justme

In your opinion it's extremist. Not wanting to become a minority in your own country is not extremist, and such policy would be considered racist if carried out on any other racial group. But the word racist is reserved for white people and anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

Genocide is the destruction, in whole or in PART, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group. It's not limited to killing or wiping out a group completely. So, you might start with the definition of the word. Do you think that people in government woke up one day and scratched their heads in confusion about the possibility of a white minority within a generation and were totally unable to see the connection to mass immigration from non-white countries? Nobody can carry out such a policy and not know the consequences, and note how they won't even pull back on the level of immigration in an economic downturn, nor talk about anything that may raise the birth rate. You're asking me to prove something that's self-evident.

Shwa, when in a hole, stop digging. To suggest that South Africa is welcoming of white people while driving a million of them out is laughable. There is a reason why Canada accepted a white refugee from South Africa. Zimbabwe is balancing things out? "The few remaining white farmers should quickly vacate their farms as they have no place there." - Robert Mugabe That's not balance; that's denying land ownership outright based on race. Can I show you zero-tolerance of illegals in Mexico? Certainly: By the way, I said illegals of any colour not white people. It's right in the text that you quoted if you bother to read what you reply to. No, YOU are talking about skin colour. If you go back and look at my posts, you'll find that I used "racial/ethnic" in my arguments, and ethnicity includes religion. I have no interest in seeing Islam spread across white Christian countries just as I have no interest in seeing them become majority non-white. Perhaps we need to go over it again: Black countries for blacks. Asian countries for Asians. Muslim countries for Muslims. Israel for Jews. Mexico for Mexicans. White countries for everyone. Sure, you don't have to be Jewish to practice the religion, but Israel isn't just based on the religion. Jews insist that it be recognized as a "Jewish state," which requires that they maintain a majority, yet they advocate multiculturalism for white Christian countries. There's no squirming away from that double-standard. No, I meant what I said. It doesn't matter what racial group you are a part of, Japan doesn't want their country flooded with non-Japanese. Israel doesn't want to lose a Jewish majority. Black countries don't want to be flooded with non-blacks. White people have the same right to self-determination and self-preservation as any other group on the planet. If they want to continue to have a society based on a majority white population, they have as much right to it as any other group. I don't advocate policy that would be destructive towards ANY other racial or ethnic group, nor do I want white people to be subjected to it, yet it is ONLY white people that ARE subjected to it. It's genocide. By focusing on the word "everybody," which I was using figuratively, you totally dodge the point. Let's try it again: So you're for the destruction of the white population (i.e. genocide). People like YOU say there is a problem with racism. People like YOU say this problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries. The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve the race problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and "assimilating" with them. People like YOU say the final solution to the race problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites. People like YOU say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white. Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white. And yes, when you're talking about making white people minorities in their countries through mass immigration and then blending them out of existence because, in YOUR opinion, that will solve the race problem, you're really talking about the final solution to the WHITE problem. It's genocide.

I know what you were doing, and in your haste to do it, you screwed up and now you're trying to cover that up, but none of it changes the obvious truth: Black countries for blacks. Asian countries for Asians. Muslim countries for Muslims. Israel for Jews. Mexico for Mexicans. White countries for everyone. Anti-racist is code for anti-white.

If your reading skills are fine, I suggest that you use them. The comment that you referred to was not made about genocide. Now put the emoticons away, re-read it, and pull your foot out of your mouth.

I don't agree with their methods, but I do agree that it is their country. Likewise, I don't have a problem with Jews having a state, but I think they should be politically active there instead of trying to manipulate America. And Muslims have no business trying to push Sharia law in non-Muslim countries. They have their own countries if they want to live under Sharia. For that matter, I don't think white people should pressure non-white countries to emulate white countries either. Of all the non-white countries, I'd have to say the one I have the most respect for is probably Japan. They're not trying to make their country non-Japanese, nor are they flooding other countries. Live and let live and the world is a better place. Try to socially engineer it, and you run into problems.

It'd probably be best to ask his black supporters.

I suppose white supremacists also planted the DNA evidence? You really should learn more about the world before you try to talk down to people. Roughly a million white people have left South Africa AFTER the fall of apartheid due to safety concerns. Canada was accused of racism after a white man from South Africa was accepted as a refugee, but anti-racist is code for anti-white. Zimbabwe seizes farmland from white people. Millions of Mexicans can illegally flood into the US, but Mexico has zero tolerance for illegals of any colour. You cannot enter Mecca or Medina unless you're a Muslim and no churches are allowed in Saudi Arabia. Jews insist that Israel be recognized as a "Jewish state," but advocate multiculturalism for white Christian countries. By the way, just how many Jewish "countries" are out there? None of these places allow mass immigration of other racial/ethnic groups. Why? Because: Black countries for blacks. Asian countries for Asians. Muslim countries for Muslims. Israel for Jews. Mexico for Mexicans. White countries for everyone. Hopefully, you're more informed about it than Jewish "countries." Nobody is saying that we should flood Africa with non-blacks and blend everyone together. Nobody is saying that we should flood Asian countries with non-Asians and blend everyone together. The policy is being carried out in white countries, and ONLY white countries. It's genocide. So you're for the destruction of the white population (i.e. genocide). Everybody says there is a problem with racism. Everybody says this problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries. The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve the race problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and "assimilating" with them. Everybody says the final solution to the race problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites. They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white. Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

