New Group wants to talk about immigration reform

[justme]

In other words (YOUR words), genocide. Care to provide PROOF the intent is decline of the white population?

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.

More importantly, nobody (here at least) is saying it should not happen.

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?

[justme]

You're baited, and you swallow, hook and all.

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?

[justme]

Soo... whie-skinned couples having only a couple of children is proof of a (non-existant) genocide in one posting, and the wise thing to do in another. Make up your mind, will you?

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.

[Smallc]

We've registered your opinion, now stop trolling.

[Saipan]

Yeah, what makes Obama black president?

Racism or male shauvinism?

Did he have any mother?

[justme]

The theory was lightly reported on the BBC. The theory was also picked up by white supremecists as a rallying point for claims of North American ancestry.

I suppose white supremacists also planted the DNA evidence?

White people can go anywhere they want so long as they behave. There are white people in Black countries, Asian countries, Muslim countries, Jewish countries and even in Mexico. I know for a fact that there are white people in Mexico. So all is equal after all.

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.

I don't think you are as familiar or informed about Indians or Indian culture as you think you are.

Hopefully, you're more informed about it than Jewish "countries."

There is no genocide going on here. Those are my words. And there is no "destruction" of any white population. My words again.

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.

My point is that when everyone is the same colour of brown, colour will more or less cease to be an issue....

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.

[justme]

Yeah, what makes Obama black president?

Racism or male shauvinism?

Did he have any mother?

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

[Shwa]

I suppose white supremacists also planted the DNA evidence?

You see? A little ESL and you would have picked up on the whole "Suspect theories based on circumstantial evidence" comment from earlier. You'll have to do better than that. A lot better in fact. Of course, if you do, they we can examine that the people whose DNA you are so hopefully referring to were likely black people from Africa or, if not black, a nice deep tanned shade of brown.

You really should learn more about the world before you try to talk down to people.

Perhaps you are right. Let's have a look right now:

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.

This doesn't mean white people can't move there, just that some of them who left had safety concerns. Can you show me the South Africa law that bans white immigrants please? Pretty please?

Zimbabwe seizes farmland from white people.

But this doesn't mean that white people can't immigrate to Zimbabwe, only that the previous farm owners who occupied prime farmland there due to racist government policies had it consfiscated back. You know, to balance things out a bit. But still, can you show me the immigration policy of Zimbabwe than bans white immigrants please?

Millions of Mexicans can illegally flood into the US, but Mexico has zero tolerance for illegals of any colour.

Can you show me the zero-tolerance policy that Mexico has for white illegals please? You know, come to think of it, maybe it was mere dramatic license for the cops to say, "He's heading for the border, we need to catch him before he gets into Mexico." You know, because it is so difficult for illegals.

You cannot enter Mecca or Medina unless you're a Muslim and no churches are allowed in Saudi Arabia.

White people can be Muslims, I know a few of them. They're pretty cool people too. And, we are talking about skin colour, not churches because there are likely more non-white Christians by now anyways. If not now, pretty soon...

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?

You can be Jewish and white, my mother-in-law's family was and they were Danish and they could go to Israel, the only Jewish state that I know of. So far I mean...

None of these places allow mass immigration of other racial/ethnic groups. Why? Because:

You mean mass immigration of white people specifically. Well, if your demographic data indicates anything, why would white people want to mass migrate from anywhere in the first place? Why?

White countries for everyone.

Agreed.

Hopefully, you're more informed about it than Jewish "countries."

Oh come on, why sooooo serious?

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.

Nobody is saying that we should, but nothing is preventing it from happening. Unless you can dig up a comprehensive set of immigration policies from enough African and Asian countries to prove it.

The policy is being carried out in white countries, and ONLY white countries. It's genocide.

No one is forcing those white women make babies with non-white men nor forcing those white men to make babies with non-white women. So... no genocide present.

So you're for the destruction of the white population (i.e. genocide).

So...no genocide present.

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.

Wow, you actually heard "everybody?" That must have made your ears bleed. But lets say you didn't hear everybody at once, can you select a few of those 'everybody's" and maybe post their comments so we can see who you are listening to?

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.

Did someone say there was a race problem in the Netherlands and Belgium? Who said that? The BBC? Those cads!

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.

The only mention of "final solution" other than you-know-who, is from you. So there you go.

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white. Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

And Auntie Em is the code for anti-psychotic. And they are paging you to come up to the nurses station there Dorothy, time for a visit with "Auntie Em."

