Does This Make Me A Racist?

by Englishman 77 Replies latest jw friends

  • funkyderek
    funkyderek

    yrs2long,

    Thanks to all for the empirical data they supplied on why most everyone but the white man is the scum of the earth.
    Nobody in this thread has said or implied any such thing. As you're talking about "empirical data" can you supply some quotes to substantiate your claim?

    You may also have noticed how people used phrases like "some black people", "West Indian immigrants", "Bangladeshi Muslims", specific terms for small groups. You, on the other hand, have amalgamated a diverse group of billions of people into a mythical enemy "the white man", a single ruthless oppressor who exists only in your racist imagination.

    --
    Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. - Jack Handey, Deep Thoughts

  • Hyghlandyr
    Hyghlandyr

    yrs2long

    Um several comments. First I should not blame my mother, my father, nor the watchtower society for the things I lack. If I lack anything, it is my fault and no one elses. It is not the big bad evil pseudo-religious publishing firm that keeps me down. It is not my parents. It is not my lineage. It is not the United States Government. It is not 'da man' whoever he is.

    I also do not laud these same institutions or persons for the things I have. It is not their fault that I am not in prison. It is not their fault I do not commit crimes. It is not their fault I have a fairly nice place to live, own the nice things I have. That which I have or lack is entirely my own doing. That is one of the differences between minorities who cry foul, who choose to be victims, and those who do not.

    We who do not, whatever our race or situation, can recognize that we have been victimized at times, but do not have to see ourselves AS victims. Abuse is something I went through, it is not something I am. To wit, I see myself as a product of my decisions more than anyone elses.

    (Sidenote here, The WTBTS was only one of my incarnations, and by then I was an Adult, I chose to become a witness, and have a different perspective of it than those raised in it)

    Nor are we talking about having a white pride club in order to boost our self esteem. Be it English (who by the way for years I was VERY racist against, seeing that I am Irish and there is a long history there...now I just figure, hey they are in Ireland because Irish women are hot, if I were Anglo, I'd be in Ireland too), Irish, Polish, French, German, or any other European race. We have and celebrate our culture for the same reasons other groups do, because it is a part of us, because we have a unique appreciation for it.

    What we object to is all the whiny bullshit when we have our celebrations that these are somehow only designed to keep other races down. Boohoohoo. We will have our celebrations, our culture, and you can have yours.

    I will agree that it is not blacks that are running planes into buildings, that is muslims. I will curtail my comments on possible solutions to *that* problem. However your other comments are ludicrous. Blacks are not raping women? The are not involved in swindling people or dirty business deals? They dont kill children in wartime? A bit of history into Africa and how many millions were and are sent to 'useless' deaths would change your mind. Um, no it probably wouldnt.

    Whites do things on a grand scale. Yup. Absolutely. For good or ill whites do things on a grand scale. They take over countries, they conquer, they rule. They also produce, create, and clean up.

    I used to whine about what the anglos did to the Irish. Millions murdered by starvation of a four hundred year period, besides the wars, kidnappings into slavery, rapes, thefts and other privations. Then one day I got to thinking, what about what the Irish did to the pre-celts on the Island. What about what the pre-celts did to the pre-pre-celts. The same thing with Native Americans, Africans, Asians. Each of these groups has devastated others. Why were whites so successful at playing the same game, but on a grander scale? Because they unified. No people in history have been unified around the world like the Anglos. The Irish sure as hell weren't and aren't. Definitely the Africans weren't and aren't. If they use our internecine struggles to control us, it is our own fault.

    You know that any good for nothing white bum can come in off the street with a nice suit, cleaned up, with none of your credentials, and take your job? Where the hell do you work, McDonalds? Of course I don't know where you work and what you are saying might be true. If you are working a low level position someplace. It might also be true that even if you have some kind of mid-level to high-level position, requiring a college degree, that a white bum, who comes in off the street, with no training, works at your place of employment for a year or two, and gets himself educated into what the position requires, that then he can take your job.

    But if you have any sort of position that requires a college degree, or serious training of any sort, I seriously doubt that if I were to show up, well dressed, shaven, and clean cut, that they would simply give me your job and fire you. Again that is hardly a reality. More comentary will follow if you want to expand on what kind of position you currently have.