You should spend more time on your reading comprehension and less on emoticons, but I'll keep it simple for you: Black countries for blacks. Asian countries for Asians. Muslim countries for Muslims. Israel for Jews. Mexico for Mexicans. White countries for everyone.

Either you're for the policy that will make white people minorities in their own countries and then blend them out of existence, or you're not. Which is it?

The non-white population is growing more than three times faster than the white population, and the government continues to flood the country with non-white immigration regardless of economic conditions. There is no way that they can do that without knowing the consequences, yet they do it anyways. Do you see any talk at all about what can be done to raise the birth rate? No, the answer is always more non-white immigration - even in an economic downturn. When the consequences are known, only one racial group is negatively affected by it and the arguments made to justify the course of action do not hold water, nor any alternatives explored, and they continue, intent is clear. Black countries for blacks. Asian countries for Asians. Muslim countries for Muslims. Israel for Jews. Mexico for Mexicans. White countries for everyone. Make white people, and ONLY white people, minorities in their own countries and then blend the remaining population out of existence. It's genocide. "Our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the purposed Bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same. Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset. Contrary to the charges in some quarters, S500 will not inundate America with immigrants from any other country or area, or the most populated and economically deprived nations of Asia and Africa. Only haters would make such assertions." -- Senator Edward Kennedy (Chairman of the Subcommittee that conducted the hearing on the 1965 Immigration Bill) "Today, largely because of immigration, there is no majority race in Hawaii or Houston or New York City. Within five years, there will be no majority race in our largest state, California. In a little more than 50 years, there will be no majority race in the United States. No other nation in history has gone through demographic change of this magnitude in so short a time ..." -- President Bill Clinton (1998) Do you think people making the decisions woke up one day and scratched their heads in confusion as to how that happened? No, it was their intent all along, and Edward Kennedy was full of it. But it would be racist to resist, as the argument goes, and anti-racist is code for anti-white. Ever ask people from those countries if they'd be in favour of it? How are things going in South Africa or Zimbabwe? People in those countries argue that black countries are for blacks, but white countries for everyone, right?

I believe all people should have a place of their own - including white people. If it's ok for black and asian people, it's also ok for white people. That is equality, but instead, we have this double-standard: Black countries for blacks. Asian countries for Asians. Muslim countries for Muslims. Israel for Jews. Mexico for Mexicans. White countries for everyone.

The BBC is circumstantial evidence for white supremacists? Advocating that white people should have what other racial/ethnic groups have is not supremacy; it is equality. But instead, we have: Black countries for blacks. Asian countries for Asians. Muslim countries for Muslims. Israel for Jews. Mexico for Mexicans. White countries for everyone. Yes it does. If they're in charge on reserves, THEY are responsible for success or failure. And while we're on the subject of indians, you won't see a chief trying to replace his people with foreigners and making his tribe multicultural. He might lose his scalp if he did that! Your own words: "Pretty soon everyone will be more or less the same colour - doesn't that please you?" That would mean the destruction of the white population of a white country, which would be genocidal. I'm not placing anything on you. Those are your words not mine.

Increasing the non-white population at more than three times the rate of the white population - regardless of economic conditions - and advocating that everyone blend together IS policy aimed at the decline of the white population. Nobody is saying that we should flood Africa with non-blacks and blend everyone together. Nobody is saying that we should flood Asian countries with non-Asians and blend everyone together. The policy is being carried out in white countries, and ONLY white countries. It's genocide. Thanks for PROVING that you are in denial of the obvious: Black countries for blacks. Asian countries for Asians. Muslim countries for Muslims. Israel for Jews. Mexico for Mexicans. White countries for everyone.

So if you work hard and buy a nice big house with plenty of space and only have a couple of children but invest in their future, and your neighbour is irresponsible and has a large family in a shack while on welfare, does that mean they should all live in your house? The first world approach to mortality rates is to invest heavily into ways to increase life expectancy. The third world approach is to have tons of kids and hope that some of them survive. As a result, the third world population is exploding and they don't have the means to support it. Third world population is not our responsibility and we cannot solve it through immigration. Every year, the third world adds about 80 million people - roughly a population the size of Germany. In other words, we could triple our population and create total chaos in our country and still not even stop the growth in the third world for one year. Also, non-white countries have some of the best real estate in the world. Sure, Russia and Canada have the largest land masses, but most of the area is also very cold. The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve the problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and "assimilating" with them.

