Grits, Tories battle for Jewish support in next election

[Remiel]

That would be why there are virtually no white people left in Zimbabwe and more than a million have left South Africa due to safety concerns?

Now you just have to account for about forty five other countries.

Getting desperate?

If someone that's against abortion commits murder, does that mean that everyone should be FOR abortion?

Another failed smear tactic, and using a recent tragedy in that way only reflects poorly on you.

Does it really though? I use a recent tragedy to point out that the ideology you preach is one of hatred for people based on what they were born as. Hatred killed those people, and if you think it is in bad taste to point out that perhaps you should think again about hate, then the one it reflects poorly on is you. All I pointed out was that you have a choice.

[Dissenter]

Now you just have to account for about forty five other countries.

Does it really though? I use a recent tragedy to point out that the ideology you preach is one of hatred for people based on what they were born as. Hatred killed those people, and if you think it is in bad taste to point out that perhaps you should think again about hate, then the one it reflects poorly on is you. All I pointed out was that you have a choice.

IN YOUR OPINION it is hatred.

Nobody is forcing mass immigration and integration on predominantly black countries in an attempt to create a blended humanity and saying that it's just hatred if they object.

Nobody is forcing mass immigration and integration on Asian countries in an attempt to create a blended humanity and saying that it's just hatred if they object.

ONLY white countries are subjected to this, and what YOU are saying is that white people should accept it or they're in the same camp as a murderer.

And yes, it is in bad taste because if you actually cared at all about those people you'd be expressing sympathy rather than trying to use it as a smear tactic.

[bush_cheney2004]

Nobody is forcing mass immigration and integration on predominantly black countries in an attempt to create a blended humanity and saying that it's just hatred if they object.

I seem to recall that it was labeled "colonialism" or "imperialism" and anybody who objected was shot or imprisoned by "white" people.

[CANADIEN]

Nobody is forcing mass immigration and integration on predominantly black countries

Or Canada, or the USA, or European countries.

[Remiel]

ONLY white countries are subjected to this, and what YOU are saying is that white people should accept it or they're in the same camp as a murderer.

Haven't you been calling it genocide to allow it?

[Dissenter]

Haven't you been calling it genocide to allow it?

Yes, and you obviously don't know what the word means.

[Dissenter]

Or Canada, or the USA, or European 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

The people got exactly the opposite of what they were promised.

But now look at the real reason why this policy was introduced, and in secret. The Government's 'driving political purpose', wrote Neather [speech writer for Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett], was 'to make the UK truly multicultural'.

It was therefore a politically motivated attempt by ministers to transform the fundamental make-up and identity of this country. It was done to destroy the right of the British people to live in a society defined by a common history, religion, law, language and traditions.

It was done to destroy for ever what it means to be culturally British and to put another 'multicultural' identity in its place. And it was done without telling or asking the British people whether they wanted their country and their culture to be transformed in this way.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1222977/MELANIE-PHILLIPS-The-outrageous-truth-slips-Labour-cynically-plotted-transform-entire-make-Britain-telling-us.html

[CANADIEN]

Yes, and you obviously don't know what the word means.

Talking to yourself, I see Dissenter... err I mean Lictor. Bad, bad habit.

[Remiel]

Yes, and you obviously don't know what the word means.

Yes, it basically boils down to " murder LOTS of people (from group X) " .

[Dissenter]

Yes, it basically boils down to " murder LOTS of people (from group X) " .

Killing is just a means by which genocide can be carried out.

Genocide is: the deliberate destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious or national group.

UN Genocide Convention:

Article 2

c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

[Remiel]

Killing is just a means by which genocide can be carried out.

Genocide is: the deliberate destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious or national group.

UN Genocide Convention:

Article 2

c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

Now, do you know what the word " destruction " means? It sure as hell does not mean " happened to fuck someone whose private parts were not the same colour " .

Edited July 28, 2011 by Remiel

[bloodyminded]

Now, do you know what the word " destruction " means? It sure as hell does not mean " happened to fuck someone whose private parts were not the same colour " .

Miscegenation as "genocide."

Then bring it on, I say.

[CANADIEN]

Killing is just a means by which genocide can be carried out.

Genocide is: the deliberate destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious or national group.

UN Genocide Convention:

Article 2

c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

There you go again... crying out genocide, genocide, then posting the definition thereforeproving the all that you do not know what you are talking about..

There is no "destruction of white population" occuring in North America or europe, intended or otherwise. Having a neighbour whose skin is Black is not destroying me (I would have said jewish, but then realized they are white-skinned, so obviously you are not talking about them, right?).

Edited July 28, 2011 by CANADIEN

[Dissenter]

Now, do you know what the word " destruction " means? It sure as hell does not mean " happened to fuck someone whose private parts were not the same colour " .

Anti-whites like you are for mass immigration, forced integration, and like to talk about how the future in predominantly white countries is brown, but can't see how it's genocidal or anti-white....

Raphael Lemkin, who created the word, used it broadly to describe a "coordinated plan of different actions" including demographic restructuring and policies to bring about the destruction of the "culture, language, national feelings and religion.

Turning the majority into a minority in a country is absolutely destructive. Regardless of the means, the end result is the same, and it's genocide.

