Whites to Attain Minority Status?

[Shwa]

It is ONLY demanded that predominantly white countries be "global villages" with the end result being admittedly white minorities.

It's genocide.

No, the entire world is one Global Village now. Get with the times dude. The white countries are just neighbourhoods that have welcomed the browns, blacks and yellows in for some good old fashioned mating. So that alone removes genocide out of the question. Call it self preservation.

And when I say "welcomed" I mean invited in through immigration programs, social programs, ESL programs, etc., all designed by more white people.

Eventually we'll all be a nice, healthy looking California type tanned shade. Something already pursued by the rich and famous. Isn't that what you want? A nice golden brown? Everywhere will be Miami Beach, everyone will look the same. Then, when those differences are rendered negligible, we move on to the stars... (and not the Hollywood ones...er, or even the Bollywood ones...)

[kimmy]

Eventually we'll all be a nice, healthy looking California type tanned shade. Something already pursued by the rich and famous. Isn't that what you want? A nice golden brown? Everywhere will be Miami Beach, everyone will look the same. Then, when those differences are rendered negligible, we move on to the stars... (and not the Hollywood ones...er, or even the Bollywood ones...)

But don't you want the children of the future to come in "all the colors of the rainbow"?

I have been taught since childhood how "diversity makes us stronger", and "we are richer when we paint with all the colors of the wind" and how living with people of many colors opens our minds and how living in a monochrome world shuts them.

Surely you're not going to disagree with recognized authorities like Sesame Street and the braintrust behind the public school board's diversity education program!

-k

[Shwa]

But don't you want the children of the future to come in "all the colors of the rainbow"?

I have been taught since childhood how "diversity makes us stronger", and "we are richer when we paint with all the colors of the wind" and how living with people of many colors opens our minds and how living in a monochrome world shuts them.

Surely you're not going to disagree with recognized authorities like Sesame Street and the braintrust behind the public school board's diversity education program! -k

No diversity and such has always been a temporary measure until we are all a nice golden mean. Once that happens, there'll be no need for special definitions, can dismantle most equity programs, will all belong to one grand utopian dreamscape. I can't wait!

Of course there will still be gender 'diversity' but metrosexualism is taking care of the apparently.

[kimmy]

No diversity and such has always been a temporary measure until we are all a nice golden mean. Once that happens, there'll be no need for special definitions, can dismantle most equity programs, will all belong to one grand utopian dreamscape. I can't wait!

There's no intrinsic value in diversity?

Elmo lied to kimmy.

Mr Hooper will hear about this!

-k

[WWWTT]

This thread has turned into a freekin joke!

People evolve,mutate and change.Life evolves,mutates and changes!

Genetic diversity makes future generations stronger in fighting disease,healthier and more inteligent.

In fact one of the biggest threats to endagered animal species around the world is the lack of genetic diversity!And conservationists or researchers go to great lengths to make sure that breeding populations are diverse to avoid inbreeding.

If some people hear want to keep living in the past,fine.When future generations become to competitive and difficult for you to compete with then you can go on welfare!

And it couldn't come soon enough!

WWWTT

[kimmy]

Are you saying that people who choose to marry within their own racial group are "living in the past", and that in the future they'll become targets of discrimination? And that you're looking forward to that?

-k

Edited July 24, 2011 by kimmy

[WWWTT]

Are you saying that people who choose to marry within their own racial group are "living in the past", and that in the future they'll become targets of discrimination? And that you're looking forward to that?

-k

Ya Kimmy thats a real stretch!

How you extrapiluted that from my comment is beyond me?

My comment is directed to those that feel that being "White" is somehow something special.

I do not believe that there is nothing wrong with having some pride with your heritage.

My parents are Portuguese and I have some pride in that.

But I do not feel(or ever in my life) that anothers persons right to exist somehow threatens me or threatens the well being of my descendants.

However if you feel that any other persons right to exist,regardless of race color or creed somehow poses a threat to you,then you have a serious problem!

WWWTT

[Shwa]

There's no intrinsic value in diversity?

Elmo lied to kimmy.

Mr Hooper will hear about this! -k

No rushing off to Mr Hooper just yet. There is intrinsic value in diversity, even if it is only a temporary phenomenon. For example, for us old folks, a good grounding in the principles of accepting diversity will help us love our mulatto grandchildren more. And, in keeping with those same principles of diversity, I mean "mulatto" in the broadest sense of the term of course.

[Shwa]

This thread has turned into a freekin joke!

