Old Whities in Alberta responsible for Harper's Power

[Guest TrueMetis]

Contrast that with some fundamentalist cultures, like that of the more strict Islamic ones. They haven't changed in a thousand years except to adopt the use of western weapons! Just for fun, try googling how many western books have been translated into Arabic and are sold in countries like Afghanistan or the Taliban areas of Pakistan.

Actually those cultures have changed quite a lot in the last thousand years. Up until 500-700 years ago (the exact date is debated) they heavily outpaced Europe in scientific development. The Renaissance came about after we discovered the works of many Islamic scholars and the works of the Greeks they had kept alive. Just for fun look up the all the books that were translated from Arabic to Latin.

[Visionseeker]

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.

The hate is strong in this one.

[DrGreenthumb]

Bev Desjarlais may feel differently about the Often Whipped NDP.

Oh give it up already, Bev lost her nomination because the membership didn't like the way she voted. The Party had nothing to do with it. Bev doesn't even claim that she voted against gay marriage because the people wanted her to, she says it was due to her religious convictions. The people in the riding chose another candidate over her , and even Bev admits it was because people were unhappy with her for voting like a bigoted Conservative candidate would.

[Visionseeker]

I wouldn't call a flood of third world immigration into Western civilization an evolution.

Because you are weak and can't keep up with the times. So you try to oppose rather than evolve yourself and, in keeping with Darwin, you and your ilk shall perish. The sooner the better for all of us IMO.

[Visionseeker]

There's no reason for you to feel personally guilty about it. And no one is trying to make you feel personally guilty about it: that's just your impression, because you're oversensitive to the mere mention of historical truths.

The Jewish Holocaust has taken precedence in the cultural imagination because it was specifically directed at eradicating the Jewish people. There was never the faintest plan of eradicating white Christians; that is, the white Christians were never interested in eradicating themselves.

That doesn't diminish the scale of the crimes committed against the victims; it only shows that the mass murder of Jews was wholly different than the mass murder of non-Jews; because they weren't murdered because they were not Jews. Now, were they?

Lots of people played a role in communism, and the vast majority had perfectly good intentions, which have proved naive. As for Jewish communists: you don't suppose there was some Jewish plot to destroy "white Christians" through communism, do you? That's absurd. This same "theory" is a direct line to the "Jews control the media" argument (and, of course, "they control" it for nefarious purposes); and has led directly to the "leftist media" argument we hear today.

A serious issue, but it is a problem of the institutional matters of state, not because of terrible Jewish genes. Israel doesn't behave badly because of some Jewish characteristic that tends towards violence. It is an immensely complex issue.

First of all, I disagree with those, left and right, who say that "Us foreign policy...serves Israel." I think that US foreign policy uses Israel. Second, this is an oversimplification even as it stands.

It appears the story is broadly correct.

Please. Apartheid fell because of the courageous struggles of black South Africans and some white South African ideological allies. The white countries--who were directly responsible for apartheid in the first place--eventually got on board (after decades of supporting the racist regime) and started exhibiting pressure.

It's as if you're saying we should appreciate gangsters for finally, after long years of violence, deciding that they should stop oppressing people, even though the oppression was largely their fault in the first place.

And in fact, I mean the "gangster" analogy quite literally, unfortunately.

That has nothing to do with some inherent benevolence of the white race(es). The people of the wealthier countries made some effort to help out. That's it. Economic ability, not race, was the factor.

Again, this is your inference; that doesn't mean you're reading what's implied (much less baldly stated) correctly.

Exeptionally well put Bloodyminded. Hats off.

[justme]

If there is some sinister project afoot....

Learn something about Cultural Marxism and then we can talk.

There is nothing inherently evil to white people that spurred Nazism on. Which is really your argument, though you seem unaware.

But most people would argue that Nazis were evil. And I am aware of what I'm arguing.

Since you bring up the US, Iraq is not by a long shot their worst adventure. How can you then account for others, where you can't blame the Jews?

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.

Hell, YOU quoted Kissinger--a genuine war criminal.

He's also Jewish, but you seem to be unaware of that.

Israel is considered America's "cop on the beat" (was that the Jew-hating Nixon's words? I believe they are!). That's why they support Israel.

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.

AFTER years of struggle by anti-apartheid forces OPPOSED by the West; AFTER the fact that apartheid was imposed by the West in the first place.

At least they did something about it, and take a look at how white people have been treated in South Africa since.

But it's not based at all on the innate generosity of white people.

Money doesn't automatically make someone genererous. So, if not the population of the country, what would you base it on?