Furthermore, there are no social constructs under international law, nor is there any justification for genocide.

[Remiel]

Anti-whites like you are for mass immigration, forced integration, and like to talk about how the future in predominantly white countries is brown, but can't see how it's genocidal or anti-white....

You've got us all wrong. We are saying the future in EVERY country is brown.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Remiel

[Dissenter]

You've got us all wrong. We are saying the future in EVERY country is brown.

Duh... That's what I've been saying all along:

Black countries for blacks.

Asian countries for Asians.

Israel for Jews or you're an anti-semite!

White countries for everyone or you're a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews!

[Bonam]

Duh... That's what I've been saying all along:

Black countries for blacks.

Asian countries for Asians.

Israel for Jews or you're an anti-semite!

White countries for everyone or you're a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews!

You've got it somewhat wrong. The people that are for mass immigration to (not so white anymore) "white countries" are generally the same people that want to see Israel stop being a Jewish state.

[dre]

You've got it somewhat wrong. The people that are for mass immigration to (not so white anymore) "white countries" are generally the same people that want to see Israel stop being a Jewish state.

This is really just simplistic horseshit

The reality is immigration isnt a uniformly partisan issue. One of the most xenophobic groups Iv met are trade unionists who are angry because immigrants might drive down there wages. And the most powerful pro immigration groups are groups like the chamber of commerce and big business conservatives that want access to cheap labor. Then you have people that support immigration for the same reason they support globalism. They figure that in a global marketplace you should be able to not only sell your products everywhere but also your labor.

And right wingers dont have a monopoly on racism or xenophobia. When times get tough the left will turn on immigrants and minorities just as fast as everyone else.

[CANADIEN]

Turning the majority into a minority in a country is absolutely destructive.

In the case of North American whites, destructive of what? My skin colour is the same, I have not lost my culture, my religion, my identity. You cannot even answer a question as simple as "how would my neighbourhood be better if it were all white".

[Dissenter]

In the case of North American whites, destructive of what? My skin colour is the same, I have not lost my culture, my religion, my identity. You cannot even answer a question as simple as "how would my neighbourhood be better if it were all white".

If I were to say that it wouldn't matter if the black population of predominantly black countries were replaced, it'd be considered racist and genocidal. Every ethnic group has the right to exist, which is to say that white people have a right to exist.

You're looking at things in a micro view and genocide is macro.

[Bonam]

This is really just simplistic horseshit

The reality is immigration isnt a uniformly partisan issue. One of the most xenophobic groups Iv met are trade unionists who are angry because immigrants might drive down there wages. And the most powerful pro immigration groups are groups like the chamber of commerce and big business conservatives that want access to cheap labor.

That may be true, but on an ideological level, my perception is that it is generally the liberal/left that are the most ardent supporters of multiculturalism, mass immigration, and "reasonable accommodation" for all the beliefs/behaviors/etc that these immigrants might have.

[Remiel]

If I were to say that it wouldn't matter if the black population of predominantly black countries were replaced, it'd be considered racist and genocidal. Every ethnic group has the right to exist, which is to say that white people have a right to exist.

You're looking at things in a micro view and genocide is macro.

You are looking at things from a view that does not exist. Ethnic groups do not have a right to exist, individual people do. Ethnic groups exist as a matter of fact, but their loss through transformation is merely a matter of sentiment, not fundamental justice.

[CANADIEN]

If I were to say that it wouldn't matter if the black population of predominantly black countries were replaced(...)

people who know enough to know that skin colour do not matter would barely shrug. Nice try though.

, it'd be considered racist and genocidal. Every ethnic group has the right to exist, which is to say that white people have a right to exist.

Unless you are talking about First Nations, no ethnic group in North America is being threatened with disappearance, so your whole non-sense is a moot point.

You're looking at things in a micro view (...)

Well, if demonstrating that my neighbourhood would be better if it were all-White is too difficult to you (and it is easy to figure out why), how about "proving" that toronto would be better, or Canada.

genocide is macro.

No doubt about that. Your claim of a genocide is a macro-joke.

[Dissenter]

You are looking at things from a view that does not exist. Ethnic groups do not have a right to exist, individual people do. Ethnic groups exist as a matter of fact, but their loss through transformation is merely a matter of sentiment, not fundamental justice.

Wrong, under international law, ethnic groups do have the right to exist.

I remind you that:

The deliberate destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious or national group is genocide.

[Dissenter]

people who know enough to know that skin colour do not matter would barely shrug. Nice try though.

You still don't get it.

Nobody is flooding predominantly black countries with mass immigration that will turn them into a minority, forcing integration, and saying: it's just skin colour.

Nobody is flooding Asian countries with mass immigration that will turn them into a minority, forcing integration, and saying: it's just skin colour.

ONLY predominantly white countries are subjected to this and the end result is admittedly a white minority.

It's genocide.

Well, if demonstrating that my neighbourhood would be better if it were all-White is too difficult to you (and it is easy to figure out why), how about "proving" that toronto would be better, or Canada.

Again, you don't get it.

It doesn't matter if predominantly white populations are better or worse; they still have the right to exist.

There are more than fifty predominantly black countries in the world. How many can you name with high living standards? Does that mean that the black people in those countries should be turned into minorities?