Astute powers of observation dude. Now join in on the fun!

[Remiel]

I wonder what percentage of this country will be of mixed parentage by the time " white people become a minority " .

[Dissenter]

No, the entire world is one Global Village now.

No because:

Nobody is forcing mass immigration and integration on predominantly black countries that will turn them into minorities and saying: the world is a global village now.

Nobody is forcing mass immigration and integration on Asian countries that will turn them into minorities and saying: the world is a global village now.

This is for predominantly white countries and ONLY predominantly white countries. The end result is that the majority is turned into a minority ONLY in predominantly white countries.

It's genocide.

And when I say "welcomed" I mean invited in through immigration programs, social programs, ESL programs, etc., all designed by more white people.

You mean by government that never gave the people they supposedly represent a choice.

Immigration remains at a record high even when the economy is bad and there's high unemployment, and it costs the tax payer an estimated $23 billion per year.

Eventually we'll all be a nice, healthy looking California type tanned shade.

Diversity, remember?

Eventually you want to blend white people out of existence and you can't understand why someone would call you anti-white.

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

[CANADIEN]

No because:

Nobody is forcing mass immigration and integration (...)

On anyone. See, I corrected it for you.

You mean by government that never gave the people they supposedly represent a choice.

I wasn't aware that elections had been outlawed and we were living under a dictatorship.

Eventually you want to blend white people out of existence and you can't understand why someone would call you anti-white.

And prey tell, how many white individuals have ceased to exist as a result of multiculturalism and non-Caucasian immigration?

Once more question for you. On top of the two other ones you won't dare answering. Let me repeat them for you:

- do you favour a final sollution if non-Whites do not go along with your plan for a "pure" little White country?

- how would my neighbourhood be better if it was all white?

[CANADIEN]

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

Here's a suggestion (and please, don't follow it, you would be stop being so entertaining). Since there are no genocide taking place around here, stop proving yourself wrong by posting and misusing the definition again and again and again.

[Shwa]

No because:

Nobody is forcing mass immigration and integration on predominantly black countries that will turn them into minorities and saying: the world is a global village now.

Nobody is forcing mass immigration and integration on Asian countries that will turn them into minorities and saying: the world is a global village now.

This is for predominantly white countries and ONLY predominantly white countries. The end result is that the majority is turned into a minority ONLY in predominantly white countries.

Yes because of all the important white inventions to turn the planet into a Global Village - like television, the internet and air travel. Oh, and immigration policies. You should be happy that another white invention - the Global Village - is happening because now we have a market place in said Village. Prosperity for all. Long live the Golden Mean!

It's genocide.

Nope, because there is reproduction going on. Haven't you noticed all the mulatto babies these days? They're everywhere!

You mean by government that never gave the people they supposedly represent a choice.

It's a white government. By your logic you should appreciate everything that they do. If you don't, you are anti-white. Dissenter means anti-white.

Immigration remains at a record high even when the economy is bad and there's high unemployment, and it costs the tax payer an estimated $23 billion per year.

Yeah, but healthy breeding stock is more important than money.

Diversity, remember?

Temporary, remember?

Eventually you want to blend white people out of existence and you can't understand why someone would call you anti-white.

It isn't what I want, it is what the white people want themselves since they invented the Global Village and air travel. Oh. And immigration policies.

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

No destruction going on, just evolution.

[cybercoma]

Are you saying that people who choose to marry within their own racial group are "living in the past"

People have been "mixing" for as long as humanity has existed. There's evidence of tribes exchanging women, which served to diversify their genes and make their tribes stronger. Also, in war, the winners would often rape the women or take them as slaves and force them into bearing children. People "marrying" outside of their racial groups is not exactly new, in the sense that people were mixing races for thousands of years.

[Shwa]

People have been "mixing" for as long as humanity has existed. There's evidence of tribes exchanging women, which served to diversify their genes and make their tribes stronger. Also, in war, the winners would often rape the women or take them as slaves and force them into bearing children. People "marrying" outside of their racial groups is not exactly new, in the sense that people were mixing races for thousands of years.

Yep and it was likely a combination of this mixing with environmental factors that we derive this nice white skin colour (except gingers, who we know are part Neanderthal)

What will eventually happen is that with all this mixing and inter-breeding and environmental factors, a new skin colour will emerge - probably fuschia. Then we will have these people coming around saying we are anti-fuschia or that the lighter fuschia coloured people aren't as bad. Or something like that.