Do you deny that it is the truth? Black countries for blacks. Asian countries for Asians. Muslim countries for Muslims. Israel for Jews. Mexico for Mexicans. White countries for everyone.

AliensTheTruth.com or the BBC and DNA... Hmm... That explains why living conditions are so poor on reserves. But the policy is supposed to be about diversity, remember? And given that this is happening in white countries, and ONLY white countries, you are suggesting that it would be good to wipe white people out of existence? Other racial groups will still have large, and mostly homogeneous, populations in other countries. Black countries for blacks. Asian countries for Asians. Muslim countries for Muslims. Israel for Jews. Mexico for Mexicans. White countries for everyone.

So you wouldn't mind policy that would bring about the decline of other racial/ethnic groups in their countries? Genocide comes from the Greek word "genos" meaning race. Genocide means, "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group." Genocide is defined by the U.N. Genocide Conventional of 1948 as, "…conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction in whole or in part." You do not have to kill people to do that. What would you call a deliberate attempt to change white countries, and ONLY white countries, by flooding them with non-white immigration to the point that they will become a minority in just a couple generations? Notice that there is no attempt to come up with policies that may help raise the birth rate? The government only turns to immigration, and wants ever higher and continuous levels of immigration regardless of economic conditions. Their goal is 1% of the population in immigration per year, which would be like compound interest as the population increases, and the arguments made to justify it do not hold water. More than 80% of this immigration is non-white. I repeat, notice how they don't even try to raise the birth rate? Meanwhile, Canadian births over deaths stand at about 130,000 per year - according to Statistics Canada - and white births are among the lowest. If the non-white population is growing at about twice the rate of the white population, and they want to accerate that, it's not a matter of if but when white people will be reduced to a minority, and there is no way such a policy could be carried out without the people responsible for it knowing what the consequences would be. Miscegenation destroys the white gene pool and further reduces the population. Through multiculturalism, white culture is already reduced to being but one piece of a collage of other cultures, and as the population declines, that piece shrinks. Finally, this isn't just happening in Canada, but in other white countries - and ONLY white countries. "Our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the purposed Bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same. Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset. Contrary to the charges in some quarters, S500 will not inundate America with immigrants from any other country or area, or the most populated and economically deprived nations of Asia and Africa. Only haters would make such assertions." -- Senator Edward Kennedy (Chairman of the Subcommittee that conducted the hearing on the 1965 Immigration Bill) "Today, largely because of immigration, there is no majority race in Hawaii or Houston or New York City. Within five years, there will be no majority race in our largest state, California. In a little more than 50 years, there will be no majority race in the United States. No other nation in history has gone through demographic change of this magnitude in so short a time ..." -- President Bill Clinton (1998) Bit of a contradiction there wouldn't you say? The US Constitution defines America, and what does the preamble say? "... and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Given that every one of the founding fathers was white, I don't think that they were talking about a multicultural rainbow when they wrote, "our posterity." America also has millions of Mexicans entering the country illegally, which the government does little to stop. And Mexicans have what's called "La Raza," which literally means, "the race." But race doesn't matter, right? And what is the reason given for allowing them into the country? To do jobs that Americans supposedly won't do while the remaining jobs that aren't outsourced to non-white countries or taken by illegals are often subject to "affirmative action" policy, which discriminates against white people and is also applied to higher education. But... Black countries for blacks. Asian countries for Asians. Muslim countries for Muslims. Israel for Jews. Mexico for Mexicans. White countries for everyone.

1) There is evidence to suggest that Europeans were in North America many thousands of years ago. 2) History does not mean that the country should be voluntarily given away. 3) But regardless of who was here first, squatting on a piece of land doesn't mean that you have a country. Indians may have lived off the land, but did they have infrastruture, an economy, legal system, education system, health care system, etc? Nope. 4) People want to move to this country because they want a piece of what white people built. They are not coming here to live in teepees nor to hunt for sustenance. 5) Even if white people moved to Europe, it wouldn't matter because European countries are being flooded with non-white immigration, too. Black countries for blacks. Asian countries for Asians. Muslim countries for Muslims. Israel for Jews. Mexico for Mexicans. White countries for everyone.

If it affected other people, you'd quickly, and rightly, find it abhorrent, but white people don't matter. Black countries for blacks. Asian countries for Asians. Muslim countries for Muslims. Israel for Jews. Mexico for Mexicans. White countries for everyone.

