Jump to content

justme

Member
  • Posts

    189
  • Joined

  • Last visited

justme's Achievements

Collaborator

Collaborator (7/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later
  • One Year In

Recent Badges

0

Reputation

  1. There's nothing wrong with other ethnic groups having countries where they are the majority, but for white people, it's racist. Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
  2. In your opinion it's white supremacy and racist. You're just saying that because it's pro-white. White people are supposed to feel guilty and ashamed of who they are, right? Let's look at some facts (figures from CIA World Factbook): Kenya: non-African (Asian, European, and Arab) 1% Mozambique: African 99.66% (Euro-Africans 0.2%, Indians 0.08%) Jamaica: 91.2% black, 6.2% mixed India: : Indo-Aryan 72%, Dravidian 25% (97% South Asian) China: Han Chinese 91.5% Japan: 98.5% Japanese South Korea: homogeneous (except for about 20,000 Chinese) Jordan: 98% Arab Nobody bats an eye at that, but if I suggest that white people should continue to have a place where they are the majority, I'm a supremacist and a racist? Give me a break. White people are already minorities in some of their own cities, and in 30-40 years, white people will be a minority nationally in the US and Canada if current immigration levels continue. Already, the most common baby boy's name in London England is Mohammed. There's nothing racist or supremacist about wanting to see a future for your own ethnic group.
  3. What you call keeping up with the times has its roots in Cultural Marxism, but most people - yourself included most likely - don't have a clue what that is. And people of my ilk should perish because white people aren't entitled to a home where they are the majority like every other ethnic group on the planet? Is that what you're arguing? Asia for Asians. Africa for Africans. Muslim countries for Muslims. Israel for Jews. White countries for everyone. Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
  4. Learn something about Cultural Marxism and then we can talk. But most people would argue that Nazis were evil. And I am aware of what I'm arguing. My argument is that American foreign policy serves Israel, and I gave examples to support that argument. You're the one dragging up American history as a diversion, and if you want to downplay the Iraq war, that's your choice, but I think most people would agree that it was a serious mistake. He's also Jewish, but you seem to be unaware of that. That might have been true during the Cold War, but the Cold War is long over. They support Israel because if they don't, it's political suicide in most of America. At least they did something about it, and take a look at how white people have been treated in South Africa since. Money doesn't automatically make someone genererous. So, if not the population of the country, what would you base it on? In your opinion it's racist. Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
  5. Yet many of the great inventions that have come out of the West were invented BEFORE multiculturalism and diversity.
  6. And how much white control of power would you support in Asian and African countries?
  7. Historical truth is that people of many different ethnic groups were kept as slaves and wealthy people were responsible. Historical truth is that white people abolished slavery while it continued in other countries. There are reports that slavery STILL exists in Sudan, yet whenever the subject comes up, it's white man that's always the center of attention. "With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspira­tion and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders." -- Winston Churchill (Churchill. “Zionism versus Bolshevism.” Reprinted in The Collected Essays of Sir Winston Churchill. Vol.4: Churchill at Large: 26-31) Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky, Yakov Sverdlov were Jewish, and it turns out that Lenin was part Jewish. While Marx was wrong about the workers of the world uniting, he inspired Cultural Marxism, which was Jewish almost to a man, and set out to change Western society from within. They started with what was known as the Frankfurt school, which fled to America from Nazi Germany. Members included: Max Horkheimer, Theodor W. Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm, Leo Löwenthal. All were Jewish. As for the media: And people that talk about Jewish control are either forced to apologize, like Oliver Stone, or find themselves out of a job, like Rick Sanchez, but of course, Jews don't really have any control of the media.... Also: The New York Times is run by Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr. (Jewish) The Wallstreet Journal is run by Katherine Meyer Graham, daughter of Eugene Meyer, and she appointed her son Donald publisher of the paper. (all Jewish) Communists and Nazis didn't have anything to do with the state? The situation in Europe wasn't complex? And Israel happens to be a "Jewish state," but that's just a coincidence. You can disagree, but the Neo-Cons that pushed for the Iraq war were mostly Jewish. To name some of them: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Eliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer. Obama's surrounded by Jews, too, but what's interesting is that they seem to be jumping ship (Emanuel, Summers, and Axelrod). America also supplies Israel with weapons and financial support, and uses its veto in the UN to block anything with the slightest bit of criticism towards Israel. And AIPAC is one of the most powerful lobby groups in Washington. Both Obama and McCain felt it was important to speak to AIPAC during the presidential election campaign. Also worth noting, Wolf Blitzer from CNN used to work for AIPAC. Oh, and Alan Greenspan, Lawrence Summers, Robert Rubin and Arthur Levitt (all Jewish) can take much of the blame for the financial crisis. Even Obama suggested that it was caused by the partial repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act. "Any people who have been persecuted for two thousand years must be doing something wrong." - Henry Kissinger (The Icarus Syndrome: 195) Of course, sanctions had nothing to do with it, right? It's much easier to bring down an economically weak and isolated regime. Hate to break it to you, but just because people are wealthy doesn't mean that they are generous. So no, it's not based solely on economic ability. We don't have to do anything for other countries, yet we do time and time again.