The neat thing is that when the Fuscians tan, they go purple. Yea Fuschians!

[jbg]

My first grandchild's father is Chinese and I'm proud as punch.

Speaking of decent parents, apparently there was something wrong with your's.

dumbass... talking to yourself, Lictor err I mean Dissenter?

We both know that your wetdream is a white -only nation. Which means that sooner or later some non-Whites will have to move away... What's the plan for those who won't go quietly? Go ahead, spell it out.

I find Lictor's/Dissenter's views abhorrent. If immigrants come to Canada or the U.S. to work, and to improve their adopted country I want them, whatever their color or religion. Among the forebearers of many ethnic Chinese are the "coolies" celebrated in "Canadian Railroad Trilogy". They literally played a major role in building our respective countries.

What I do have a problem with is providing social service benefits to newcomers. This encourages two things; 1) immigration of unproductive people; and 2) their unrestrained procreation. The demographic issue I alluded to in the opening post is expressly not because of the immigrants' religion or skin color. It is purely about the incentive to procreate, and negative incentive to work.

Neither of our countries would or will be swamped by immigration if incentives are appropriate.

[jbg]

ONLY in predominantly white countries because anti-whites demand this:

Asian countries for Asians.

Black countries for blacks.

Israel for Jews or you're an antisemite!

White countries for everyone or you're a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews!

A few corrections to your post. I agree that the inclusiveness in Asia and Africa is not mutual. Whites are not welcome.

Your post veers off into fantasy regarding the Jews. Israel is the only predominantly Jewish state in the world. Also, if the demand of the "Palestinians" to "return" were granted there would be massacres, no doubt about it.

And the Jews were not the leaders in demanding that white countries become inclusive when others weren't. So-called "white countries" were always more open.

[Shwa]

I find Lictor's/Dissenter's views abhorrent. If immigrants come to Canada or the U.S. to work, and to improve their adopted country I want them, whatever their color or religion. Among the forebearers of many ethnic Chinese are the "coolies" celebrated in "Canadian Railroad Trilogy". They literally played a major role in building our respective countries.

What I do have a problem with is providing social service benefits to newcomers. This encourages two things; 1) immigration of unproductive people; and 2) their unrestrained procreation. The demographic issue I alluded to in the opening post is expressly not because of the immigrants' religion or skin color. It is purely about the incentive to procreate, and negative incentive to work.

Neither of our countries would or will be swamped by immigration if incentives are appropriate.

Well, to be honest, I would rather screw than work, wouldn't you? Am I am not an immigrant.

Then again, this might explain all the Russian strippers they are allowing into our country. They do both.

[eyeball]

Nah, they're typical self-hating white baby boomers like you that drank the Kool-Aid of the 60s by the gallon. Good people, but mislead.

Apparently this Anders Breivik fellow has similar issues with immigration and the way he was raised.

Hopefully your guns are registered and you're not some kind of farmer.

[dre]

No because:

Nobody is forcing mass immigration and integration on predominantly black countries that will turn them into minorities and saying: the world is a global village now.

Nobody is forcing mass immigration and integration on Asian countries that will turn them into minorities and saying: the world is a global village now.

This is for predominantly white countries and ONLY predominantly white countries. The end result is that the majority is turned into a minority ONLY in predominantly white countries.

It's genocide.

You mean by government that never gave the people they supposedly represent a choice.

Immigration remains at a record high even when the economy is bad and there's high unemployment, and it costs the tax payer an estimated $23 billion per year.

Diversity, remember?

Eventually you want to blend white people out of existence and you can't understand why someone would call you anti-white.

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

Nobody is forcing mass immigration and integration on predominantly black countries that will turn them into minorities and saying: the world is a global village now.

Nobody is forcing it on us either. Our immigration policy is set by governments elected by our "white majority".

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

Big fuckin deal. Thats not happening here, except to the extent that whites are too busy watching TV to breed. And a group becoming a minority does NOT mean its being deliberately destroyed.

Eventually you want to blend white people out of existence and you can't understand why someone would call you anti-white.

I want no such thing. I could care less either way. Our immigration is driven mostly by our decline in birthrate. Nobody is stopping white folks from fucking without birth control except for themselves. Im already doing my part... I have 2 white children, and Im planning on having another one. What have YOU done besides spout nonsense and failed logic on the internet?

[dre]

A few corrections to your post. I agree that the inclusiveness in Asia and Africa is not mutual. Whites are not welcome.