That's just racist lunacy

In your opinion it's racist. Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

Edited October 22, 2010 by justme

[justme]

Because you are weak and can't keep up with the times. So you try to oppose rather than evolve yourself and, in keeping with Darwin, you and your ilk shall perish. The sooner the better for all of us IMO.

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.

[bloodyminded]

Exeptionally well put Bloodyminded. Hats off.

Why, thank you, my good man.

[bloodyminded]

Learn something about Cultural Marxism and then we can talk.

I said there's nothing inherently sinister about the Jewish people.

I had mistakenly thought this to be a pretty uncontroversial remark. It seems I was wrong.

But most people would argue that Nazis were evil. And I am aware of what I'm arguing.

I'm not sure you do. If, as you posit, there is something wrong with Jews, and this explains, say, the more unpleasant aspects of Israel's behaviour, then surely you must think there is something wrong (in fact, much worse) with white people, given the behaviour of the Nazis.

My argument is that American foreign policy serves Israel, and I gave examples to support that argument.

I know, and it's a common argument. I just happen to disagree. I think the United States views its policies as aligned with Israel, and that this explains the support.

You're the one dragging up American history as a diversion

No. You brought up the Iraq war.

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.

Not only am I not downplaying it...but unlike yourself, I don't see it as a "mistake," but as a possibly (time will tell) highly successful Imperial adventure. Also a crime.

I only said that others have been much worse, certainly including ones that innocent l'il Canada has been deeply involved in...and you can't explain all of them away by pointing at Jews. Not by a looong shot.

He's also Jewish, but you seem to be unaware of that.

I understand, but again, I can't see how his Jewishness is relevant.

At least they did something about it,

You're not getting it.

If I set up a system that oppresses people; and then spend many bloody decades supporting the oppressors with whom I have an historical kinship; but then, finally, under public pressure (thanks to the courage of the victims themselves), I stop oppressing them....you're going to praise me because "at least I did something about it"?

Money doesn't automatically make someone genererous. So, if not the population of the country, what would you base it on?

You're slyly trying to move goalposts. What I said was that it was not the whiteness of the population that explains why we sent help.

In your opinion it's racist.

Correct. The idea that white people, because they are white, are more inherently generous, more genetically predisposed to kindness and charity....is, in my opinion, openly and quite profoundly racist.

That's not "anti-white."

When I say "white people are not genetically superior in a moral sense," that is not "anti-white." I"m not saying we're worse; we're the same.

What kind of craziness insists that this is "anti-white"?

Edited October 22, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Wild Bill]

Actually those cultures have changed quite a lot in the last thousand years. Up until 500-700 years ago (the exact date is debated) they heavily outpaced Europe in scientific development. The Renaissance came about after we discovered the works of many Islamic scholars and the works of the Greeks they had kept alive. Just for fun look up the all the books that were translated from Arabic to Latin.

Then you agree that their rate of change is negative? For that was my point. Centuries ago they did indeed contribute much that western culture adopted. Then they stopped! Since that time they have done nothing but take western oil technology and weapons. In Saudi Arabia, it is not their own citizens who build the roads and skyscrapers. They have to import all the labour from other cultures, the "grunt" level from the Third World and all the engineering and supervisors from western cultures.

This is one of the attributes of a culture where religion dominates. Witness the Middle Ages in Christian Europe. The "Dark Ages" is the usual term!

Fundamentalist Islam is essentially in its own Dark Ages, except for access to modern weapons.

There is hope! Western culture with its luxuries and its freedoms is VERY attractive! Modern technology allows it to seep into even the most repressive cultures. If we can just get through the next decade or two without catastrophes that are too massive we may indeed achieve a blended "Star Trek" culture.

[fellowtraveller]

Oh give it up already, Bev lost her nomination because the membership didn't like the way she voted.

Doc, please delude yourself in private, it is embarassing to see you pull your drawers down in public. She was turfed out by the NDP and most specifically by Jack Layton because she spoke her mind and voted her conscience, neither of which was permitted in 'the most democratic of parties'.

Speaking of Old Whities in Alberta, they just elected a Young Brownie in Calgary and just reelected a Middle Aged Jew(third term)in Edmponton.

What can be next, pigs flying on the Prairies?

[Jack Weber]

Learn something about Cultural Marxism and then we can talk.

In your opinion it's racist. Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

Cutural Marxism....The drivel spewed by the likes of Pat Buchanan and William S.Lind???

I would point out that Lictor,our dearly depated NAZI sympathizer thought W.E.B.Du Bois was one of these operatives,even after his 1903 essay...