[bloodyminded]

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?

But surely you agree that the Zimbabwean leadership supports racist policies.

You don't think we should emulate this, do you? Not a great standard for behaviour.

[CANADIEN]

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.

It is because my reading skills are just fine that I know that what you post is laughable.

Edited October 15, 2010 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

So you're for the destruction of the white population (i.e. genocide)..

And so am I. I also want the Easter Bunny as President of the World...

[justme]

But surely you agree that the Zimbabwean leadership supports racist policies.

You don't think we should emulate this, do you? Not a great standard for behaviour.

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.

[justme]

It is because my reading skills are just fine that I know that what you post is laughable.

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.

Edited October 16, 2010 by justme

[CANADIEN]

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.

Who gave you the (false) impression that I thought you were talking about (non-existant) genocides? The same voices that tell you there is a genocide against white-skinned people? A clue to the clueless - I was making fun of you.

Edited October 16, 2010 by CANADIEN

[justme]

Who gave you the (false) impression that I thought you were talking about (non-existant) genocides? The same voices that tell you there is a genocide against white-skinned people? A clue to the clueless - I was making fun of you.

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.

[justme]

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:

Mexican President Felipe Calderon denounced as "racial discrimination" an Arizona law giving state and local police the authority to arrest suspected illegal immigrants and vowed to use all means at his disposal to defend Mexican nationals against a law he called a "violation of human rights."

Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to re-enter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six-year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals.

The law also says Mexico can deport foreigners who are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," violate Mexican law, are not "physically or mentally healthy" or lack the "necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/03/mexicos-illegals-laws-tougher-than-arizonas/

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.

White people can be Muslims, I know a few of them. They're pretty cool people too. And, we are talking about skin colour, not churches because there are likely more non-white Christians by now anyways. If not now, pretty soon...

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.

You mean mass immigration of white people specifically. Well, if your demographic data indicates anything, why would white people want to mass migrate from anywhere in the first place? Why?

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.

Wow, you actually heard "everybody?" That must have made your ears bleed. But lets say you didn't hear everybody at once, can you select a few of those 'everybody's" and maybe post their comments so we can see who you are listening to?

By focusing on the word "everybody," which I was using figuratively, you totally dodge the point. Let's try it again:

My point is that when everyone is the same colour of brown, colour will more or less cease to be an issue....

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.

Edited October 16, 2010 by justme

[Wild Bill]

You know, 'Justme' and I disagree on some pretty basic fundamentals. I believe in a Star Trek Universe of all races living together and that when you mix people love will always bridge racial differences. In fact, I believe that nature has programmed us to be attracted to the exotic, to encourage widening the gene pool. Every animal breeder knows that mongrels tend to be healthier and that if you breed overly pure you get genetic problems and a weaker animal.

That being said, I think you guys are being virtually all emotional and not at all logical in your attacks on his arguments! When he says that only white countries encourage immigration and even marriage of other races, look around you! He's right!

When he says that most of the non-white countries have attitudes and policies that discriminate against whites he might be exaggerating the numbers somewhat but you guys are all dumping on him as if there are NO such countries!

That is obviously false!

This does NOT mean I support the kind of world that 'Justme' is proposing! As I said, I'm in favour of a 'mixed' society. Also, just because a society is 'mixed' doesn't automatically mean that the races will immediately try to breed out all differences. Large numbers of people will always feel more comfortable with partners of their own race. Mixed marriages don't have to be mandatory!

I just think that people should be allowed to make their own choices with their love life and social groups. It really shouldn't be that big a deal.

What we SHOULD be doing is trying to export OUR values onto other cultures! I happen to believe that our white culture's racial tolerance is a strength, not a weakness as it appears 'Justme' does. I do NOT believe that all cultures are equally positive in all their facets. I believe that it is OUR culture that has brought about the living standard so many human beings enjoy today. We have every right to be proud!

It's just that doesn't mean we should be exclusive. We should welcome people to the POV of our culture and encourage them to become more like us.

I think most of the posters on this thread are so quick to dump on someone for being a racist because they believe that somehow this will make them NOT racists! You don't build yourself up by putting someone else down.

Some of the points 'Justme' has expressed are obviously true. Mocking him for a cheap laugh is totally ad hominem and not a worthy form of debate. I would have expected it more of "rubble.com" than MLW.

He's got some points! You don't have to accept his 'pur laine' POV but when a point is valid then deal with it!