    And the experiences I gave are not considerd empirical data, it is called anectdotal experiences. No one claimed otherwise. We could of course go to some statistics if you want. About crime, disease, family situations, alcoholism, drug abuse, teen pregnancy and so forth. Those experiences I gave however were not to demonstrate how bad one race or another is. Merely to demonstrate that oftimes something is considered a racial issue, when it is not a racial issue. Like with having my food served by some man, or woman (unless she has J-Lo's assets) whose pants are hanging down over their hips, showing their underwear. I hate to break it to you but that is not a race issue, that is an ass issue.

    Also, I wasnt encapsulating anyone's essence. I stated plainly people of various cultures should be able to enjoy things unique to their culture, while at the same time understanding that there are times to accept others. So since my point must not have been clearly made, I shall repeat it here.

    It is ok for people of any culture, even if they make up their own culture (as I often do) to practice things in their culture as they wish to do so. It is even ok for them to do so when mingling with people of other cultures. However they must understand, people of all cultures, that there are things in their culture that may be valued, but the same deeds done in another culture would be repudiated. It is ok for me in my home culture, to run around in a towel. When I enter a social culture, such as shopping at the mall, a towel is entirely inappropriate. I must wear shorts or pants, or slacks and a shirt and shoes. When I enter a business culture, such as a sales meeting, then I must wear a suit or something akin to it.

    Micheal Jackson was in some country, I think an Asian one, and gave the peace sign. Well wherever he was, that was the same as giving the middle finger here in the states, and he was jeered. Of course they did not know what he meant by it. And it was a very awkward moment. Now in the future either he is clarifying, or ceasing to use that symbol there.

    The same thing with the men wearing their pants around their asses, sure do it at home, or with your homies, or your girlfriend or at the mall or walkin in the woods. But if you expect to dress like that and make a decent living, well you will be in for a surprise. The same surprise I would be in for if I went into an interview wearing my towel. Except I am not deluded into thinking that dressed so, I am still entitled to the job. I can cry foul and victim all I want, but it is the reality.

    Finally you wish you could claim your German, English and American Indian ancestry but you cant? That is your choice. I know a great many Irish-Africans. When I ask them, time and again, what is your race. First I am told Irish. Then perhaps as an afterthought african. I know a black man who is Scottish. He loves going to celtic festivals dressed in his kilt. And then when someone asks how can he be a Scot, he goes into a very funny immitation of a scotsman discovering the black slave girl out in the field. These people are what they are because *they* choose it to be so. Which is why I have noticed time and again that Irish africans often choose it to be so boldly, the Irish being a damnable race of hard headed ruffians. The only reason you cannot is because you choose not. Fuck all what anyone thinks. When someone asks me to fill in race I always put Irish, not white, not european, IRISH. If you look foolish you think too much what others think of you. But, of course if those other lineages were Irish or Scottish instead of anglo, german and native american, you would not have to be told this, and you would already be declaring your Celtic blood.

    LDH
    I love this. In one thread you are accused of being anti-black, in another I am. <wink> Should we tell them what race our spouses are?

    Any Black Women

    I am looking for black chicks that wish to join my cult as my body guards. You must be self assured, confident, strong, and able to kick whitey's ass. You must also be willing to take by force the culture that has attacked races around the world and stood for so long as a symbol of hatred. The Nazis.

    You will wear Nazi uniforms, wear a swastika, do the Nazi/Roman Salute (The romans actually started it and it was stolen by the Nazis and now I want black women to steal it from the nazis). You will be entitled to go to White Pride rallies, and declare your proud German Heritage, all the while saluting and wearing the swastika. You must not care what any group thinks of you and be willing to stand firm in this most important conviction, that you are Goddess, the others are merely puny humans.

    Finally, and above all, you must *not* be attracted to me in any way whatsoever. In fact it would help if you thought I was incredibly ugly, unintelligent, uncharsimatic, etc. I know this is a tough one, but if you have already failed in this regard, perhaps you can download my picture, look at it, while striking yourself with an electric cattle prod, while sniffing piles of doggie doo doo. Eventually your intense desire to worship me will fade. Then replace my picture with yours, the doo doo with flowers, and the prod with something pleasurable.