Your last sentence is right out of the Lictor playbook...

[bloodyminded]

Cutural Marxism....The drivel spewed by the likes of Pat Buchanan and William S.Lind???

I would point out that Lictor,our dearly depated NAZI sympathizer thought W.E.B.Du Bois was one of these operatives,even after his 1903 essay...

Your last sentence is right out of the Lictor playbook...

Really, much of what he says is Lictor-ish. The moral superiority at a genetic level of the "white" race [sic]; the global Jewish conspiracy; whites are the biggest victims of racism....etc etc.

[ToadBrother]

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.

Cultural Marxism? As opposed to what? Cultural mercantilism? Cultural capitalism?

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.

You have this bizarre idea that terms like "Asian", "African" and "Muslim" are somehow meaningful racial markers. Not even Victorian racial pseudo-science went that far.

What you've written is nothing more than code for white supremacy. Maybe I'm going to far in this, but frankly, I think you are a racist. It's hard to see the above posted by someone who wasn't fundamentally trying to argue for a "white" country.

Edited October 22, 2010 by ToadBrother

[PIK]

The Chinese did a helluva lot on the West Coast of North America. Here in BC, they were used extensively for the most dangerous parts of the Pacific railway, which opened up BC directly to Eastern North American markets, so I'd say their contribution was pretty large.

I have no idea whether you're a racist or not. Your comment certainly skirted the line, however.

Unfortunitly it seems the word racist is thrown out to many times, by people that do not know what it means. Usually all you have to do now is disagree about immigration, refugee policies or have a beef with non white people over something. Very sad, but again to many people still suffering from guilt or just ashamed with their own colour of skin. And yes the chinese got a bad deal. Now back then ,were the chinese were coming here themselves or were they brought here for one reason ,to work? Because if that happened it is happening again,(HAMILTON and your province of BC.) and I don't like it at all. And why is it happening , because of our laws and the fact past goverments have been to scared to even mention it.

[ToadBrother]

Unfortunitly it seems the word racist is thrown out to many times, by people that do not know what it means. Usually all you have to do now is disagree about immigration, refugee policies or have a beef with non white people over something. Very sad, but again to many people still suffering from guilt or just ashamed with their own colour of skin. And yes the chinese got a bad deal. Now back then ,were the chinese were coming here themselves or were they brought here for one reason ,to work? Because if that happened it is happening again,(HAMILTON and your province of BC.) and I don't like it at all. And why is it happening , because of our laws and the fact past goverments have been to scared to even mention it.

When someone asserts that we need a white country for white people, I don't think I'm throwing a label around by saying the one making such a comment is a racist.

As to BC, a few illegal refugees is hardly an invasion. The major invasion in BC has been going on for some time, and I'd hardly call the Chinese-Canadian and Indian-Canadian communities some mass of welfare-seeking migrants. Quite the opposite, they represent pretty dynamic groups within BC's population (though the Sikh community in the Lower Mainland does have its problems). Like I said, it's nothing new. When I was in grade four some thirty years ago, I was good friends with a Chinese kid whose parents had moved from Hong Kong and a Sikh kid whose grandparents had come from India, and this was in a small town of 20,000 people.

[PIK]

Cultural Marxism? As opposed to what? Cultural mercantilism? Cultural capitalism?

You have this bizarre idea that terms like "Asian", "African" and "Muslim" are somehow meaningful racial markers. Not even Victorian racial pseudo-science went that far.

What you've written is nothing more than code for white supremacy. Maybe I'm going to far in this, but frankly, I think you are a racist. It's hard to see the above posted by someone who wasn't fundamentally trying to argue for a "white" country.

People like you are the problem that is facing this country, anybody that wants to discuss it, or even says what he said ,he is being called a racist, again you are the perfect example of a canadian suffering from whiteman's guilt. Look the other way and stfu,typical trained liberal seal. Years and years of being told that speaking out is wrong and if you do ,you are nothing but a racist,ya I believed that to for many years ,but thank god people like me are starting to question the liberal open immigration policies in this country.

[bloodyminded]

People like you are the problem that is facing this country, anybody that wants to discuss it, or even says what he said ,he is being called a racist, again you are the perfect example of a canadian suffering from whiteman's guilt. Look the other way and stfu,typical trained liberal seal. Years and years of being told that speaking out is wrong and if you do ,you are nothing but a racist,ya I believed that to for many years ,but thank god people like me are starting to question the liberal open immigration policies in this country.

Whether or not we should thank a likley non-existent God for "people like[you]," your comments about Toadbrother are really unfair.