So you don't have a problem with drastically reducing non-white immigration to white countries? The government brings in 250,000 immigrants a year regardless of economic conditions, and more than 80% is non-white. Canada has about 130,000 births over deaths each year, about half the level of immigration, and white births are among the lowest in the country. On top of that, miscegenation is encouraged. Globally, white people make up less than 10% of the population and their countries are being flooded with non-white immigration because to refuse it is considered racist. Black countries for blacks. Asian countries for Asians. Muslim countries for Muslims. Israel for Jews. Mexico for Mexicans. White countries for everyone. Anti-racist is code for anti-white.

Everybody says there is a problem with racism. Everybody says this problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries. The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve the race problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and "assimilating" with them. Everybody says the final solution to the race problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites. What if I said there was this race problem and this race problem would be solved only if millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries? How long would it take anyone to realize I'm not talking about a race problem, but about the final solution to the BLACK problem? And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn't object to this? But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a Nazi who wants to kill six million Jews. They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white. Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

Nearly a year after the first ship, the Ocean Lady, arrived, the RCMP still cannot locate the captain or crew.... http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/848057--tamil-boat-people-in-good-health It builds the confidence doesn't it? By the way, the Sun Sea was bought by a company called Sun & Rshiya. It's the only ship in their fleet, and once they bought it, they never filed another paper - missing the deadline for the 2009 mandatory statement. In other words, it was a bogus company started for the sole purpose of using a single ship for smuggling. If it only works once, set up another bogus company and buy another ship. At 40-50k per passenger, it is profitable enough for them to keep doing it. Trying to stop it in the way you suggest would be like playing a game of wack a mole. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/the-impossible-voyage-of-a-tamil-ghost-ship/article1680852/%20The%20%E2%80%98impossible%E2%80%99%20voyage%20of%20a%20Tamil%20ghost%20ship/ The only real way to deal with it effectively is to exercise Canadian sovereignty and say no to an obvious scam. The government says that there may be legal issues to doing that, which is why, they say, they let the ship enter Canadian water. However, any legal issues would be based on the argument that they are refugees, and all Ottawa has to do is ask a simple question in response to that: If they are refugees, why did they not go to the nearest safe country instead of paying smugglers to take them around the world, passing the United States along the way, to get to Canada? Real refugees do not pay smugglers 40-50k and target a specific country.

That's exactly what is happening, and when you oppose it, and people have the right to oppose being ethnically replaced in their own country, the advocates and people that benefit from this policy call you a racist. They'll point to the indians even though the indians did not build the infrastructure, economy, government & legal system, social programs and good living standards in general. Europeans came here to build, and today, people are coming here to benefit from what they built while holding on to their foreign indentity because it's a lot easier than building their own country. The two cannot be compared. It is the birth right of Canadians, not the rest of the world, to inherit what previous generations of Canadians built and with that, there is a responsibility to leave the country as good or better for the next generation, but we are leaving a country to the next generation that will be slipping away from them. The fact is that up until the mid 60s, 87% of immigration was of European origin and today more than 80% comes from non-white developing countries. The immigrant population is growing at more than twice the Canadian birth rate, and in Canada, people of European origin have the lowest birth rate. Unless something is done to change this, it is a mathematical fact that the people of European origin that built this country will become a minority and lose political influence, and as our influence and heritage fades, Canada will be little more than the title of a geographical location. During debates about the Free Trade Agreement, Brian Mulroney was accused of selling out to the Americans. So it is wrong to sell out to the Americans, but ok to allow a foreign population to grow within Canada at more than double the national birth rate? And the people who promote multiculturalism pat themselves on the back and talk about how good they are at integrating people into Canada. The problems that we see in other countries can never happen here - they argue. That explains why we came within a razors edge of losing Quebec, and we have far more in common with the french people in Quebec than the vast majority of immigrants that are coming to Canada today. There is nothing racist or extreme about saying that you do not want to give away what many generations of Canadians built to foreigners that have their own countries. If you want to keep your country and avoid problems with assimilation, common sense dictates that the level of immigration should be below the national birth rate and priority should be given to countries that share our values.

That's why Sri Lankans go back there for a vacation while they wait on refugee appeals in Canada. "If 71% of the ‘refugees’ here in Canada feel safe enough to return for a vacation in Sri Lanka, how bad can things actually be?" http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/2010/08/20/15091486.html There are billions of people in the world that are living in poverty. Are we going to accept them all? Every year, the third world adds a population the size of Germany. Are you prepared to take in more than 80 million a year just to maintain the current population level in the third world? It is not our responsibility to be a hostel for the overpopulated regions of the world, nor social workers for failed states. The fact is that, for better or for worse, the people of a country make it what it is. That begs the question, does it make sense to base population growth on immigration from backward parts of the world where people seem unable to put their differences aside and build their own countries into better places to live? Begging hands and bleeding hearts will only cry out for more.