Edited October 16, 2010 by Wild Bill

[CANADIEN]

You know, 'Justme' and I disagree on some pretty basic fundamentals. I believe in a Star Trek Universe of all races living together and that when you mix people love will always bridge racial differences. In fact, I believe that nature has programmed us to be attracted to the exotic, to encourage widening the gene pool. Every animal breeder knows that mongrels tend to be healthier and that if you breed overly pure you get genetic problems and a weaker animal.

That being said, I think you guys are being virtually all emotional and not at all logical in your attacks on his arguments! When he says that only white countries encourage immigration and even marriage of other races, look around you! He's right!

When he says that most of the non-white countries have attitudes and policies that discriminate against whites he might be exaggerating the numbers somewhat but you guys are all dumping on him as if there are NO such countries!

That is obviously false!

This does NOT mean I support the kind of world that 'Justme' is proposing! As I said, I'm in favour of a 'mixed' society. Also, just because a society is 'mixed' doesn't automatically mean that the races will immediately try to breed out all differences. Large numbers of people will always feel more comfortable with partners of their own race. Mixed marriages don't have to be mandatory!

I just think that people should be allowed to make their own choices with their love life and social groups. It really shouldn't be that big a deal.

What we SHOULD be doing is trying to export OUR values onto other cultures! I happen to believe that our white culture's racial tolerance is a strength, not a weakness as it appears 'Justme' does. I do NOT believe that all cultures are equally positive in all their facets. I believe that it is OUR culture that has brought about the living standard so many human beings enjoy today. We have every right to be proud!

It's just that doesn't mean we should be exclusive. We should welcome people to the POV of our culture and encourage them to become more like us.

I think most of the posters on this thread are so quick to dump on someone for being a racist because they believe that somehow this will make them NOT racists! You don't build yourself up by putting someone else down.

Some of the points 'Justme' has expressed are obviously true. Mocking him for a cheap laugh is totally ad hominem and not a worthy form of debate. I would have expected it more of "rubble.com" than MLW.

He's got some points! You don't have to accept his 'pur laine' POV but when a point is valid then deal with it!

I won't claim to speak for other people, but my problem with justme's argument is not that he points out that Western countries are about the only ones with an open immigration policy. It is with is rambling that this constitute GENOCIDE against the white race. As for the emotion that claim eicits in me, it's the same kind I have when I go to YukYuk.

[CANADIEN]

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.

I am still waiting for proof of the alleged GENOCIDE. You know, proof that there is a vast concerted INTENTIONAL plot to bring the end of the white race. Feel free to point out where I can find the minutes of the meetings, or the names of the conspirators. After all, even early 20th century anti-Semites had the `Protocols`, as much . a blatant forgery as it was.

All you have is the ad nauseam repetion of the fact that the immigration policies of most countries have not joined the 21th century yet. Not even close to the start of the beginning of a shadow of a proof of a GENOCIDE.

Of course, I do not expect you to be able to provide a proof of something that does not exist.

Edited October 16, 2010 by CANADIEN

[Michael Hardner]

I just wanted to point out the irony of this thread. It started out talking about a new group who wants immigration reform, and claims that they can't discuss it without being attacked.

And now here we are with segregationist zealot justme dominating the thread by just repeating his separatist dogma over and over. I think we can see why reasonable dialogue is almost impossible, when the marginal extremists hijack the debate and make reasonable discussion difficult.

[justme]

I am still waiting for proof of the alleged GENOCIDE. You know, proof that there is a vast concerted INTENTIONAL plot to bring the end of the white race. Feel free to point out where I can find the minutes of the meetings, or the names of the conspirators. After all, even early 20th century anti-Semites had the `Protocols`, as much . a blatant forgery as it was.

All you have is the ad nauseam repetion of the fact that the immigration policies of most countries have not joined the 21th century yet. Not even close to the start of the beginning of a shadow of a proof of a GENOCIDE.

Of course, I do not expect you to be able to provide a proof of something that does not exist.

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.

[justme]

I just wanted to point out the irony of this thread. It started out talking about a new group who wants immigration reform, and claims that they can't discuss it without being attacked.

And now here we are with segregationist zealot justme dominating the thread by just repeating his separatist dogma over and over. I think we can see why reasonable dialogue is almost impossible, when the marginal extremists hijack the debate and make reasonable discussion difficult.

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.

[Michael Hardner]

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.

Your views lie at one end of the political spectrum, and are believed by a tiny majority of people - therefore extremist.