I think you're making an error quite common in the realm of political debate: if someone roughly aligns, politically, with your views, you defend him.

The problem is that Toadbrother is almost certianly correct...and he's not prone to throwing out the label willy-nilly. Just not his style.

For evidence, read his (justme's) replies to me, in this thread. He has stated that "the white race" is genetically superior in a moral sense--more generous, more altruistic--than are other races.

You don't consider this racist?" It is openly racist. Outright. If it isn't, then nothing is. It's White Supremacist stuff...which I assume you don't buy into generally.

You think every time the word "racism" is used, it must always be false. But you're dead wrong. It would be awesome if you were correct...but you're not.

Further, read what he says about Jewish people. Real conspiratorial stuff. And again, it says there's something inherently wrong with the Jewish people.

That's justme's view, not my reading of it. If you don't believe me, scroll up a short way and read for yourself.

Edited October 23, 2010 by bloodyminded

[ToadBrother]

People like you are the problem that is facing this country, anybody that wants to discuss it, or even says what he said ,he is being called a racist, again you are the perfect example of a canadian suffering from whiteman's guilt. Look the other way and stfu,typical trained liberal seal. Years and years of being told that speaking out is wrong and if you do ,you are nothing but a racist,ya I believed that to for many years ,but thank god people like me are starting to question the liberal open immigration policies in this country.

The guy is talking about a country for white people. Why are we even having this conversation? The guy is a racist, likely a white supremacist. We can debate immigration, and you'll find I come out somewhere in the middle on it, but what I'm not going to do here is give legitimacy to a bigot just because you somehow want to lump me in the "pro-immigration" camp.

Do you think Canada should be a country just for white people? I hope that you're not intentionally aligning yourself to a toxic and quite repugnant world view here.

Edited October 23, 2010 by ToadBrother

[PIK]

The guy is talking about a country for white people. Why are we even having this conversation? The guy is a racist, likely a white supremacist. We can debate immigration, and you'll find I come out somewhere in the middle on it, but what I'm not going to do here is give legitimacy to a bigot just because you somehow want to lump me in the "pro-immigration" camp.

Do you think Canada should be a country just for white people? I hope that you're not intentionally aligning yourself to a toxic and quite repugnant world view here.

I have no problem with non whites coming here,(someone has to pay my pension) however I do have a problem with our policies making it harder for whites to come here. Did we not have about a 4 (european)to 1 (asian,middle eastern) policies here, and now it has reversed, to me toad that changes the landscape to quickly and then what happens, the real white supremacists rear thier ugly head. But answer me this why if a white guy wants to live in a white country,why does he become a racist? It seems to me the word white has been under attack,you have black history month and such (which is fine) but if someone came out with white history month, everyone would be screaming racist. My main beef really is religion compared to skin colour.

[ToadBrother]

I have no problem with non whites coming here,(someone has to pay my pension) however I do have a problem with our policies making it harder for whites to come here. Did we not have about a 4 (european)to 1 (asian,middle eastern) policies here, and now it has reversed, to me toad that changes the landscape to quickly and then what happens, the real white supremacists rear thier ugly head.

Do you think having lots of Asians in Vancouver is a bad thing? That would be a surprise to a lot of Vancouverites, who over the last twenty years or so have seen a major influx of East Asians and East Asian money.

But answer me this why if a white guy wants to live in a white country,why does he become a racist? It seems to me the word white has been under attack,you have black history month and such (which is fine) but if someone came out with white history month, everyone would be screaming racist. My main beef really is religion compared to skin colour.

If a guy goes around saying "Canada for the whites, Africa for the Africans, Asia for the Asians", we're dealing with class White Supremacist rhetoric here.

Do you not think White Supremacists are racists?

Edited October 23, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Dave_ON]

Yep, but what have they done lately?

I agree Dave that western (really British) civilization cheerfully adopted many things from different cultures.

That was one of its greatest strengths! It was that Utilitarian ethic that said "If it works, or works better than our way, then why not? That led to a drastically accelerated pace of change and improvement.

Well The British inherited it from the Romans, who consequently derived it from the Greeks, who borrowed much from Egypt/Northern Africa, the middle and far east. Utilitarianism is hardly peculiar to the British. Really much of our current culture is of Greek origin, which as another poster pointed out, was preserved by the Islamic nations. If the Christians had, had their way, all that knowledge would have been destroyed.