Your post veers off into fantasy regarding the Jews. Israel is the only predominantly Jewish state in the world. Also, if the demand of the "Palestinians" to "return" were granted there would be massacres, no doubt about it.

And the Jews were not the leaders in demanding that white countries become inclusive when others weren't. So-called "white countries" were always more open.

ALL policies that seek to control ethnic or religious demographics are inherently racist. Theyre racist in Israel, and they would be racist here as well.

And states that endorse a religion are a blight on humanity... whether their muslim, jew, or Christian.

[Wild Bill]

Big fuckin deal. Thats not happening here, except to the extent that whites are too busy watching TV to breed. And a group becoming a minority does NOT mean its being deliberately destroyed.

I want no such thing. I could care less either way. Our immigration is driven mostly by our decline in birthrate. Nobody is stopping white folks from fucking without birth control except for themselves. Im already doing my part... I have 2 white children, and Im planning on having another one. What have YOU done besides spout nonsense and failed logic on the internet?

Nonsense and failed logic? How about attributing the decline in white birth rate to laziness? This has got to be the most simplistic and outright smarmy explanation I have heard in years!

The real reason white folks in Canada have fewer children is MONEY! Or rather, lack of it! Over the past few decades living standards have declined drastically, to the point where it takes two incomes for a family to enjoy what one used to provide.

Since the working and middle class tends to have more white folks that's why it seems to be a "white" thing.

I'm sure some are already starting to type the same old shibboleths of how families today just want too big a house and too fancy a car. CRAP! This all started back in the 80's, when jobs started drying up and gas/energy prices went through the roof. People had put a cushion in their monthly budgets but costs went up so fast they ate the cushion and more besides! People didn't buy a house more expensive than they could afford. Rather, they found themselves frantically trying to keep the house they were living in!

Meanwhile, governments were forcing people to live beyond their means, by making developers build subdivisions of larger homes all at once, complete with all services. This meant that if you wanted to buy a house you no longer could start with a cheaper one, in an area without sidewalks or whatever. The house had to be 3 bedrooms from the start. You could not buy a bungalo cheap and then put an addition onto it some years later when the kids were bigger but you could afford it.

No, you had to buy a 2500 sq ft 3 bedroom home complete with paved driveway, sidewalks and sewers on the day you moved in! This meant maximum tax revenue for the municipality, without waiting any time at all.

When living standards started to decline the human thing to do was to assume that the decline was only temporary. No one expected that it would go on for decades! No one decided to bite the bullet and sell their house to "downsize" into something that would be more affordable. Taking steps backwards is very hard to do! So they stayed in their homes longer than they should have, hoping for things to improve. Meanwhile, having another child became out of the question.

So "white folks" became reluctant to have more kids than they thought they could afford to properly raise.

Lazy? Man, obviously you did NOT live through those times! You are too young to have any perspective on the reasons why things changed.

When I was 19 with only a high school education I never had to spend more than a day or so to find a job! My father by himself could afford a home, car and the expense of raising 4 kids while Mom stayed home. He was a factory worker. There are few such jobs today. To do the same someone would have to be a lawyer or an engineer.

Folks thought nothing of heading out to a bar after work EVERY NIGHT OF THE WEEK to see a band and drink a few beers with friends! How common is that today? Most folks just can't afford it.

I'm sure that if they were given the choice many white folks today would love to have more kids. The key point is "if given the choice"!

[Bonam]

Nonsense and failed logic? How about attributing the decline in white birth rate to laziness? This has got to be the most simplistic and outright smarmy explanation I have heard in years!

The real reason white folks in Canada have fewer children is MONEY! Or rather, lack of it! Over the past few decades living standards have declined drastically, to the point where it takes two incomes for a family to enjoy what one used to provide.

Since the working and middle class tends to have more white folks that's why it seems to be a "white" thing.

I'm not sure I buy that explanation. More money leads to less children, if anything. The world's richest nations have the lowest birth rates. The ultra poor nations, where people really can't afford to have a single child, can't even feed themselves, have among the highest birth rates. The issue is cultural, it is not just a lack of money.

Edited July 25, 2011 by Bonam

[Shwa]

I'm not sure I buy that explanation. More money leads to less children, if anything. The world's richest nations have the lowest birth rates. The ultra poor nations, where people really can't afford to have a single child, can't even feed themselves, have among the highest birth rates. The issue is cultural, it is not just a lack of money.

It's true. I mean, if you have no money to do anything after supper - like a movie, or drive-in, theatre, etc., you might as well screw.