  8. I wouldn't call a flood of third world immigration into Western civilization an evolution.
  9. The country was built by Europeans and they remained 83% of the population in 2001, but they're projected to be minority in about 30 years. At 250,000 immigrants per year regardless of economic conditions, we're well on the way. And if you turn a European society into one that's majority non-European, yes, you destroy it. Asia for Asians Africa for Africans White countries for everyone or you're racist. Anti-racist is code for anti-white. Forget about it. With affirmative action, you'll have no chance.
  10. The article seems to suggest that white senior males are acting like a voting block serving their own interest, and if that's the case, they're really just shooting themselves in the foot. The Conservatives are maintaining an immigration level of 250,000 per year - highest per-capita in the world - despite the recession and slow economic growth that's expected to last until 2017 - according to the OECD. White people are already a minority is some of Canada's major cities. America is expected to have a white minority nationally by 2042, and Canada can expect the same, if not sooner, if mass immigration continues. In other words, the party that white senior males are supporting is committed to a policy to ethnically replace them, and turn a white country into a non-white country. But it's not white senior males that will have to live in it - that fate will be passed on to their children and grandchildren. Essentially, they inherited a European society and they're allowing it to be destroyed for future generations. In the natural process of life, our children should replace us, but social engineers think they know better.
  11. The Chinese worked on two one-hundred mile sections, and they were brought in to save money - some things never change. The railway consisted of 28 sections, and 93% of the workers were of European origin. I think it's fair to say that it was primarily built by Europeans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Chinese_immigration_to_Canada
  12. That's called white liberal guilt, and it's the result of years of brainwashing. Take slavery for example. The fact is that it was a rich man's game that average white folk couldn't afford to play even if they wanted to. Slavery had been around for thousands of years, and it was not only white man that was involved in it, but white man did abolish it, yet it is white man, and ONLY white man, that continues to be given a guilt trip for it. Nobody in my family ever owned slaves. Why should I feel guilty about it? We always hear about six million Jews that died in WWII, but what about the tens of millions of white Christians that also died? What about the white Christians that died because of communism? And Jews played a role in communism, but that gets swept under the carpet. We see what Jews think of the lives of non-Jews in Israel. Just look at how they treat Palestinians. The hostility towards the US in the Middle East is primarily because US foreign policy does just that - serves Israel. But for thousands of years, Jews have been innocent victims of irrational hatred, or so the story goes. Why did apartheid fall? Because of pressure from white countries. Since then, South Africa has created affirmative action programs that favour the black majority while in white countries, we have affirmative action programs that discriminate against the white majority. Whenever there's a major disaster in the world, it's usually white people that help - take the 2004 tsunami or Haiti for example. But if you listen to half the bullsh*t in the media and the education system, it's easy to see how one would conclude that white people are responsible for everything that is wrong and do nothing right.
  13. The same can be said for the population in Rwanda and Sudan, but does that mean we should ignore what happened? Mexico is a nation of more than 111 million people with nearly twice the birth rate of Canada. America is Mexico's neighbour, yet they make up less than 1% of the population of Mexico. On the other hand, look at how many Mexicans flood into the US illegally let alone legal immigration. Half a million Americans in Asia? Considering that China has over a billion people alone, I don't think that's going to make much of a difference. It'd also be interesting to see how many of them are Asian Americans with dual citizenship. But according to you, a black only policy is ok - even if people are starving. It's only white people that aren't allowed to have their own country. Like I said earlier, Indians weren't the first people on the land, and Europeans built the country. A trickle, mostly Asian, that still makes up less than 2% of the population. They're building robots to deal with their aging population. You mean I pointed out the obvious: white countries, and ONLY white countries, are being flooded with immigration to change the population. When was the last time the public got to vote on the level of immigration? Yes, I blame the people that are responsible.
  14. The fact that more than a million people have left the country since apartheid is not something to make light of. Most of the population in Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan are still there, but does that mean that the living conditions are good? The only thing I consider lost is you. Yep, your idea of balance is land ownership for blacks only. Mugabe clearly stated that he wants all white people off their land, and you're trying to defend it. People are now starving and Zimbabwe is printing one trillion dollar bills. As I said earlier, they weren't the first people in North America, and Canada did not exist as a country until Europeans came. No, I stated something that is well known and reported on and supported by the fact that the population is 98.5% Japanese. You may be for the destruction of the white race, but I'm not. That's right. It wasn't the average Joe on the street that started all of this, and it's not like we were given an alternative in an election.
×
×
  • Create New...