As for accelerated advancement, we have the Phoenicians to thank for that, after all they invented the alphabet that our current one is based upon, this is quite possibly the single most important invention in the Ancient world. This paved the way for the printing press which is arguably still the greatest leap forward in modern times. This lead to the ability to spread knowledge cheaply and quickly. No more need for slow and costly scribes. Of course Gutenberg couldn't have done it if the Chinese hadn't first invented paper. Papyrus and Vellum just wouldn't cut it now a days. My point? The British only picked up where the numerous cultures that preceded them left off, and the US continued that trend. Knowledge is cumulative, and the successful cultures, ie. the ones that history remembers, are the ones that make use of advancements and continue to advance. The British are no better than the Romans that came before them, they just happened to come later and benefited from their hard work.

Contrast that with some fundamentalist cultures, like that of the more strict Islamic ones. They haven't changed in a thousand years except to adopt the use of western weapons! Just for fun, try googling how many western books have been translated into Arabic and are sold in countries like Afghanistan or the Taliban areas of Pakistan.

How many new things have been invented in those cultures today that are positive and are worth adopting?

I think this further serves to prove TB's original point. Cultures evolve constantly, this does not equate to improve. Christianity kept Europe far behind the Muslim nations for centuries. This is not because Christianity is inherently inferior to Islam as your modern examples prove. What it does demonstrate is that religion, regardless of which one it is, is often used as a form of control by those in power, the opiate of the masses as Marx so aptly observed. Religion can be used to shape social policy, laws etc. This however does not diminish the historical contributions of those cultures that made our current level of knowledge/accomplishment possible.

Edited October 23, 2010 by Dave_ON

[guyser]

But answer me this why if a white guy wants to live in a white country,why does he become a racist?

He doesnt become one, he already is.

Come on, you really want to defend the "I want a white country" crowd?

The next line is..." get the other than white crowd out"

The discussion can be had quite easily. Talk about people, talk about skills, talk about economic options they have and so on, but the moment you focus on colour, well, it leads you down a path that wont work.

We all want the best, the brightest,the ones that will grow this country.....but we dont ask they be white.They can be, along with every other colour ethnicity that's out there

[PIK]

Well The British inherited it from the Romans, who consequently derived it from the Greeks, who borrowed much from Egypt/Northern Africa, the middle and far east. Utilitarianism is hardly peculiar to the British. Really much of our current culture is of Greek origin, which as another poster pointed out, was preserved by the Islamic nations. If the Christians had, had their way, all that knowledge would have been destroyed.

As for accelerated advancement, we have the Phoenicians to thank for that, after all they invented the alphabet that our current one is based upon, this is quite possibly the single most important invention in the Ancient world. This paved the way for the printing press which is arguably still the greatest leap forward in modern times. This lead to the ability to spread knowledge cheaply and quickly. No more need for slow and costly scribes. Of course Gutenberg couldn't have done it if the Chinese hadn't first invented paper. Papyrus and Vellum just wouldn't cut it now a days. My point? The British only picked up where the numerous cultures that preceded them left off, and the US continued that trend. Knowledge is cumulative, and the successful cultures, ie. the ones that history remembers, are the ones that make use of advancements and continue to advance. The British are no better than the Romans that came before them, they just happened to come later and benefited from their hard work.

I think this further serves to prove TB's original point. Cultures evolve constantly, this does not equate to improve. Christianity kept Europe far behind the Muslim nations for centuries. This is not because Christianity is inherently inferior to Islam as your modern examples prove. What it does demonstrate is that religion, regardless of which one it is, is often used as a form of control by those in power, the opiate of the masses as Marx so aptly observed. Religion can be used to shape social policy, laws etc. This however does not diminish the historical contributions of those cultures that made our current level of knowledge/accomplishment possible.

Culture evolves, yes it does, just not here, it is forced onto people, where is the english culture, gone not allowed to evolve, trudeau made sure of that.

Christianity kept Europe far behind the Muslim nations for centuries, and now Islam is about 5 cenuturies behind them

[ToadBrother]

Culture evolves, yes it does, just not here, it is forced onto people, where is the english culture, gone not allowed to evolve, trudeau made sure of that.

And what, it hasn't been forced on people before? The English culture Canada descends from was in large part created from the forced merging of a Norman aristocratic class on top of the older Anglo-Saxon language and traditions. It doesn't get much more forced than William the Conqueror seizing the English throne in 1066 and immediately setting about taking pretty much every Anglo-Saxon estate and title and handing them over to his Norman cohorts.

Christianity kept Europe far behind the Muslim nations for centuries, and now Islam is about 5 cenuturies behind them

That's the game of civilization. There's no guarantee that our civilization will be around in five hundred years, or even be recognizable.