Two Non-Multi-Cult Stories, or Mixing it Up and Making It

[Dissenter]

  On 7/18/2011 at 4:54 AM, Evening Star said:

(Seriously, dre, is Dissenter's argument the one you want to be defending?)

Depends on whether or not your religion is political correctness.

[CANADIEN]

  On 7/20/2011 at 8:48 AM, Dissenter said:

In YOUR OPINION it's white supremacy. That's just a smear tactic.

Call it whatever you want. Your belief that white-skinned people are superior is well-known lictor... err I mean Dissenter. Now, tell us, what should happen to the non-whites living here if they do not get along with your little "white-only" plan?

[bloodyminded]

  On 7/19/2011 at 4:38 PM, Shwa said:

After what they did in Mars Attacks! no, we should keep them out because they always come proclaiming peace and then destroy our buildings and governments with their deathly rays...

But they did kill Jack Black, without even demanding any gratitude....

[bloodyminded]

  On 7/20/2011 at 8:48 AM, Dissenter said:

In YOUR OPINION it's white supremacy. That's just a smear tactic.

The definition of "white supremacy," according to Webster's Dictionary, is the belief that the white race is superior and should have control over people of other races. Wanting white people to be able to have control over their OWN future in predominantly white countries is not white supremacy.

On the other hand, we are told that all of these people are flooding into predominantly white countries so that they can have better lives. In other words, it's based on the belief that they cannot develop comparable living standards on their own. That, if you think about it, IS white supremacy.

Not if I think about it; only when you think about it.

[CANADIEN]

  On 7/20/2011 at 9:07 AM, Dissenter said:

Up until the 1960s, 90% of the US population was of European descent. In Canada, the percentage was even higher.

And there were people arguing all the time that Irish, Italian, East European immigrants were not good enough. Nothing new under the Sun.

BTW, Lictor, err I mean Dissenter, since we all know that the real term on your mind is White, do yourself a favour and use it, will you? And I am still waiting for you to tell what should be done with non-Whites here who would refuse to go along with your purity plan.

[bloodyminded]

  On 7/20/2011 at 11:15 AM, CANADIEN said:

And there were people arguing all the time that Irish, Italian, East European immigrants were not good enough. Nothing new under the Sun.

BTW, Lictor, err I mean Dissenter, since we all know that the real term on your mind is White, do yourself a favour and use it, will you? And I am still waiting for you to tell what should be done with non-Whites here who would refuse to go along with your purity plan.

You're just being "politically correct" by not recognizing the superiority your own whiteness bestows upon yourself.

[Shwa]

  On 7/20/2011 at 8:48 AM, Dissenter said:

On the other hand, we are told that all of these people are flooding into predominantly white countries so that they can have better lives. In other words, it's based on the belief that they cannot develop comparable living standards on their own. That, if you think about it, IS white supremacy.

Tonto called. He wants his continent back.

[WWWTT]

  On 7/20/2011 at 8:58 AM, Dissenter said:

What you point out is not unique to white people.

Slavery has been around for thousands of years, it's been universal, and still exists in parts of Africa a couple hundred years after Britain abolished it.

The Turks were not invited to the Gates of Vienna, yet nobody is saying that because you did that, we're going to create a blended humanity ONLY in Turkey and turn Turks into a minority. On the contrary, the Turks are still trying to flood into Europe - just through immigration this time.

I actually agree 100%

All walks of humans have committed atrocities against other humans.Its just a mater of going back far enough in history to find examples.

WWWTT

[Jack Weber]

  On 7/20/2011 at 8:48 AM, Dissenter said:

In YOUR OPINION it's white supremacy. That's just a smear tactic.

The definition of "white supremacy," according to Webster's Dictionary, is the belief that the white race is superior and should have control over people of other races. Wanting white people to be able to have control over their OWN future in predominantly white countries is not white supremacy.

On the other hand, we are told that all of these people are flooding into predominantly white countries so that they can have better lives. In other words, it's based on the belief that they cannot develop comparable living standards on their own. That, if you think about it, IS white supremacy.

We know Lictor...

What did you call yourself??

An ethnosegregationalist??

Ethnosupremacist??