    Remember, by joining my cult as my nazi bodygaurds, you are not joining as followers or woshippers, but as leaders and as Goddesses. This thus is a non-sexual position (thus the reasons for the preceding paragraph). You will not be lumped in with the Wives, Concubines, or Slave Girls.

    There are currently 27 positions available.

    Apply in this thread, or any other thread I post to, or in my email, or in chat, or in yahoo chat. Eventually when I have my website up I will have applications online for any applications to fill out there.

    Let's see, three wives, seven concubines, nine slave girls, and twenty-seven black nazi female body guards. I've only got forty-five women to go and my cult is complete

  • Englishman
    Englishman

    Can I just re-iterate something here. I don't care what colour a person is, be he purple or sky-blue-pink. I don't care where they come from, I believe eveyone should be treated equally and receive opportunities according to their merits.

    My main point in starting this thread was to voice my frustration at persons who do not make an effort to adapt to their adopted country's customs and language.

    LDH and Abaddon both made valid points that some persons are inacapable of learning a new language. I gave this some thought and my conclusion is that it is precisely this sort person who should not emigrate to another country, mainly because of the deep unhappiness that they will experience in not being able to communicate with others at all. Such self-inflicted isolation!

    OK, there will always be some exceptions, but in a general sense it is my belief that immigrants should be treated equally, but, if they want equality, then they need to do their bit re customs and language.

    Englishman.

  • Abaddon
    Abaddon

    Nemesis; yes, it's nice to have a decent debate; I hope you will continue to understand I am not atacking you; any sarcasm or vitriol is all directed at ideas, and done in the best tradition of pub debates.

    I was clearly referring to later generations, not 50 years ago. I agree the Jamaicans had to get on with it when they got here, they spoke the lingo, and so that wasn’t barrier. As for wages, they chose to come here after an invitation, we could have gone to many others if we wanted, if they were unfortunately not paid well by some, they had the opportunity of going back Jamaica, most were very grateful for the work at all.
    Actually, you seem to group those immigrants' kids in with later groups of immigrants, so I contend you are possibly grouping according to convenience to your arguement rather than due to actual differentiation. I don't understand your seeming support of the attitude that if people 'choose' to come here, as they are very poor, it's okay to exploit that if you can because of their skin colour... and equally do not understand you ignoring the knock-on effect of growing up as an exploited minority. Also, obviously, it's really easy to save up for the return fair when you're being economically exploited... god, I wish I could plop you down next to a guy from a Cong I used to be in who could tell you exactly how grateful he was for being treated like a second class citizen!

    I disagree “it’s futile”, people wanting to come here to work, pay their due in tax and be independent and not rely on the natives to fork our billions in housing and benefits are to be commended. Those who just come here for a free life are a world apart and deserve all the criticism they get for being such a burden. As for ‘Integration’ you never define what you mean. We are not obliged to invite the world and his brother to come and live here and have us wait on them hand and foot, or to make their life a stroll in the park by handing out billions of pounds yearly in benefits, healthcare, schooling, etc., and house them to boot. Can you imagine if 20 million poverty-stricken Africans decided to just pop over the water and take residence here? Or maybe 50 million Indians, or 100 million Chinese? Our first interest is our own country, not feeding the world. I see you make absolutely no mention of all the white natives who live in destitute poverty, and tens of thousands who are homeless. Funny how more then 99% of London’s rough sleepers are all white natives! If we can’t look after our own millions who live under the poverty line, why the heck are we papering to millions of foreigners and their descendants, and letting more and more in who don’t work, and probably never will, let alone pay back the billions they cost us.
    Nemesis no one is talking abvout inviting the world here, comments like "why should we now allow an unlimited influx of basically (this is not a nice word) parasites", which are distortions (unlimted influx is simply untrue) do your arguement no favours. AII am saying that immigrant groups can be classified by integration more usefully than any other factor. If that term needs explaining, then let me classify it as 'an immigrant group whose spectrum of educational and economic achievement is indistinguishable from the spectrum of educational and economic achievement of natives'. I contend that bad social planning on the part of the government is to blame for the difference, rather than these groups of immigrants 'wanting a free life'.

