones facing state execution would be white.

Think through what you really mean "Sherbs", don't hide from the likely
consequences.

jon°

"You start making nonsensical definitions about who others should have as
friends and you become dangerous."
................................................

As always you postulate in a ridiculous and torturous manner. Who ever said
above? I certainly did not. You must be lost for words and have scribbled
off something you thought may sound good, it doesn't, it sounds like the
last resort of an exhausted mind, a mind that cannot find a logical and
objective way of disagreeing and therefore has to use subterfuge and
obscurantism.

the enlightenment

Facilitating child birth is a lot less fatuous than encouraging the lunar
forms of immigration we are seeing. Is it not a double standard and
ludicrous to encourage immigration while discouraging child birth?

Immigration has a neglibabe effect on the age of the population. Immigrants
are usually quite old and eventually bring in relatives. You would need
truly massive immigration to have an effect ( although for many a doubling
of trebling would still not be enough. for some of the immigration
fanatics )

The low British fertility rate of 1.6 per woman per fertile lifetime (a
generation of 20 years) means that we are declining down to 1.6/2.05 or 20%
every 20 years. In 40 years that's a loss of about 0.8 x 0.8 =64%.
Essentially the white genotype will be flushed out completely within 100
years and a minority in 50. The Kurdification of cultural self
determination is almost complete within London.

The low birth rate is in a direct result of high immigration which drives up
housing prices, forces women into the work force longer to pay for it and
thereby forgo child birth they have 1 instead of 2 none instead of 1. It
forces people into smaller homes with bigger mortgages both unsuitable for
families. It forces us to use more expensive and costly environmental
standards in everything. Immigration diverts private and public finances
into infrastructure. roads, schools, hospitals, water works, power
generation, bulldozers to flatten that Forrest or field.

Immigration exacerbates every problem we have: including aging of the
population.

As for 'skills shortages' these are 100% sham. Skills shortages are simply
good wages. And that is a good thing! Raise them and people come back
into the industry. It is quite possible to train more doctors of British
origin there are plenty of smart people around. There are plenty of
underutilized and unemployed software people n the UK and the USA. Bringing
in immigrates lowers wages and thereby harms the British employee. the
small benefit to the company is easily offset by the damage it has caused.
The economy is to benefit the people not the other way around. Immigration
and the economy is wagging the dog and hurting the people.

Finally of course immigration is ethnocidal and it is literally genocidal by
definition of the word.

thee_process23

white is a color, while White is a race. Why don't you guys capitalize
the W? Just curious...

steve christie

I'm sorry I couldn't offer you a place studying vacuum cleaning in my
grandmother's garage, but there was a dead woman who beat you on the
entrance exam, not because you were the wrong colour.

The reverse is usually the case, although no doubt there will be some
instances where a racist interviewer gave a job to a black rather than a white.

When you have a decent understanding about economics, ecology, medicine and
programming, such that you can make the above comment, Hell will resemble the south Pole.

I think it's swell myself. But then I didn't fail to become a vacuum
cleaner.

Steve-o

Y = S I G
(Keynes)

the enlightenment

University places are decided on the basis of objective tests. In Brazil
and the USA these are ignored. Being in the top 50% of scorers who actualy
got into medicin is still enough to exclude you from medicine in Brazil and
in some cases 82% was not enough

In the USA racial set asides under affirmative action have a similar effect.

Merit based tests are illegal in the USA under affirmative action rules.
The DUKE power company tried to use objective tests, it tried to use
culturaly neutral IQ tests to exclude interviewer bias. Objective and merit
based tests do not protect you from being sued.

Only the US military is allowed to use them; which is why it still functions
and works. The blacks and whites have similar IQs.

Brazil never had racial legislation and because the Portuguese restricted
female immigration a great many interracial marriages happen. (nor did
Mexico) yet Whites rule the power structure.

The reason? The white genes found there way to the top. A successful
black/Indian would often marry a white and so on. The ancestors of the
elates in Mexico are often Mestizo and in Brazil also.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62685-2003Jun15?language=printer
Gabriella Fracescutti, 19, has filed one of nearly 300 lawsuits
against the State University because of its quota policy. She has
dreamed of being a surgeon since she was a high school freshman -- "I
like blood," she says sheepishly -- and studied during her entire
senior year for the vestibular, the national college entrance exam.
She did very well, scoring 82.5 percent, better than half the students
admitted ahead of her. But her application was rejected, essentially
because she is neither black nor poor.

"I just don't understand how you can justify someone with a lower
grade getting into the school, and turning me down. Why, because I
have blond hair?" said Fracescutti, the daughter of an architect and a
botanist. "I have friends who are whiter than me and didn't study and
didn't do well on the test, but they wrote down they were [black] on
their application and they got in. My grandmother is black. I could
have written down that I am black, but I didn't feel right about that.
In a country like Brazil, everyone's blood is mixed together."

************************************************** *

So thats the results of your policies.

So a white (or chinese) child from a poor background with a deceased
parent is worse of than a 1/4 black kid who is well of and whose
parents are molly coddled by the affirmitve action system.

The paradox or rather double standard of the 'anti-racism' meme is
that it encourages ethnocentracism in people of colour but denies it
in whites.

(That's why I fight for my race)

It relies on the unquestionable but impossible dogma that all races
are 100% equal in temprement and cognitive nature despite massive
evidence to the contrary.

It also undermines the possibility of democracy in that the clearly
different ethnic imperitives, interests and mores of sometimes
extremely disperate ethnic groups can not be met without unequal and
destructive compromise.

Modern, pseudo liberal governments more often than not benefit from
having a militant minority to use against nationalist parties, groups,
and movements within the society who challenge the multiethnic state.

Nationalism, far from being essentially exclusivist in relation to
other nationalisms, is inherently a universalist idea: nationalisms do
not, and cannot, come at the expense of other nationalisms unless the
others claims are too expansive and hence illegitimate to begin
with.

petem

Sherbs <malpy@icq.com> averred


But that's just *your* opinion. It conflicts with Serbs', of course, but
that doesn't make Serbs' statement "misleading". It just makes it
incompatible with yours. And the "facts" stated in your opinion are very
much open to challenge.

For example, it is clearly *not* true that the only way of "subsidising"
old people is to import young people. There are at least two obvious
alternatives - (a) increase taxes (b) raise the retirement age. And I
can think of many more, but they'll do for starters.

Moreover, the validity of your opinion depends on the alleged existence
of a "demographic timebomb". While it is true that population is ageing,
it is nothing like the problem that some people are claiming. It is also
far into the future: even pessimistic projections put the "crisis" a
good 20 years from today. (I can give figures if you like.)

To many people, it seems rash for government to undertake an
irreversible and dangerous policy like mass immigration *now*, in order
to address a problem that may or may not occur in two decades' time.

There you are. That's my opinion. :-)

--
PeteM