Or some other stupid $10 euphemism for a Klansmen?

Francis Evola would so proud of your silliness..

By the way,have you figured out the subject matter of the W.E.B. Du Bois essay of 1903???

What events happened almost 40 years earlier that allowed for such an essay?

I mean,you've only had a year...

It's subject matter would be right up your alley for being an Eurocentric elitist...

[YankeeRabbit]

  On 7/20/2011 at 9:16 PM, Jack Weber said:

We know Lictor...

What did you call yourself??

An ethnosegregationalist??

S

Ethnosupremacist??

Or some other stupid $10 euphemism for a Klansmen?

Francis Evola would so proud of your silliness..

By the way,have you figured out the subject matter of the W.E.B. Du Bois essay of 1903???

What events happened almost 40 years earlier that allowed for such an essay?

I mean,you've only had a year...

It's subject matter would be right up your alley for being an Eurocentric elitist...

You sure use supremacist a lot when it comes to white people. I don't know how white people are "superior", when only white people are not allowed to have their own countries.

No one is calling Israel "racist" and Demanding Israel become become more diverse ie "less Jewish" for what they are doing to Palestinians.

No one is calling Japan "racist" and Demanding Japan become more diverse ie "less Japanese", for being 98.5% Japanese, not letting foreigners vote and kicking them out, to preserve their ethnic integrity.

I could go on and on about the "anti-racist" double standard, when countries are non-white.

"Anti-racists" Demand all white countries and ONLY white countries be flooded with millions of people that are not their race and for everyone to mix in until white people disappear everywhere. White countries must always be more diverse, ie "less white". What "anti-racists" want is GeNOcide for white people.

So please define "White Supremacist", because I can't see any evidence of whites being supreme.

As for anti-racist I already know what that means:

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

Edited July 24, 2011 by YankeeRabbit

[charter.rights]

Canada never was a "white society" and has always been a multicultural one. We are in essence today a metis society. Raulston Saul nailed that one....

[Dissenter]

  On 7/24/2011 at 12:20 PM, charter.rights said:

Canada never was a "white society" and has always been a multicultural one. We are in essence today a metis society. Raulston Saul nailed that one....

Canada was 98% white.

In 1961, the population of non-whites in Toronto averaged 3%; in 2000, the percentage rose 54.

Before 1961, 92% of immigrants that settled in Toronto came from Europe; in 2001, that dropped to 17%.

Source: Canadian Geographic.

Canadian history did not begin in the 1960s.

As for multiculturalism:

  Quote

The CJC [Canadian Jewish Congress] has also reached beyond the Jewish community’s interests. It originated the concept of multiculturalism in Canada....

http://www.cjc.ca/2010/12/10/jewish-congress-may-vanish-founded-in-montreal-in-1919-proposed-reorganization-would-replace-advocacy-group-with-centralized-body/

Multiculturalism is a Jewish creation - straight from the source - but even though Jews take credit for it, there will STILL be some twits around calling it anti-semitic to point that out.

[Remiel]

  On 7/24/2011 at 2:47 PM, Dissenter said:

Canada was 98% white.

And when was Canada 98% "White People"? In 1867? Back when most of what is now Canada, and what had a much higher percentage of Aboriginals, was not counted? There has never been a time when the land we now call Canada had a sum total of 98% White Folks.

Not that you will let a little critical thinking get in your way, I imagine.

Because, you know, the percentage of "White People" in Canada is meaningless when half of those folks dislike the other half for reasons that have nothing to do with skin colour.

[Shwa]

  On 7/24/2011 at 2:47 PM, Dissenter said:

Canada was 98% white.

In 1961, the population of non-whites in Toronto averaged 3%; in 2000, the percentage rose 54.

Before 1961, 92% of immigrants that settled in Toronto came from Europe; in 2001, that dropped to 17%.

Source: Canadian Geographic.

Interestingly enough, since that time the tanning salon industry has exploded. Why are so many white people trying to look non-white?

Edited July 24, 2011 by Shwa

[Bonam]

  On 7/24/2011 at 3:18 PM, Shwa said:

Interestingly enough, since that time the tanning salon industry has exploded. Why are so many white people trying to look non-white?