    In fact I would LOVE to see you prove that certain immigrant groups are here because they want a free life, as it would be the first time it had been proved that people would exist on state subsidy in preference to higher incomes that would be achievable if they were more integrated.

    You make very good points about white English poor, and the homeless; the homeless figures have been cut drastically, one of the really good things the Blair government has done. As regards the white poor... they are PART of the spectrum of educational and economic achievment of ethnically English. Any efforts made by the government to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor have my full support. However, they are not representative of ethnic English educational and economic achievment, whereas many similarly disadvantaged immigrant groups are far closer to the educational and economic norm for that group, as most of that group is 'below average' in the educational and economic factors, whereas only half (obviously, statistically) of the ethnically English are 'below average'. Thus I find no disparity in extra aid being given to immigrant groups;' they need it more, and surely we shouldn't not give needed help to certain groups just because they are immigrants?

    Why should a Bangladeshi, or an Albanian who has contributed absolutely zero to the making, and taxes of this country get anything?
    If you're talking about refugees, it's called 'humanitarianism'. If you're talking about resident immigrants, then I still believe you have to provide evidence, rather than Daily Mail-style editorials! (I'm smiling when I say this, not having a go)

    Seriously, I'd love to see some of the stats I've asked for previously...
    ... statements like this;

    You forget there are millions of poverty stricken white natives who live in the U.K., but who never turn to crime anywhere near the levels of blacks, and that applies to many other races. Taking a naïve approach and blaming it all on poverty with blacks falls flatly down when whites in exactly, or far worse socio-economic situations and educational levels are magnitudes lower in their criminal behaviour than the average black man is.
    ... require it, thus my comment regarding editorials.

    I also find disappointing the fact you choose Jamaica as an example (poor government, economically depressed, high crime and social problems, black people), rather than the former Yugoslavia (poor governments, economically depressed, high crime and social problems, 'white' people), or Colombia (poor government, economically depressed, high crime and social problems, 'white' people). I don't believe you are, but is sounds like you're saying that crime is racially linked, as do your quotes above I have asked for statistical backing to.

    Likewise, this statement;

    The Pakistanis who live in poverty are no worse off than many millions of whites, and they [the white natives] never behave in such an evil psycho manner.
    ... is rather offensive. I don't believe anyone in their right mind would claim there is any difference in the 'evil psycho' behaviour each race can take part in.

    So the BNP were there looking for votes, free speech not allowed now?
    Of course it is NOW, which is more than I could say of an England with a BNP government. Don't kid yourself. The BNP are racists; even if their leader is pretty good at spin and can sound quite repectable, the BNP is an old lady who makes her face up but never wipes her arse. They might now SEEM repectable, having re-branded themselves from the National Front (just like Windscale became Sellafield), but look under their skirts...

    I suppose the Pakis, and Bangladeshis in London were “provoked” to ride around in cars beeping their horns, cheering, and joyfully setting off firecrackers on September 11th all over London and outside their mosques! Oh what lovely people they are,
    9/11 and it's causes and the feelings of some people of Muslim origin are a bit of a seperate issue. However, as you raise it, why is it NOT okay for them to rejoice when they genuinely think a blow has been struck against an oppressor, when it IS okay for Maggie to say 'Rejoyce!', and The Sun to run a headline saying "GOTCHA" when 400 Argentinians die? I don't think either is behaviour for civilised people.

    As for Notting Hill Carnival, no way! That £4,000,000 comes from the police budget for greater London. None of the money spent on ‘confectionaries’ sold at the carnival ever gets back to the police! All the other council tax payers, and I, have to pay by getting a hiked increase in our council taxe bills, meanwhile the metropolitan police made cuts to the ‘on the beat’ officers because they had run out of money! Paying for some dodgy burger, or rice and peas off some black guy at carnival does nothing for the economy, or replaces the massive police resources that were used up for a two-day event. I’m sure all the people who got raped, robbed, and attacked last year were so grateful there were less police on the streets due to the budget being splurged on a two day black carnival.
    At some point, even if the 'retailer' doesn't declare earnings, there is a fiscal benefit to the treasury, as the goods don't materialise from nowhere (unless of course you claim ALL the beer, all the burgers, all the whistles, all the glow sticks, all the Jamaican Pasties, were stolen). Have you actually been to the Carnival? Have you wondered why crime was pretty well controlled for many years, and then after a change in policing, it suddenly went through the roof? Do you foget that in England it is pretty much accepted that you can march, protesting about whatever you like? Why is it okay for the police to spend money on people protesting x, y or z, and not on a street party? Are you similarly opposed to the Policing costs of the 'Countryside Alliance', for example?