Don't attribute opinions to me, or explain to me what racist means. I don't think I even called you racist.

Edited October 16, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[CANADIEN]

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.

Empahsis on destruction. You claim that the white race is being destroyed. It is not, no matter the amount of paranoia you want to instill because the white population may be at some point less than 50% or (oh the horror) SOME (emphasis on SOME) couples may be multiracial.

But since you insist on the definition, here's the definition in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Here it goes :

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group.];

( Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

© Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part(

d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Do you have PROOF of White being killed by the Canadian government because they'rewhites, or subjected to physical or emotional harm, that white-skinned people in this country are subjected to living conditions designed for the purpose of bring the destruction of the white population, that there are policies in place to actually PREVENT white-skinned people from having children, that White children are being taken from their families and focibly put into non-white family in an effort to destroy the white population?

Most importantly, do you have proof of an INTENT on behalf of ANYONE in a position of power to destroy the white population in whole or in part?

And no, repeating 1000 times "white counties for all", or pointing out that most immigrants are non-white is not proof of genocide. You might as well claim that the Earth is flatbecause Australians don't fall off it.

Edited October 16, 2010 by CANADIEN

[Shwa]

Shwa, when in a hole, stop digging.

Good grief Dorothy, how is Oz?

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.

According to this Newsweek article fromn last year, less than a quarter of the 4 million whites have left South Africa in the last 15 years. Not last year, not over the past 5 years - over the past 15 years. It also shows that South Africa - the nation - isn't "driving a million of them out." It also shows lots of other "coloured" have left or are thinking of leaving. And there is no indication that white people are forbidden by any South African law or policy from immigrating there.

Plus most white South Africans have chosen to stay there.

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.

Do you even know the slightest about Zimbabwe and their land reforms? If you want to talk about "land ownership outright based on race" discuss the 1930 "Land Apportionment Act."

Yeah, "balancing things out" sounds about right.

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.

And I am saying that Mexico does not disallow qualified white people to immigrate there, including Americans, Canadians, Germans, Englishmen, etc. So white people can "flood" Mexico and often do during the winter.

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.

You are the guy with the hard on for "white people" as opposed to other racial/ethnic groups.

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.

Regardless of what your interest is, there are "white" Muslims and they can go to Mecca.

White countries for everyone.

Tonto called. He wants his country back.

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.

Many Jews are "white" and many Israelis are white, Christian and Muslim. If they Israelis advocate "multiculurism for white Christian countries" that is of little consequence to "white Christian countries." No 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.

So you have some special Wizard like skills that divine what "Japan" or "Black countries" actually want? I hardly think so. Did you ever consider that you are thinking about this all the wrong way? But you made the assertion about what Japan and Black countries want, so be my guest, prove it.

Can't? Didn't think so.

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.

Well here's the thing Dorothy, the "white people" in all those countries you are whining about, are the ones that determined their immigration policies in the first place. Turks didn't decide what the immigration policy of Germany was going to be. Blacks didn't force the white Brits to set their immigration up they way they did. And the same thing applies to every single country you can name that is being - as you say - "flooded." So if would seem to me that the "white people" have self-determined that they want immigration from other colours, cultures, ethnicities, etc., and from the amount of intermarriage that is increasing every year, they don't mind making babies with all those non-whites either.

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.

There are no policies that state white people must only mate with non-whites. Thus, no 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).

Nope, not at all. The white population is free to choose as they wish - marry and make babies with whomever they wish, emmigrate where they want to and set policies according to their desires. I am "for" this for all the white people and every other colour of people on the face of the planet.

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.

Tonto called, he wants his country back.

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.

No one said that about the Netherlands or Belgium either.

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.

Naw, I think everyone should intermarry and make babies with everyone else, blacks, whites, yellows, browns, reds, purples. White countries are free to choose whatever they wish to do. If some of those white countries have chosen their own immigration policies, then perhaps you should take your beef up with them. I just agree with them.

People like YOU say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white. Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

"Aunti Em" wants to visit with you again Dorothy. She is up by the nurses station at the front of the ward.

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 never said anything about making white people minorities through mass immigration, but I know who did: white people! Did you ever stop to think that your problem rests firmly with the white people themselves? If what you say turns out to be a "final solution" then it was designed and executed by the very people who it was designed for.

And, as it has been mentioned once or twice here already: are you advocating for self-genocide?

Edited October 16, 2010 by Shwa