Silly question. A white person with a (reasonable) tan still looks white. Also, phenotypical differences between races include more than skin color. For example, facial features tend to vary substantially as well.

[CANADIEN]

  On 7/24/2011 at 2:47 PM, Dissenter said:

Multiculturalism is a Jewish creation - straight from the source - but even though Jews take credit for it, there will STILL be some twits around calling it anti-semitic to point that out.

Now, now... dissenter... err I mean Lictor. Nobody here is pointing out that you are anti-Semetic because you are pointing out that Jewish groups were amongst the first to promote multiculturalism. It's because anyone who is contact with you long enough cannot avoid noticing that you hate Jews.

Edited July 24, 2011 by CANADIEN

[kimmy]

  On 7/24/2011 at 3:18 PM, Shwa said:

Interestingly enough, since that time the tanning salon industry has exploded. Why are so many white people trying to look non-white?

Because a tan is seen as being representative of good health, of an active outdoor lifestyle, of California/Miami glamor. And it is a look that most of the popular white celebrities have made popular. The pressure on white women to get a tan is probably pretty similar to the pressure on black women to get straight hair.

-k

[CANADIEN]

  On 7/24/2011 at 6:26 PM, kimmy said:

Because a tan is seen as being representative of good health, of an active outdoor lifestyle, of California/Miami glamor. And it is a look that most of the popular white celebrities have made popular. The pressure on white women to get a tan is probably pretty similar to the pressure on black women to get straight hair.

-k

We know... We're just rying to see how Lictor err I mean Dissenter will make a fool of himself on that one.

[bush_cheney2004]

  On 7/24/2011 at 6:26 PM, kimmy said:

The pressure on white women to get a tan is probably pretty similar to the pressure on black women to get straight hair.

[Shwa]

  On 7/24/2011 at 5:34 PM, Bonam said:

Silly question. A white person with a (reasonable) tan still looks white. Also, phenotypical differences between races include more than skin color. For example, facial features tend to vary substantially as well.

I know what you mean. For example, East Indian people tend to have many of the same phenotypical features as white people. Likely where the European languages came from.

[Shwa]

  On 7/24/2011 at 6:26 PM, kimmy said:

Because a tan is seen as being representative of good health, of an active outdoor lifestyle, of California/Miami glamor. And it is a look that most of the popular white celebrities have made popular. The pressure on white women to get a tan is probably pretty similar to the pressure on black women to get straight hair. -k

I thought it was to prepare for the inevitable browning of civilization.

[Dissenter]

  On 7/24/2011 at 6:07 PM, CANADIEN said:

Now, now... dissenter... err I mean Lictor. Nobody here is pointing out that you are anti-Semetic because you are pointing out that Jewish groups were amongst the first to promote multiculturalism. It's because anyone who is contact with you long enough cannot avoid noticing that you hate Jews.

So what you are saying is that you can't debate MY comment so you're going to assert that I am someone else?

[CANADIEN]

  On 7/25/2011 at 6:35 AM, Dissenter said:

So what you are saying is that you can't debate MY comment so you're going to assert that I am someone else?

Here we go again with your usual intellectual dishonesty, attributing to me things I do not say or think.

Your comments warrant ridicule, not debate. And Lictor, err i mean dissenter,may I suggest you do not always use the same tag line below your postings no matter what new name you adopt? Perhaps it would not be as easy to figure out it's you again. :lol:

Edited July 25, 2011 by CANADIEN

[Shwa]

  On 7/25/2011 at 9:59 AM, CANADIEN said:

Here we go again with your usual intellectual dishonesty, attributing to me things I do not say or think.

I think we can see the true "dissention" going on here. It is a ruse.

"White countries for white people."

Since we live in a white country, then it is pretty obvious that "Dissenter" is actually dissenting about our white country. So:

Dissenter means anti-white.

[CANADIEN]

  On 7/25/2011 at 11:29 AM, Shwa said:

I think we can see the true "dissention" going on here. It is a ruse.

"White countries for white people."

Since we live in a white country, then it is pretty obvious that "Dissenter" is actually dissenting about our white country. So:

Dissenter means anti-white.

LOL