    I think you've ignored the point I was trying to make regarding reporting race-related crime; i.e., that many 'people of colour' don't bother, as the police have very succesfully made themselves appear extremely partial to the way they investigate things, as determined by the victim's colour. Yet another factor that would stop one feeling integrated and make them feel alienated, and not due to anything they did personally.

    I also think your suggestion that if Damilola had been white there would have been a significant difference in the effort applied to finding the killers (if indeed it was a murder) is erroneous; the Met may have gone overboard slightly, but after Stephen Lawrence this is understandable, as they have no credibility with minority communities in London and saw the incident as a possible way of restoring their reputation. The assumption was he was killed, and would have been the same if he'd been green. Whether that assumption was correct, or whether the verdict was right, are different issues.

    Thanks for an enjoyable debate, I look forward to the stats you mention plus others I have asked for.

    All the best

  • LDH
    LDH

    Hygh,

    Naaaahhhhh. Let em stew in their juices. Besides, Spartacus and Carmel already have me written off as a bigoted racist!

    [8>]

    Lisa

    (ps, Derek can you believe that?

  • jwsons
    jwsons

    Someone wrote:

    :
    Can I just re-iterate something here. I don't care what colour a person is, be he purple or sky-blue-pink. I don't care where they come from, I believe eveyone should be treated equally and receive opportunities according to their merits.
    My main point in starting this thread was to voice my frustration at persons who do not make an effort to adapt to their adopted country's customs and language.

    LDH and Abaddon both made valid points that some persons are inacapable of learning a new language. I gave this some thought and my conclusion is that it is precisely this sort person who should not emigrate to another country

    I agree with those words

    And.. the Fact is:
    When the British first land to Oceanic continent (Australia + islands).
    The first thing they tried to do is to kill as much the local people as they can (we call them Aborigines here, similar to the Indian in State). Yes they tried to wipe out all the Aborigines at Tasmania state instead of tried to learn Aborigines language ! (Is it fair to suggest all the immigrants from Italy arrive UK and kill all Anglo-Saxon, then teach Italian ?). Eventhough long before British, the Chinese Gold-diggers already been in Tasmania around 4,000 years ago (according to a comment by Mr. John Law, a talk-show host of 2UE-radio about the existence of Dingo-dog came from China and we also have the word 'dinkum' in 'fair-dinkum' from these mine-diggers, whenever they find out the pure gold, they raise it up and shout 'chinkung,' means 'real, genuine, 100%'), they didn't try to wipe out the local people from this continent; and latter on, the French came but they didn't grasp this land, too (they left a lot of places that they named them in French, ie. Brighton le Sands, Matraville, Gladesville and all -ville).
    If the British can not learn the local language (Aborigine Australian), should they come to this Oceanic continent?

  • ISP
    ISP

    E-man.....the national dish of the UK is............Chicken Tikka Masala.

    Go figure!

    ISP

  • Nemesis
    Nemesis

    Hi Abaddon,

    I don't understand your seeming support of the attitude that if people 'choose' to come here, as they are very poor, it's okay to exploit that if you can because of their skin colour... and equally do not understand you ignoring the knock-on effect of growing up as an exploited minority. Also, obviously, it's really easy to save up for the return fair when you're being economically exploited...

