White supremacy is an ideology of peace

by OneEyedJoe 36 Replies latest social current

  • road to nowhere
    road to nowhere

    Anyone who thinks all those non whites are just poor misunderstood souls ought to move into their neighborhood. There is a gang mentality in a lot of minority groups, same as a mob mentality in a bunch of white skinned.

    Go to any hospital and you will find a lot of decent caring people of all colors. This points to people needing to have a purpose. Too many have been shut out, and now want to stay victims. My doctor is a well mannered articulate smart brown woman. (and very pretty)

    I think this is getting muddled, hope someone can follow my thoughts on good people that exist.

  • Simon
    You think the modern ones wouldn't lynch people if they could get away with it?

    Would Muslims kill all jews and non-muslims if they could get away with it?

  • Bad_Wolf


    What is the difference between a white person who hates other races, like supremist interviewed on tv who said he hated this black lady because she is black, etc. VS white people who don't hate other races but want their country to remain mostly white and not over run by minorities?

    I have seen both lines of thinking and they seem to be tied together. Japan put controls in immigration. Middle Easterns are very unfriendly, the islamic countries, to any outsiders and outside religions. No parts of Africa are being overpopulated by whites or Asians. Nor latin countries. It seems only the predominately "white" countries are in danger of being over populated by minorities in which whites will not be a majority in any country.

    What is the difference between white supremacy and the other concern? If the other isn't white supremacy what title would be given to that?

  • LoveUniHateExams

    Good questions, Bad Wolf. The first is white supremacism, the other is nativism or nationalism.

    White supremacism is bad, i.e. hating black people simply for being black. Other forms of supremacism are also bad. ISIS are Islamic supremacists, hating and killing the other. The WTS are also supremacists. Think about it: their belief is that their religion is the only true one and their God will kill all non-JWs soon.

    The other, nativism, is entirely proper. I'm white and I live in the UK, a white-majority country.

    And I want it to stay that way. Before any SJWs start howling 'racist!' and reach for the smelling salts, no I'm not actually racist. I don't hate the Black-, Chinese-, Indian-British people already here. Although I'd say there are issues with integration, most people from the ethnic minorities are integrated fairly well and speak good English.

    And if I met, say, a nice Black girl and we clicked, I'd date her/start a relationship/marry her. In fact, I did actually meet a nice Black girl at uni. She had a nice, friendly personality and curves to die for. We met up a few times and went out on a few dinner dates. Nothing came of it because I wanted to focus on my studies - I hadn't moved 200 miles north to fall in love or get laid. But I'm glad I met her and knew her for a while.

    However, I don't want whites to become a minority in their own country.

    It isn't just whites who are like this. When African countries gained independence, Francophone countries such as Zaire shouted "Afrique aux Africains!" - Africa for the Africans! And by 'Africans' I don't think they meant white people.

    And then there's Japan. The main ethnicity and culture are the Yamato people's. And Japan wants to keep it that way. A hate crime? No. Supremacist? No. Discriminatory? No, as long as immigrants integrate, accept the dominance of Japanese (Yamato) culture, and learn the Japanese language (Nihongo).

    The word 'racist' has been said so often and misapplied that it has lost all meaning. So, some trendy people are starting to use 'nativist' as a similar label and way of shutting down debate. I've seen it in the Guardian a few times. But I doubt it'll catch on - virtually every group of people are 'nativist' and it is entirely proper.

  • Diogenesister
    Sure, I can see how it is less of an indictment of someone's moral integrity if they were a white supremacist in 1860 vs today, but that makes the underlying ideology no less repugnant.

    one-eyed JoeYou're right. I think historians and sociologists/philosophers etc will look at the particular time in history and if there were any people who were raising consciousness against something, they will judge that a particular individual was more reprehensible in believing it. So for example someone who lived in Bible times is less likely to be judged for accepting slavery than someone who lived in the late 1800s.

    Therefore, there is no excuse for violent Islamicists who live today. Period.

    By the way, LoL! Can't believe you felt the need to explain it was a parody!

  • Bad_Wolf

    loveunihatexams - Great answer Loveunihateexams. I feel I am one too. I didn't hit the profile of supremist either because I don't feel whites are 'superior' nor hate other races. I travel a lot, love those I meet. I've dated black, hispanic, whites, etc. But I don't want my country overrun by immigrants. One big concern is because I'm seeing them push for socialism and communism. An immigrant or illegal immigrant comes to the USA with NOTHING, ofcourse they will go along w/ the left and push for high minimum wage, free education, and all sorts of 'free' stuff at the expense of the middle and upper class. They arrived having contributed NOTHING, I don't feel they should have the power to dictate to those who have built and made America great power to change all of that before they have even contributed anything. And if all these policies are enacted, I think it would destroy this countries economy. And the other points I brought out in the original post.

  • OneEyedJoe
    By the way, LoL! Can't believe you felt the need to explain it was a parody!

    Apparently not only was this needed, but apparently I should've led with it and put it in bold.

Share this