    Humm. . . You seem to be using some rather circular reasoning here and a little straw man argument. I don’t remember using the word “exploit” at all, or ever implying it. To massively assume they were all “exploited because of their skin colour” is not only unfounded, but also presumptuous. You then follow on the theme as if I somehow approve of exploitation, or agree that they were exploited—I don’t. Most were very, very grateful to get some work. You forget there were millions of native workers who got crappy pay back in the 50s, not just a tiny minority of Jamaican immigrants. I do agree with you that they certainly had it harder than now, but that is life. New culture, new country, of course it’s not going to be a sudden middle class white lifestyle, they got far more help than their own country gives, and had opportunities they hadn’t earned and that they would never get in Jamaica. I most definitely do not think they were “exploited” at all.

    In fact I would LOVE to see you prove that certain immigrant groups are here because they want a free life, as it would be the first time it had been proved that people would exist on state subsidy in preference to higher incomes that would be achievable if they were more integrated.

    Your reasoning is a conditional classification, “free life/integration”, rather than as they are regardless of ‘what ifs’. There are tens of thousands of bogus asylum seekers who travel half way around the globe just to get here and get the benefits—many have admitted it—many each day try to get here via the channel tunnel for purely economic reasons, and not due to real asylum claims. Others come via organised smuggling gangs. They are not stupid, they know a hotel awaits them when they get here, not a puke covered pavement that the destitute natives have to put up with! They know they will be fed, treated like VIP victims, given money, clothes, handouts galore, and queue jump the housing registered and get the flats/houses that were built and paid for by the natives, for the natives, thus pushing more destitute natives to the back of the queue. The fake asylum seekers/Africans/Jamaicans/Bangladeshis etc. cost the native taxpayer billions of pounds yearly, and they have no legal or moral right to be here. Simply saying, “well if we spend hundreds of millions on educating them, housing them, teaching them, they might one day get a job in The City” is not a reasonable perspective. We are under no obligation to pay one single penny to someone who feels they may have a better life by screwing the system, and making false bogus claims. If they wish to come here and work, there are legal routes to do this, many do, they are qualified, they can speak English, and they come here to work and contribute, not scrounge off the state costing us immense amounts of money. No one is entitled to just come here and “integrate” if they expect the native British to pay for them, educate them, house them, and give them an easy ride to the top.

    However, they are not representative of ethnic English educational and economic achievment, whereas many similarly disadvantaged immigrant groups are far closer to the educational and economic norm for that group, as most of that group is 'below average' in the educational and economic factors, whereas only half (obviously, statistically) of the ethnically English are 'below average'. Thus I find no disparity in extra aid being given to immigrant groups;' they need it more, and surely we shouldn't not give needed help to certain groups just because they are immigrants?

    I don’t see the comparison at all; we are back to the new canteen worker and the 50 years managing director illustration. Yes we may be better off, and it’s taken us hundred of years of hard work to get there. Country X may not be there, but that is not our responsibility or problem. You seem to be advocating a totally false concept of “equality”, as if the new canteen worker who stated the job two days before should also be on £200,000 per annum, just the same as the MD is, and lets call it “equality”—No, It’s more akin to communism! They have no right to expect us to dole out billions of pounds in bringing them up to our county’s level; it’s their responsibility to do it before they come here not after. It’s just going backwards to the racist “positive discrimination” stance. What will they gain in the end when all the natives know they don’t deserve the job, and resent the hell out of them, and know they only got where they are due to the massive undeserved help they got from the natives. All their so-called ‘achievements’ would be in vain, as they would only be due to massive bias in help, and not due to any skill, or merit on the immigrant’s part. Why on earth should natives hard earned money go on some new uneducated immigrant who has merited zero help, and contributed zero tax, when we can’t even make sure our own native population is properly housed, fed, and educated to empower their own lives?

    If you're talking about refugees, it's called 'humanitarianism'
    No Adaddon, its called stupidity when the vast majority are not refuges at all, but bogus. They are not the only ones, Africans, West-Indians, Bangladeshis, etc. are all coming here and expecting a red carpet and a free home, money and undeserved help—and all at the natives’ expense.

    rather than the former Yugoslavia (poor governments, economically depressed, high crime and social problems, 'white' people), or Colombia (poor government, economically depressed, high crime and social problems, 'white' people).
    As for Yugoslavia, that’s hardy a reasonable comparison to Jamaica, with a war torn situation that was Yugoslavia over the past decade or so. Wartime is not exactly “normal” cultural behaviour, but poverty is. As for white, so what! Are they English? No. As for Colombia, the same goes, they have had civil war for decades pushing up their crime and death rates. And where on earth did you get the white bit from? Most Columbians are Hispanic mix of Spanish and Portuguese [about 60% mestizo], the rest are Portuguese or Spanish [20%], the rest are mulatto, then black, and mixes. Not exactly Anglo-Saxon white.

    9/11 and it's causes and the feelings of some people of Muslim origin are a bit of a separate issue. However, as you raise it, why is it NOT okay for them to rejoice when they genuinely think a blow has been struck against an oppressor, when it IS okay for Maggie to say 'Rejoyce!', and The Sun to run a headline saying "GOTCHA" when 400 Argentinians die? I don't think either is behaviour for civilised people.
    Come on Abaddon, that is hardly a fair comparison. Yes, I agree the celebration of death is terrible, but your examples are worlds apart. The Falkland islands are a British dependency; they are part of Great Britain. They were illegally invaded by Argentineans, are we not supposed to stop foreign invaders? We would all be speaking German now if we hadn’t in the last war! We had no choice to go to war, they caused that not us. Those who died were Argentinean soldiers, not civilians. They knew what they were doing when they invaded, and made the choice to fight with us, and knew the possible consequences of invading our land. How is that the same as a bunch of fanatical Muslims flying planes full of innocent civilians in to buildings full of more civilians and killing many thousands? There is no comparison. The twin towers were not full of American soldiers who had bombed Iraq, they were full of innocent civilians—there is no comparison. And what makes it worse when the Muslims here were dancing the streets and celebrating the deaths with fireworks outside their mosques; we got called “racist” for just wanting to report it! The London Evening Standard paper was pressured into not reporting the events, as it was deemed racist, by whom? Right-wing Muslims! How ironic is that!
    Have you actually been to the Carnival? Have you wondered why crime was pretty well controlled for many years, and then after a change in policing, it suddenly went through the roof?
    Yes I have been many times, and watched how it has changed over the years. You can’t be serious when you blame the police! They are not the ones mugging, robbing, sexually assaulting, and stabbing people! You make black people sound like grenades, ‘pull the pin and stand well back’. They are totally responsible for their chosen actions. Yardy problems have help escalate the crime problems, and in comparison to other festivals the carnival had much higher crime levels than any white festivals, even if you extrapolate the numbers to the same levels as the carnival.
    many 'people of colour' don't bother, as the police have very succesfully made themselves appear extremely partial to the way they investigate things, as determined by the victim's colour.
    The figures are not based on prosecutions, those figures are call ‘clean up figures’, all they have to do is report it, and it gets logged. Clean up is irrelevant, they still get their figures logged, and they go on the stats.
    I also think your suggestion that if Damilola had been white there would have been a significant difference in the effort applied to finding the killers (if indeed it was a murder) is erroneous; the Met may have gone overboard slightly, but after Stephen Lawrence this is understandable, as they have no credibility with minority communities in London and saw the incident as a possible way of restoring their reputation. The assumption was he was killed, and would have been the same if he'd been green. Whether that assumption was correct, or whether the verdict was right, are different issues.
    “Overboard slightly”, must be the biggest understatements I have seen. I have to admit, I need to make a correction on the cost of the case, it was not £2,500,000, as I said in a previous post, that figure was just for the primary police investigation, the cost including the court case is estimated to be well over £10,000,000 of our taxes! (That’s $14,573,792 for those in the U.S.) No white person has ever got even 10% of that on his or her case! There were 190 murders in London over the past year, and not one of the white victims had got anywhere near even 1 million (10%) spent on their case! As for restoring their reputation, well that is down the pan as the two low lifes they let off had been arrested umpteen times, for sexual assault, burglary, robbery, smashing up peoples houses and then jeering “we’re untouchables”. And now the little shits are going to probably sue the police for wrongful arrest, and get more bucket loads of taxpayer’s money! If you’re white you don’t get squat in publicity or funding to find who the killer is, but if you’re a Nigerian who possibly falls and cuts himself you get a £10,000,000 investigation, and 200 record police officers, and £50,000 reward, and mass excessive TV and media coverage all paid for by the natives, who by the way suffer the most in all crime areas, and get the least help and publicity.

    I also don’t feel there is true freedom of speech, just look at the endless rhetoric, insults, ad-hominem attacks, that have erupted since Le Pen got so many votes. Regardless of what you think about him, it just demonstrates how left-wing hypocrites behave if they don’t like the results democracy brings—they create riots, petrol bombs, threats, and a deluge of hypocritical propaganda, just the same shit we saw in Bradford from the Pakistani Muslims when the British National Party went there to offer more help for whites in poverty, and to give some publicly to the whites who were getting robbed, and attacked on a daily basis by Pakistanis. Don’t you find it strange when left-wing fanatics go rioting it’s “ok” by the media and politicians, but if it had been the reverse and they were right-wing rioters, all you would hear from the left-wing is “look at these criminal thugs! This is why we cannot have right-wing Nazis in power”. The hypocrisy sickens me; they are just like the bloody Watch Tower. So good at calling for balance, democracy, free speech and PC discussions, and then doing the exact opposite when they don't get what they want, their animal hypocrisy comes to the fore and they go out on a propaganda spree with riots! Even you were sucked in and blamed the sick Pakistanis rioters on the British National Party for just supporting white natives! I would not be surprised at all if the BNP get voted into Bradford, or Oldham, and the Pakistanis have only themselves to blame if that happens.

    The crime figures are out now for 2001/2002 but the race figures that go with them are not out for a few months yet (They are collated by a different section) And I will post them up when they are released with Section 95. Here is a quick summary of some of the latest crime figures for London, year 2001/2002.

    Murder 190
    GBH 5,406
    ABH 36,891
    Common Assault 77,083
    Offensive Weapon 7,989
    Harassment 25,582
    Sexual Offences 9,944
    Other Violence 8,218
    Rape 2,498
    Robbery of Personal Property 49,446
    Robbery of Business Property 4,101
    Snatches 20,541
    Burglary in a Dwelling 73,931
    Burglary in Other Buildings 42,096
    Motor Vehicle Crime 177,188
    Theft/Taking of M/V 62,114
    Theft from a Vehicle 112,146
    M/V Interference & Tampering 2,928
    Theft from Person 48,510
    Picking Pockets etc 27,969
    Theft from Shops 42,522
    Theft/Taking of Pedal Cycles 14,340
    Other Theft 158,075
    Handling Stolen Goods 2,937
    Fraud or Forgery 87,873
    Criminal Damage 147,804
    Drug Trafficking 4,386
    Possession of Drugs 21,543
    Other Drug Offences 279
    Other Notifiable Offences 11,026
    (Welcome to London, and have a nice day!)

  • jwsons
    jwsons

    And 100% of them are committed by immigrants w/ handguns import by second class citizens. Incredible !

  • yrs2long
    yrs2long

    Sorry to disappoint you, Derek, but my use of the phrase, 'the white man' was not meant to be understood as you obviously took it. It's a phrase I have heard used often by my parents and others in my culture and understood it to mean, 'the powers that be' or the white men who are running things in the country. Certainly I don't mean to say all white people or even all white men.

    Secondly, I must apologize because it really was reading Nemesis' comments that really annoyed me as he gave as-of-yet unsubstantiated figures and also assigned attitudes and intentions to the groups he spoke of which he really has no way of knowing. It's one thing to say that there are this or that many unemployed [insert race] in the UK but quite another to state that the reason this is so is because they want to be taken care of and don't want to work and so on. This is not a quote nor his exact sentiments but they run along these lines and I am not going back to look them up. Also, how can he claim this or that group is more racist when racism includes racial prejudice and this is not something easily measured. What was his basis for that statement, the hate crime rate? Would he not also have to include housing and employment discrimination in his racism calculations?

    I also apologize to Englishman for getting slightly off topic on your thread.

    Hyghlandyr- I never called you a racist. You can go on and on as you like (and you do) about the glories of being Irish or Celtic - it's your right and I really have no issue whatsoever with that nor with anyone else who enjoys or wants to celebrate their heritage.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit