NationStates Jolt Archive

I never cease to be puzzled by KKKers and religious bigots. Why would anyone want to live in country where everybody is of the same race, culture and religion?

I grew up in a small city where nearly everybody was white like me, and that was a big boring drawback. I don't even like to visit there anymore. Believe me that there was more crime there too.

As soon as I could, I started living in big, multi-cultural cities. I enjoy them 100% better for that reason plus all the diversity of thought.

I would.

I dont know, but lookathis!

Garaj Mahal
Deadly


Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 666

I dont know, but lookathis!

Garaj Mahal
Deadly


Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 666
It's a sign.

I wouldn't mind, so long as no one wanted to immigrate here. Japan, actually, is about 99% homogenous.

Left-wingers avoid mention of Japanese immigration policies, which would be considered far-right to the average Western media-slave.

Left-wingers avoid mention of Japanese immigration policies, which would be considered far-right to the average Western media-slave.
That is because Japan is afraid of anything foreign. Immigration policy is just one area that they are tight about. Until recently, the Japanese business community was very clubbish. Fortunatly, it has somewhat changed, but Japan subsidizes its industry quite a bit. While Japanese companies can compete abroad, until about ten years ago, it was hard for a foreign company to compete in Japan. The list goes on in what else they're tight about.

That WOULD be freaking boring, living somewhere that was that homogeneous.

I've lived in many places across the U.S., and I AM more bored in the places that have less diversity. It just isn't as interesting to me, there are fewer differing perspectives, and in general life just doesn't seem to be as exciting in the really homogeneous places.

Outside of Austrailia, Canada and the US and maybe a few other countries, all nations are mono-ethnic... It's not such a bad thing. Some people are happy in their countries because it's what they know...

The poll doesn't have enough choices. I live in a place with diversity and it's fine. I don't know what it would be like to live in a homogeneous area but I don't think in terms of ethnicity so I don't think I'd really care. As long as I like the people where I'm at, I don't care what their culture is. I suppose it's kind of sad that I don't care about culture. It can be very interesting being around other cultures. It makes you more open to things that you're not used to. It's just not on the top of my list of priorities.

As far as I'm concerned, people from any culture are welcome to live in Canada. I won't mind in the slightest. But at the same time, I've spent most of my life in 99.9% homogenous communities, and have never found it to be a problem. So really, either way is acceptable to me.

That is because Japan is afraid of anything foreign. Immigration policy is just one area that they are tight about. Until recently, the Japanese business community was very clubbish. Fortunatly, it has somewhat changed, but Japan subsidizes its industry quite a bit. While Japanese companies can compete abroad, until about ten years ago, it was hard for a foreign company to compete in Japan. The list goes on in what else they're tight about.
Thats not about beeing afraid.'The Japanese are just more "territorial".

Japan has always been very anti-Imperialist... except for World War II.

Eh, so?
I really don't care provided that they are homogenous in the area of not trying to shoot, stab, rape, and/or rob me.
Unfortunately such a society wouldn't have politicians, and then that society would . . . lack, um . . .
It would lack . . .
It wouldn't have . . .
Well damn, I don't know what politicians are good for, other than target practice and the occasional human sacrifice, but what ever it is, I'm sure it's important.

I grew up in a small city where nearly everybody was white like me, and that was a big boring drawback. I don't even like to visit there anymore. Believe me that there was more crime there too.

As soon as I could, I started living in big, multi-cultural cities. I enjoy them 100% better for that reason plus all the diversity of thought.

Right, New York City is well known for its incredibly low crime rate. Which is why the NYPD is one of the toughest police departments in the US

The Japanese don't like non-Japanese. Well the younger ones like America. But Japan's population is on the decline and some companies needed laborers to work. But they didn't want to bring in non-Japanese workers so they brought in Brazilians of japanese descent. However, everyone was suprised and offended by the way that the Brazilians carried themsleves. the Japanese don't even like Japnese from not-Japan. When I was visiting relatives Japan I had a lot of fun though, even though the society is pretty homogenous, but the vibe from city to city is totally different. I went to Nagasaki, Fukuoka, Tokyo and Kyoto. Other than everyone being a nip, they didn't have much in common.

Homogenous does not necessarily mean intolerant...my husband is from Chile, and I've lived there too, and I was shocked when I first got there to see that pretty much everyone had black hair, brown eyes and Chilean features. I rarely saw any black, asian (a few whites) or arabic people. However, the Chileans I met were incredibly well informed about what was going on in the world, and had an incredible sympathy for the situation of Natives in Canada and the United States (as well as other aboriginal groups around the world), and were horrified by the racism that they felt was rampant in many "multicultural" nations. The fact is, not too many people want to immigrate to places like Chile, simply because it's a poorer (not poor) country, and places like the U.S, Canada, Britain etc always look better. Our nations are more mixed because we are newer, and need immigration to keep our population growth on the positive side. However, despite our protestations that we are diverse and respect differences, racism in Canada (for example) is hidden well, but still alive and strong. Racism in the U.S is infamous. Who knows really....maybe if Chile had more people from other cultures they'd be lynching them or putting them on reservations too... (ok, they don't treat the Mapuche Indians all that well)...hmmm...still, to be honest, I encounter more racism at home than I ever did abroad. Maybe they just hide it better?????

Left-wingers avoid mention of Japanese immigration policies, which would be considered far-right to the average Western media-slave.

Actually, the media's starting to report on the looming problems Japan is facing. They aren't having nearly enough kids to replace their rapidly aging population, yet they stubbornly won't allow immigration either. It's an impossible dilemma.

Japan is literally faced with having no working young people to support their society/infrastructure if the birthrate stays at its present level. And their economy wont permit the government to give the necessary cash incentives to get people to start breeding - even if they wanted to.

This situation will unarguably force Japan to permit immigration within a few short years. Anybody want to move there?

Homogenous does not necessarily mean intolerant...

Agreed, when you talk of a place that has always been that way.

I was referring to people who are lucky enough to already live in multi-cultural societies, but pig-headedly spurn all the personal enrichment that they could be getting from knowing their neighbours.

Instead they go around in a cloud of resentment, dreaming their stupid little dreams of some "Fatherland" where everybody is exactly like them.

The Japanese don't like non-Japanese..

Bullshit. I have plenty of Japanese friends. Immigrants and former exchange students.

you're damn right id live in a country where everyone was like me. no dangerous minorities with gold teeth busting into my car to steal things and no more damn indian non-native english speaking customer sales reps thaqt i cant understand worht a shit. it would be great, and if you dotn agree with me you're stupid and deserve to have your car hijacked and beaten because you decided to drive into the projects because you're nice and safe white suburban neighborhood was too "boring" and not diverse enough.

Japan has always been very anti-Imperialist... except for World War II.

i tought that china and japan got a lot of problems even before WW2 for japan imperialistic ideas...


cheers

Japan has always been very anti-Imperialist... except for World War II.
Not true. They have always had an emperor and WW2 was not the first time they tried to build an empire. See the 16th century.

Hey, Yeah Euclid. How did you manage to get in?
Im not reluctant to mention japan's immigration policies. It just rarely comes up. But its not surprising. Unfortunately the Japanese tend to be prejudiced against a lot of their neighbours. Case in point, Korea and China.

you're damn right id live in a country where everyone was like me. no dangerous minorities with gold teeth busting into my car to steal things and no more damn indian non-native english speaking customer sales reps thaqt i cant understand worht a shit. it would be great, and if you dotn agree with me you're stupid and deserve to have your car hijacked and beaten because you decided to drive into the projects because you're nice and safe white suburban neighborhood was too "boring" and not diverse enough.

I am white. My wife is not, my boss is not, the city I live in is only about half-white. I've never had a single "race-related" problem in my 44-year life, which is a good deal longer than yours I'd guess.

Glad to see your posts remain as consistently idiotic as all your other ones. Nice spelling too - as befits a loser pea-brain like yourself.

Bullshit. I have plenty of Japanese friends. Immigrants and former exchange students.
Go to Japan, live there, and then see how they treat you there.

As a Uniculturalist I would like to live in a country with one all encompassing culture instead of divided communities pretending they live in another country to each other. However, this would not include expulsion of religious groups and different communities so that you only have a WASP type culture like the KKK want, it would be an intergration of all into one. This would also not include stagnation of ideas, politically people would still have the same differing ideas as occurs in homogenous communities today.

One of the reasons I'm neither a conservative nor a liberal...

I mean leave it to liberals to say that homogeneous society is boring. Oh yes, we all crave diversity. But really I fail to see your point at all. Is it that you crave a rainbow of different colors walking around on the street or is it simply that you assume that if everyone in a city is white, they all are the same... that they all think the same, act the same and talk the same... that there is no individuality there.

And then again a homogeneous society of mostly white people in a city automatically makes them KKKers and nazis. Um yeah ok. Then you move on to say that theres more crime in a homogeneous city. Give me sufficient proof of that... and not some altered statistics from some site thats called www.whitepeoplekillmore.com... but an actual one.

I'm sorry for being so brash, but thats the way I feel.

And then again a homogeneous society of mostly white people in a city automatically makes them KKKers and nazis. Um yeah ok. Then you move on to say that theres more crime in a homogeneous city.

Please read my post more carefully before you jump to conclusions.

I didn't say that a homogenous sity was automatically racist, only to suggest that people who desperately *prefer* to live in a homogenous place might be.

Nor did I say that all homogenous cities had more crime. I stated that in my *personal experience* of living first in a homogenous small city and then in a larger multi-cultural one, I saw more *per-capita* crime in the first city.

I am white. My wife is not, my boss is not, the city I live in is only about half-white. I've never had a single "race-related" problem in my 44-year life, which is a good deal lot longer than yours I'd guess.

Glad to see your posts remain as consistently idiotic as all your other ones. Nice spelling too - as befits a loser pea-brain like yourself.

*squeals in enjoyment* Yay, I was hoping somebody would respond!

If we lived in a homogenuous society, there wouldn't be any good chinese resturaunts anymore.

:(

Your poll is "just a tad" unbalanced. :D

Why not. I don´t see a reason why a homogenous society should be inferior to an heterogenous society. After all: only because people may be all of the same race or nationality they don´t all think the same. Aside of the fact that also people of one nationality can have a lot of differences, depending on the region they come from and the dialect they speak, different religions e.g.

Iceland is a pretty homogenous society. I liked it there, actually. Well: it was summer, hehe.
But surely whats the problem with it.

Well, the way the poll is asked is showing the "tolerance" of this "liberal" Canadian.

Why would anyone want to live in country where everybody is of the same race, culture and religion?

Thats a question that both in and out of context still seems to be strange. I would prefer to live in a homogeneous city. Does that make me racist? Do I hate blacks, latinos and/or asians? And your poll seems to imply that it does make me racist.

And the crime thing... it perplexes me how one would know how there would be more crime in a city if you just live in it.

I would prefer to live in a homogeneous city. Does that make me racist? Do I hate blacks, latinos and/or asians? And your poll seems to imply that it does make me racist.

And the crime thing... it perplexes me how one would know how there would be more crime in a city if you just live in it.

I think you need to ask yourself why you want to live apart from people who aren't like you. Why cut yourself off from reality? Maturity, wisdom and a richer personality are just a few of the things one can get from interacting with other cultures. To think that everybody who isn't white is a criminal or is difficult to talk to isn't even remotely true! Come out from hiding, go meet some different people and open your mind - it's the right way to live.

Whenever I visit Atlanta I go through these beautiful green neighbourhoods that all the white people abandoned rather than live next door to blacks. How could they be so dumb? Those neighbourhoods are still safe, clean and prosperous - Atlanta is famous for its well-educated black middle-class. I'd gladly have them as neighbours and friends.

Re crime, I just don't get your logic that living in a place gives you no idea of what crime goes on there. That doesn't make sense because when you live in a place you know better what goes on there than if you don't live there, right?

Right, New York City is well known for its incredibly low crime rate. Which is why the NYPD is one of the toughest police departments in the US
Actually, crime in New York City is down to levels last seen in the 1960s. It's certainly not as bad as ten years ago, not by a longshot.

I think you need to ask yourself why you want to live apart from people who aren't like you. Why cut yourself off from reality? Maturity, wisdom and a richer personality are just a few of the things one can get from interacting with other cultures. To think that everybody who isn't white is a criminal or is difficult to talk to isn't even remotely true! Come out from hiding, go meet some different people and open your mind - it's the right way to live.

Whenever I visit Atlanta I go through these beautiful green neighbourhoods that all the white people abandoned rather than live next door to blacks. How could they be so dumb? Those neighbourhoods are still safe, clean and prosperous - Atlanta is famous for its well-educated black middle-class. I'd gladly have them as neighbours and friends.

Re crime, I just don't get your logic that living in a place gives you no idea of what crime goes on there. That doesn't make sense because when you live in a place you know better what goes on there than if you don't live there, right?

Well I think you need to ask yourself why you want to live around a heterogeneous population. Is it because you wish to conform to the liberal ideaology of "we love everyone!"? Or is it simply you believe that the only real difference in personality from yours can come from someone of a difference ethnicity?

And who is cutting himself from reality? There are actually not that many places of complete diversity in the world. There are and always will be neighborhoods that are labeled Little BLANK. There will always be primarily Latino neighborhoods, primarily white, primarily black, and so on. And its common to see this.

Now you think that living in a city that is a melting pot of different cultures exposes you to the many different cultures when in essense it doesnt. No matter how many different ethnicities live in one city, they will eventually conform to a central society of that city and adopt a multi-influenced singular culture and behaviour. IF you want to actually exposer yourself to the differnt cultures of the world, you should visit their actual countries and live there for a week or so. That will bolster maturity, wisdom and a richer personality.

Essentially there is very little difference between a white guy and a black guy who lived in the same atmosphere, behaviourily. Now you may ask so why would I prefer to live in a homogeneous society. What makes it any better? Well the fact is there are very few things that make it any better than a heterogeneous one. So it is essentially a matter of preference. But the thing is I am tired of people preaching that a heterogeneous "multi-cultural" society is any better than a homogeneous one.

And why must you bring up stereotypes into this conversation? I did not stereotype any race... if you notice, and I personally don't.

And regarding that crime thing, there is always a matter of circumstances, so one's view based solely on "personal experience" is often skewed. Sure it may give a person some sort of general idea of the crime rate in the city but why do you think complicated studies are conducted on this topic? It's very easy to have the wrong view in such matters. Now with such personal experiences people tend to create stereotypes in fact. So if say some KKK nazi type never saw an educated, intelligent black man he assumes that there are very few such people. Thats why I dont think its a good idea to depend on pure personal experiences. I mean its possible to have a good idea of crime rate in a tiny neighborhood maybe... but then city-wise... there are many good and bad neighborhoods... so thats why I brought that up.

I really couldn't care less either way. I'm a minority where I live, I don't really care. It wouldn't change anything if I became part of the majority either.

I see no reason why anyone cares about these sort of things....

your poll is biased and leading. You created a poll where you set the outcome before anyone has taken it by insulting the intelligence of people who disagree and elevating those who agree.

That is because Japan is afraid of anything foreign. Immigration policy is just one area that they are tight about. Until recently, the Japanese business community was very clubbish. Fortunatly, it has somewhat changed, but Japan subsidizes its industry quite a bit. While Japanese companies can compete abroad, until about ten years ago, it was hard for a foreign company to compete in Japan. The list goes on in what else they're tight about.


For all their lack of diversity, Japan is doing fine. They don't need immigrants to do the "Jobs nobody else wants", they do their own work... Japense society is quite safe, and their culture is not bastardized. They are a pure and a proud people. If only the West could take lessons from Japan... Japan is today what the West was 100+ years ago.

I never cease to be puzzled by KKKers and religious bigots. Why would anyone want to live in country where everybody is of the same race, culture and religion?

I grew up in a small city where nearly everybody was white like me, and that was a big boring drawback. I don't even like to visit there anymore. Believe me that there was more crime there too.

As soon as I could, I started living in big, multi-cultural cities. I enjoy them 100% better for that reason plus all the diversity of thought.



Whites don't all think the same... We're not zombies you know... You don't need to go to other races to get different opinions, except usually on racial issues!

My 99% white city has had 1 murder in 15 years, 2 bank robberies if 10 years, and most of the police are just usually chasing loitering teens away from the mall parking lots etc.

My mother who lives in a city about 1/3 my size (But the city if 50% black) has had over 10 murders in the last year, and hundreds of assaults, dozens of robberies.

It's a shame people like you just can't tell the truth.

Whites don't all think the same... We're not zombies you know... You don't need to go to other races to get different opinions, except usually on racial issues!

My 99% white city has had 1 murder in 15 years, 2 bank robberies if 10 years, and most of the police are just usually chasing loitering teens away from the mall parking lots etc.

My mother who lives in a city about 1/3 my size (But the city if 50% black) has had over 10 murders in the last year, and hundreds of assaults, dozens of robberies.

It's a shame people like you just can't tell the truth.

http://www.amren.com/colrcrim.html

Hehe, I still have that on my copy and paste from putting it in another thread.

This basically just backs up what you said... because I think it's very true and pretty much agree completely.

I never cease to be puzzled by KKKers and religious bigots. Why would anyone want to live in country where everybody is of the same race, culture and religion?

I grew up in a small city where nearly everybody was white like me, and that was a big boring drawback. I don't even like to visit there anymore. Believe me that there was more crime there too.

As soon as I could, I started living in big, multi-cultural cities. I enjoy them 100% better for that reason plus all the diversity of thought.


No way would I want to live in a 100% united country with no tensions! I'd prefer to live in a Yugoslavia, or better yet Somalia, or hell, why not a Rwanda.


Irreconcilable differences (Race, religion, major cultural differences) inevitably will result in massive conflicts, civil wars, genocides. History has shown it always is the end result. We've seen it played out in dozens, if not hundreds of nations in the last several centuries. As "Diversity" increases, we're only adding stresses and tensions, and ultimately the melting pot will explode...

I would prefer to live in a community where the majority of the people were of the same race as myself. I feel alot safer in a more white community than I do in a place that's alot more 'diversified' (as in a place where "minorities" are actually the majority).

:)

I would prefer to live in a community where the majority of the people were of the same race as myself. I feel alot safer in a more white community than I do in a place that's alot more 'diversified' (as in a place where "minorities" are actually the majority).:)

That's pretty sad when you think about it. I feel sorry for you.

That's pretty sad when you think about it. I feel sorry for you.


You're the one we should feel sorry for. You're dangerous lifestyle (choice of residence) makes you more likely to be the victim of violent crime.

You're the one we should feel sorry for. You're dangerous lifestyle (choice of residence) makes you more likely to be the victim of violent crime.

I've lived in this same neighbourhood of this same city (Vancouver) for 15 years and never had a single crime happen to me. I walk the streets at night, sometimes I'm the only white guy around. I carry no weapon. I don't feel the slightest bit afraid either.

If no one believes me I invite them to come and see our city for themselves. We're not perfect, of course we have a few murders etc - but we really do get along for the most part. I feel like I won the lottery of life to get to live in such a great place.

My 99% white city has had 1 murder in 15 years, 2 bank robberies if 10 years, and most of the police are just usually chasing loitering teens away from the mall parking lots etc.


Personally speaking, I live in one of the whitest cities in my country and it has the highest murder rate (4.4/100000) compared to all the other cities.

I've lived in this same neighbourhood of this same city (Vancouver) for 15 years and never had a single crime happen to me. I walk the streets at night, sometimes I'm the only white guy around. I carry no weapon. I don't feel the slightest bit afraid either.

If no one believes me I invite them to come and see our city for themselves. We're not perfect, of course we have a few murders etc - but we really do get along for the most part. I feel like I won the lottery of life to get to live in such a great place.
I've lived in a suburb/city with high numbers of minorites and no member of my family has never been assulted/robbed (NYC and Wilmington areas).

I live in the greater Toronto area. We are arguably the place for multiculturalism in Canada. Racial tension: near zero.

If only the West could take lessons from Japan... Japan is today what the West was 100+ years ago.

What, within a decade of starting a World War?

Japan is today what the West was 100+ years ago.

I disagree. Japan has many flaws, but it did invent anime. The best Europe could do was Shakespeare.

I live in the greater Toronto area. We are arguably the place for multiculturalism in Canada. Racial tension: near zero.


I've been to Toronto so many times it isn't funny. I can honestly say, you're just plain lying. You have an agenda.

I've been to Toronto so many times it isn't funny. I can honestly say, you're just plain lying. You have an agenda.

I do happen to live in the suburbs, but I've been downtown enough times. Not everyone wears blinders equipped with nazi-vision.

For all their lack of diversity, Japan is doing fine. They don't need immigrants to do the "Jobs nobody else wants", they do their own work... Japense society is quite safe, and their culture is not bastardized. They are a pure and a proud people. If only the West could take lessons from Japan... Japan is today what the West was 100+ years ago.

I beg to differ

Suicide is an enourmous problem in Japan. Because of the way buisness is run-and because buisness is so important-it is one of the most stressful non-third world countries to live in. This is mainly due to a decrease of the economy. While Japan's economy IS raising (though not at the speed wanted nor predicted), suicide still remains to be a large problem.

I beg to differ

Suicide is an enourmous problem in Japan. Because of the way buisness is run-and because buisness is so important-it is one of the most stressful non-third world countries to live in. This is mainly due to a decrease of the economy. While Japan's economy IS raising (though not at the speed wanted nor predicted), suicide still remains to be a large problem.


Yes I know it's a problem, because in like 9th grade I believe it is, they take a tess. Pass, go on to the next grade, fail, go to minimum wage job... We could learn from them. Keep the unfit out of the general society.

Why would anyone want to live in country where everybody is of the same race, culture and religion?

These three categories are not the only thing that causes problems. Even if it were a 100%, say, white culture, there would still be problems - it's human nature (at least for some) to look for - and look down on - differences in others. I'm from near London, my girlfriend is Welsh, and my mother's ex-fiancee was from Liverpool - all concerned are white. Take an English accent into Wales and there will sometimes be a lot of hostility - even taking a London accent up to Liverpool will get you a lot of aggrivation for no better reason than it is different, and I'd expect it works in reverse, too.

It's not a race thing, or a religion thing, it's a human nature thing - some people are inherently driven to look down on other people for whatever reason they can find - the colour of their skin or the name of their god is just a convenient excuse. The only way to avoid conflict would be to make every single person an exact mental and physical copy of the last, right down to the last detail. Barring that, there will always be that dissenting disruptive element to society, and if they can't pick on race or religion, they'll find something else.

Yes I know it's a problem, because in like 9th grade I believe it is, they take a tess. Pass, go on to the next grade, fail, go to minimum wage job... We could learn from them. Keep the unfit out of the general society.
And your grevious lack of understanding of japanese society continues to shine through. Amateur. Go back home to stormfront already.

The only way to avoid conflict would be to make every single person an exact mental and physical copy of the last, right down to the last detail.

Then again, if that person didn't like things about him/herself...you could have a problem even with THAT! ;-)

If my region was homogenous it would mean that I wouldn't have anyone to argue with :( which would get pretty boring.

Yes I know it's a problem, because in like 9th grade I believe it is, they take a tess. Pass, go on to the next grade, fail, go to minimum wage job... We could learn from them. Keep the unfit out of the general society.

Sorry, but that's incorrect.

Their culture has already dictated that, if one studies very hard and matinains an outlook that puts education first, they will land a job in no time and become a buisnessman.

Due to their economy drop, however, unemployment rose. Keep in mind that it is the second lowest unemployment rate. However, because of even this minor drop, students would leave their schooling only to find they had nowhere to go.

Furthermore, middle aged buisnessmen would lose their job, and because of their age would not be re-hired. This was actually the leading cause. They would work all their life in one place, and suddenly find themselves without a job, and no chance of getting another. There were, simply enough, thrown away.

In both cases, they found themselves isolated because their culture pushed on them to succeed in one area, and they could not. It was because of this that they would commit suicide. Also, some people have started to theroize that the glorification of honor also led many to their deaths; not having a job, they did not wish to dirty their name, and so killed themself before they could become a "faliure." What is known, is that this was certainly a problem when it came to psychological help for depression; for a long time, such things were seen as unneccisary, and anti-depressents were rarely ever given out. Even now, most patients that have depression don't come in for that-they go in for the physical attributes that are caused by it, unaware that depression is even chemical.




You really need to learn your facts better.



This poster is supposed to be taken seriously? It sound like one I might have created, to make multi-culturalists look really, really stupid.

For your information, the more "multi-cultural" a town or a city is the more crime there is. As for "diversity of thought", yes, hispanic immigrants are generally more homophobic, ethnocentric, and sexist than whites are.

Actually blacks who come here from the West Indies and Africa are just the same. I don't even want to mention muslims. I don't have a problem with sexism, ethnocentrism, or homophobia. In a way, that's one positive aspect of the mass immigration of recent years.

I do have a problem with the stupidity of liberals regarding their infatuation with multi-culturalism and its supposed benefits who ignore what should be, for them, the downside of immigration. But liberalism is an incoherent system of belief, one which appeals to the insecure and the stupid. What can you expect?

Wrong.

It's not multi-culturalism that gives cities crime-it's poverty.

The poor are more likily to commit crimes, simple enough.

Nice way to attack liberalism for now reason, though. And to do so with no logical reasons to boot!

Well I think you need to ask yourself why you want to live around a heterogeneous population. Is it because you wish to conform to the liberal ideaology of "we love everyone!"? Or is it simply you believe that the only real difference in personality from yours can come from someone of a difference ethnicity?

That's rather a ridiculous charge, that one would choose to live in a heterogeneous place just to make some ideological point. Like many people, I moved to a large city to get a job and because the nightlife was a lot better.

I didn't really notice how much I appreciated it until I went back to visit the small, nearly-all-white place i grew up in. I noticed that I had gotten myself an education far beyond what all my old friends/relatives who hadn't left had. I realized that I'd gotten that education from living and working with a variety of people from different parts of the world than I'd been in. I felt a sense of gratitude for that and knew I wanted to always live among diverse communities from then on.

I don't claim that my "education" has made me some kind of an expert on other cultures - obviously you need to travel for that (which I've done a bit of too). But I feel it has made me a better citizen in my own country and a happier person overall.

your poll is biased and leading. You created a poll where you set the outcome before anyone has taken it by insulting the intelligence of people who disagree and elevating those who agree.

Yeah no kidding eh? I was trying to point out that defending homogeneity is in fact not a valid option - not morally or logically. It therefore wouldn't have been right for me to include a poll option showing homogeneity is just another valid opinion. The "arguments" made on this thread have so far backed me up very plainly.

To prefer homogeneity is not merely just another valid viewpoint. Rather, it is an expression of ignorance, fear and bigotry which can't go uncriticized.

Sure Liberals are intolerant of racial intolerance. That's the only right way to respond to it.

I would prefer to live in a more homogeneous country, simply because I grew up in a time when that was the case. I enjoy the solidarity, the sense of unity and stability that such a country would offer. I think diversity is overhyped as well as pushed by the general media.

I simply do not see why such a society, country or culture would be undesirable.

Yeah no kidding eh? I was trying to point out that defending homogeneity is in fact not a valid option - not morally or logically. It therefore wouldn't have been right for me to include a poll option showing homogeneity is just another valid opinion. The "arguments" made on this thread have so far backed me up very plainly.

To prefer homogeneity is not merely just another valid viewpoint. Rather, it is an expression of ignorance, fear and bigotry which can't go uncriticized.

Sure Liberals are intolerant of racial intolerance. That's the only right way to respond to it.

And then you have just violated one of the keypoints of liberalism. That everyone has an equal and valid say in there opinions and the governmental process. Someone following a true liberal philosophy would of put up a non biased poll and would engage in the free exchange of open ideas regarding both the benefits and the cons of a homogenus society and a intergrated society.

I never cease to be puzzled by KKKers and religious bigots. Why would anyone want to live in country where everybody is of the same race, culture and religion?

That'd be boring.

(But I do plan to move to Thailand :p)

I'm only 15 but I've had experience in both types of town in the UK. I used to live in Burnley, which is a medium sized town in the north of England. It has a very large asian/muslim community. It's also a complete dump with high crime, racial tension and riots. But for most of my life now I've lived in a small village in Dorset (South of England). It's rare that you'll see a single non-white person. This place has one of the lowest crime rates in the country and people tend to get along very peacefully.

Take a guess, Sherlock

Why do you suppose that in some places like Australia, Singapore, Canada and Malaysia that diverse communities seem to work quite successfully; while others like in Europe/UK and the U.S. perhaps not as well?

It has to be because of systemic issues and policy differences within these countries - not simply because of somebody's culture or colour.

Why do you suppose that in some places like Australia, Singapore, Canada and Malaysia that diverse communities seem to work quite successfully; while others like in Europe/UK and the U.S. perhaps not as well?

It has to be because of systemic issues and policy differences within these countries - not simply because of somebody's culture or colour.

Actually as a native of Canada (Quebec specifically) I'm already seeing a rise in youth gangs and drug wars and so on. When I was half my age or younger no such things existed. As long as these pieces of garbage kill each other off, I do not particulary mind.

Diversity tends to breed chaos and friction. It splinters communities and more often than not, encourages crime as well. I've also seen a rise in grafitti that you can't even read! It has grown like a cancer everywhere, it's a real problem here.

All this may have to do with various dangerous and subversive sub-cultures. Which often promote such behavior in a pathetic attempt to be "cool" or "with it".

Gang violence, youth crime, and illegible graffiti are a matter for a seperate thread in my opinion. These things are done by a wide variety of people including white kids. There's no proof that these things are caused by diversity in itself; however the ways that newcomers are treated by the established society are no doubt a huge factor.

Actually as a native of Canada (Quebec specifically) I'm already seeing a rise in youth gangs and drug wars and so on. When I was half my age or younger no such things existed.

You didn't see any "Internet Crime" when you were younger either, because there was no Internet back then. Shall we then say that the Internet is a bad thing which does nothing but cause terrible social problems? It must be because of all that diversity-of-thought that the Internet brings us.

You didn't see any "Internet Crime" when you were younger either, because there was no Internet back then. Shall we then say that the Internet is a bad thing which does nothing but cause terrible social problems? It must be because of all that diversity-of-thought that the Internet brings us.

The internet in itself is only a tool - in other words it is neutral. It in itself cannot cause me (potentially) any great harm. I am far more wary of street gangs however. Besides, street gangs have been around awhile, but there has been a rise in more violent sorts of crimes over the last 20 years or so.

In my day, you were part of a gang if you smoked or drank or broke the occasional window, through rotten eggs at passing vehicals, got into the occasional fistfight and so forth. Street gangs have become far more violent since then.

Gang violence, youth crime, and illegible graffiti are a matter for a seperate thread in my opinion. These things are done by a wide variety of people including white kids. There's no proof that these things are caused by diversity in itself; however the ways that newcomers are treated by the established society are no doubt a huge factor.

White kids, yes. But those same white kids emulate so called "ethnic culture". Many "act" black (wiggers) or otherwise wish they were so. It is a poor substitute for real culture. And promotes a very negative self image. As a matter of fact, the worst thing nowadays is to be a white male! In other words, "ethnic is in, white is out".

As a matter of fact, the worst thing nowadays is to be a white male! In other words, "ethnic is in, white is out".

As a white male not a day goes by when I'm not reminded of the privileges I automatically get just because of my skin and Anglo ethnicity. I don't feel guilty about it, but I am aware of it.

Yeah, shed a tear for the Bill Gates, the Bushes and the Trumps of this world...they'd have been so much better off if they hadn't had that big white disadvantage.

White kids, yes. But those same white kids emulate so called "ethnic culture". Many "act" black (wiggers) or otherwise wish they were so. It is a poor substitute for real culture. And promotes a very negative self image. As a matter of fact, the worst thing nowadays is to be a white male! In other words, "ethnic is in, white is out".

That's society's fault for portraying racial stereotypes. Thankfully, now that I'm in college, I see it a HELL of a lot less.

You know what? Fuck racists-we need to beat sense into those damn teenagers. Idiots, almost every single one of them.

That's society's fault for portraying racial stereotypes. Thankfully, now that I'm in college, I see it a HELL of a lot less.

You know what? Fuck racists-we need to beat sense into those damn teenagers. Idiots, almost every single one of them.

Who's racist?

As a white male not a day goes by when I'm not reminded of the privileges I automatically get just because of my skin and Anglo ethnicity. I don't feel guilty about it, but I am aware of it.

Yeah, shed a tear for the Bill Gates, the Bushes and the Trumps of this world...they'd have been so much better off if they hadn't had that big white disadvantage.

But you mention, only three people. There are plenty of poor whites. I was one. I grew up in poverty. And who says I (or other whites) are not discriminated? I sometimes feel like a stranger in my own country. Many I know feel this. I've been around long enough to notice the changes over the years. Is my perception any less relevent than yours?

As a white male not a day goes by when I'm not reminded of the privileges I automatically get just because of my skin and Anglo ethnicity. I don't feel guilty about it, but I am aware of it.

Yeah, shed a tear for the Bill Gates, the Bushes and the Trumps of this world...they'd have been so much better off if they hadn't had that big white disadvantage.

The white privilege that cannot even save the 32,000+ white women raped by black males in the USA Each year.


The same white privilege that cannot save the millions of whites in South Africa who have been raped, robbed, murdered, assaulted.

Where is this white privilege?

The white privilege that cannot even save the 32,000+ white women raped by black males in the USA Each year.

And that "black" rape can't make up for the slavery and lynching that they endured for centuries. Funny how you ignore the crimes of "white people" while riding the prestige associated with their accomplishments (like reality TV and nuclear weapons).

And that "black" rape can't make up for the slavery and lynching that they endured for centuries. Funny how you ignore the crimes of "white people" while riding the prestige associated with their accomplishments (like reality TV and nuclear weapons).

So two wrongs make a right? I see....

Besides, it was the past, remember it but do not dwell on it. You must also understand something. Back then, whites really and truley believed that not only were they superior, but also believed that blacks did not possess souls.

You are in essence judging people that lived centuries ago by the standards of your time. That's what life was like, and it was excepted as such. I personally feel no guilt what my ancestors may have done.

After all, history in general is not "pre-planned", but rather, a result of "historical momentum" I mean really, did Christopher Columbus really cross the Atlantic ocean to wipe out the Natives? Of course not, he was an explorer. He simply did so to find a shorter route to India.

The same holds true for the settlers that were to come later...They were looking for a better life, it's that simple. I'm quite franky sick and tired of having to be made "to feel guilty" about not only our history, but for being white as well.

The white privilege that cannot even save the 32,000+ white women raped by black males in the USA Each year.




It should however be noted that if we accept these figures without a source, they represent only 22% of annual rape figures in the US.



_________

The long method before I found the short method:

Number of rapes per 1,000 population age 12 and over: 0.6 (2000 figures)*


6.8 + 7.3 + (7.3 x 2/5) = 17.02% of the US population are under the age of 12. (2000 figures)

Total population of the US = 281,421,906 (2000 figures)

Total amount of rapes in the US annually =

281,421,906 x ((100-17)/100) x (0.6/1000) = 140148

Percentage of rapes which are black on white female attacks, using your figures:

32,000/140,000 x 100 = 22% of all cases.



__________

The short method:

Alternatively we could go direct to another source*** and get the figure for annual rapes: 140,990 - this would then produce an even smaller percentage.

_________
* http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/viortrdtab.htm

** http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_QTP1&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U

I have taken the percentages for ages 'under 5', '5-9' and '10-14', and multiplied the last category by 2/5 to calculate the percentage aged 10 or 11.


*** http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/rsarp00.txt

So two wrongs make a right? I see....

Besides, it was the past, remember it but do not dwell on it. You must also understand something. Back then, whites really and truley believed that not only were they superior, but also believed that blacks did not possess souls.

You are in essence judging people that lived centuries ago by the standards of your time. That's what life was like, and it was excepted as such. I personally feel no guilt what my ancestors may have done.

After all, history in general is not "pre-planned", but rather, a result of "historical momentum" I mean really, did Christopher Columbus really cross the Atlantic ocean to wipe out the Natives? Of course not, he was an explorer. He simply did so to find a shorter route to India.

The same holds true for the settlers that were to come later...They were looking for a better life, it's that simple. I'm quite franky sick and tired of having to be made "to feel guilty" about not only our history, but for being white as well.

Stop trying to have your cake and eat it, too. According to you neonazis, when Thomas Edison invented all that stuff, all "white people" are responsible. When Hitler tried to take over the world (please don't deny that, too. WWII did happen regardless of whether you think the Holocaust did or not), though, "white people" suddenly stop being something that can be judged collectively.

tag
You're it.

You're it.

The ball is now in CM's court.

Stop trying to have your cake and eat it, too. According to you neonazis, when Thomas Edison invented all that stuff, all "white people" are responsible. When Hitler tried to take over the world (please don't deny that, too. WWII did happen regardless of whether you think the Holocaust did or not), though, "white people" suddenly stop being something that can be judged collectively.

You logic is flawed...Okay, first off, I hate cake! Second, I'm not a neo-nazi - honestly, where did you get that idea! Third, Thomas Edison was one man who invented a few things that we all enjoy today. What he did came from within him - the effort of one man!

Now Hitler, was not alone in what he did, and history was "right" for him to have done what he did - with a whole lot of help from others, as well as a huge number of "historical variables" I might add.

While were at it, I can rationally argue that WWII would not have happened if after the first world war, the victorious French, English and Americans (amoung other minor powers) did not treat the Germans like shit. The treaty of Versieres (sp?) was extremely harsh and even cruel to the Germans, who fought honorably during the war. In short, it is quite probable (as a result of this treaty) that the end of the first world war, sowed the seeds to the second...

Some even say that if Hitler died before the war (say in 38') the Germans would now be regarding him as a saint! And who could blame them? After all, Hitler did do a large amount of good for Germany before the beginning of the war.

Third, Thomas Edison was one man who invented a few things that we all enjoy today. What he did came from within him - the effort of one man!

It isn't as simple as that -

Certainly Edison invented several things himself and received the patents for his own ideas, but he also took out patents for the works of others in his own name. Certainly he was central in bring the other inventors together in his 'invention factory', but he was not the sole inventor of much that is commonly associated with him.


"Edison was considered one of the most prolific inventors of his time, holding a record 1,093 patents in his name. Most of these inventions were not completely original but improvements of earlier patents, and were actually made by his numerous employees - Edison was frequently criticized for not sharing the credits." from Wikipedia here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Edison


Thus it seems that Edison, like Hitler "was not alone in what he did, and history was 'right' for him to have done what he did - with a whole lot of help from others, as well as a huge number of "historical variables" I might add."

It should however be noted that if we accept these figures without a source, they represent only 22% of annual rape figures in the US.


]


Most rapes are black on black, or so it seems.

And that "black" rape can't make up for the slavery and lynching that they endured for centuries. Funny how you ignore the crimes of "white people" while riding the prestige associated with their accomplishments (like reality TV and nuclear weapons).


So innocent white women today deserve to be raped becaue 135+ years ago, people owned slaves? (You know not only whites had black slaves in the USA? Freed blacks had slaves, indians had slaves, etc)

Women deserve to be raped? You disgust me, you worthless... I won't say anything else lest I get accused of flaming...

Most rapes are black on black, or so it seems.

They may well be: do you have some sources you could point me towards?

Stop trying to have your cake and eat it, too. According to you neonazis, when Thomas Edison invented all that stuff, all "white people" are responsible. When Hitler tried to take over the world (please don't deny that, too. WWII did happen regardless of whether you think the Holocaust did or not), though, "white people" suddenly stop being something that can be judged collectively.



You have no credibility anymore, you basically said white women deserve to be raped by blacks to make "reparations" for the crimes done against some blacks in the past by some whites.


I hope your words help wake-up a few confused feminist white women and help them to find their natural healthy instincts. White traitors and minorities are not the friends of women, they are sick disgusting people who want to confuse and abuse white women for their own perverted reasons. They realize the more they confuse white women, and the more they bash men for being men, that the fewer white family units will be successful. Fewer white familes = fewer white babies. My God! In the last 3 decades, they've even been able to brainwash white women to murder 30 million of their unborn children in the womb! How great can this unseen force be that gets women to go against their maternal instincts? When will it end?



http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6834672&postcount=81

And that "black" rape can't make up for the slavery and lynching that they endured for centuries. Funny how you ignore the crimes of "white people" while riding the prestige associated with their accomplishments (like reality TV and nuclear weapons).

I hope your words help wake-up a few confused feminist white women and help them to find their natural healthy instincts. White traitors and minorities are not the friends of women, they are sick disgusting people who want to confuse and abuse white women for their own perverted reasons. They realize the more they confuse white women, and the more they bash men for being men, that the fewer white family units will be successful. Fewer white familes = fewer white babies. My God! In the last 3 decades, they've even been able to brainwash white women to murder 30 million of their unborn children in the womb! How great can this unseen force be that gets women to go against their maternal instincts? When will it end?

Wait, huh? What does abortion or feminism have to do with anything?

Natural healthy instincts? Which? The urge to becaome a baby making machine? I have several friends who don't want to be that-one of them has sworn off childbirth period, saying she'd only adopt.

And what do you mean "bashing men for being men?"

If a man cuts down a tree, kills a small animal with his bare hands, and eats it , then goes home and does his wife, he's a hetrosexual man.

If a man goes to a salon, gets his nails an hair done, goes shopping, crows about a new sale, then goes home and does his wife...he's a hetrosexual man.

I know, it's aboslute SHOCKING! And yet...can it be...it's TRUE!

OMGWTF!!1!eleven!1!!09!



...And...out of TOTAL curiousity...do you believe the women themselves should have any say in the matter of who they marry/like/fall in love with/whatever?

Wait, huh? What does abortion or feminism have to do with anything?

Natural healthy instincts? Which? The urge to becaome a baby making machine? I have several friends who don't want to be that-one of them has sworn off childbirth period, saying she'd only adopt.

And what do you mean "bashing men for being men?"

If a man cuts down a tree, kills a small animal with his bare hands, and eats it , then goes home and does his wife, he's a hetrosexual man.

If a man goes to a salon, gets his nails an hair done, goes shopping, crows about a new sale, then goes home and does his wife...he's a hetrosexual man.

I know, it's aboslute SHOCKING! And yet...can it be...it's TRUE!

OMGWTF!!1!eleven!1!!09!



...And...out of TOTAL curiousity...do you believe the women themselves should have any say in the matter of who they marry/like/fall in love with/whatever?


It's a man right to be able to defend his home and his family. His children, wife, and when they get too old to defend themselves, his father and mother. God help you if you did something to my mother or father.

What does feminism have to do with this? Everything! It's one of the biggest problems today! It's not the empowering of women, it's the desexing of women and turning them into aggressive bull dyke freaks!

Women were liberated from what? Men willing to protect them against any and all threats? Rapists used to get lynched or hanged (if the courts were moving too slow, lynching was the solution). Now they're out on the street from bail in 2 hours. They may get 1-2 years probation, perhaps a few years in the state pen max! This is a joke! But the sick truth is, it's not a joke, it's not funny, it's reality, and it's a sick reality to have to wake-up to. This country has carefully, purposefully, and slowly been turned from a 1st world paradise down the path to 3rd world hellhole. It's just a matter of time before the USA and Brazil are indistinguishable!

It's a man right to be able to defend his home and his family. His children, wife, and when they get too old to defend themselves, his father and mother. God help you if you did something to my mother or father.

What does feminism have to do with this? Everything! It's one of the biggest problems today! It's not the empowering of women, it's the desexing of women and turning them into aggressive bull dyke freaks!

Women were liberated from what? Men willing to protect them against any and all threats? Rapists used to get lynched or hanged (if the courts were moving too slow, lynching was the solution). Now they're out on the street from bail in 2 hours. They may get 1-2 years probation, perhaps a few years in the state pen max! This is a joke! But the sick truth is, it's not a joke, it's not funny, it's reality, and it's a sick reality to have to wake-up to. This country has carefully, purposefully, and slowly been turned from a 1st world paradise down the path to 3rd world hellhole. It's just a matter of time before the USA and Brazil are indistinguishable!

Let me get this straight.

1) Women should be property
2) if the courts don't work like you want them to, you advocate vigilante action
3) You don't like aggressive women, therefore they should be outlawed

I get everything there?

Let me get this straight.

1) Women should be property
2) if the courts don't work like you want them to, you advocate vigilante action
3) You don't like aggressive women, therefore they should be outlawed

I get everything there?



1) Women should be protected, obviously the gov't doesn't care about protecting women, or rape would not be an epidemic.

2) If courts fail us, men should be allowed to seek justice through other means.

3) Women aren't supposed to be "too" aggressive. A woman who can handle herself in trouble is fine by me. But these "Bull dykes" are way too insane. As are the "Feminazis", the women who shout, "Kill the men!"

Where is this white privilege?

If you've never noticed it, I know a way you can learn. Get your skin dyed dark and your hair styled non-Euro. Then tour across North America, walking through mostly-white communities trying to intereact with people and use everyday shops and services. Notice how much more police attention you get. Trust me, you'll start to miss your white skin pretty soon.

The biggest privilege we whites have is that we can mostly go through life not even giving much thought to our own race. Others can't do this; try for once to put yourself in somebody elses' shoes and imagine what that must be like.

Regardless of all the BS written on this site to the contrary, "American Standard" is still very much white.

Regardless of all the BS written on this site to the contrary, "American Standard" is still very much white.


If I was a member of a race (blacks) that accounted for 65% of rapes, robberies, murders, assaults, arsons, and 90% of carjackings. I'd expect extra police attention.


Black males are 6% of the US population but account for about 70% of all crime on average.


Read "The color of crime report".

By the way, we're on the "White standard" because the USA was built by White Christians, for White Christians.

By the way, we're on the "White standard" because the USA was built by White Christians, for White Christians.

Incorrect.

The country was built by white diests with the hopes of being for everyone.

I don't recall the amendment that states "Whites are supreme-damn those fucking immigrants!"

Incorrect.



I don't recall the amendment that states "Whites are supreme-damn those fucking immigrants!"

Naturalization Act of 1790 "No person other than a free white man or woman, shall be permitted to apply for citizenship or permanent residence of this nation."

Not exactly what it says, and it's been changed since then.

Deeeeeeeeeeebunked :p

Not exactly what it says, and it's been changed since then.

Deeeeeeeeeeebunked :p


1954 I do believe was when the Naturalization Act of 1790 was voided.

But you mention, only three people. There are plenty of poor whites. I was one. I grew up in poverty. And who says I (or other whites) are not discriminated? I sometimes feel like a stranger in my own country. Many I know feel this. I've been around long enough to notice the changes over the years. Is my perception any less relevent than yours?

I never said all whites are rich or that their whiteness automatically puts money in their pockets. There are other kinds of privilege besides money (see my last post for a couple of examples).

Of course there are lots of poor white people in North America and there always have been. My mom grew up in a welfare family during the 1930s Depression because her Dad's farm was destroyed by years of drought.

But too many poor whites today blame their problems on people of different colours and cultures. Doing that is just plain faulty thinking.

Instead they should be placing the blame on the systems that make a few white elites obscenely wealthy at the expense of all of us - white and non-white alike.

I never said all whites are rich or that their whiteness automatically puts money in their pockets. There are other kinds of privilege besides money (see my last post for a couple of examples).

Of course there are lots of poor white people in North America and there always have been. My mom grew up in a welfare family during the 1930s Depression because her Dad's farm was destroyed by years of drought.

But too many poor whites today blame their problems on people of different colours and cultures. Doing that is just plain faulty thinking.

Instead they should be placing the blame on the systems that make a few white elites obscenely wealthy at the expense of all of us - white and non-white alike.


Ah, a communist, preaching class warfare?

We need to see who is behind the "Wealthy" "Whites" (Wealthy jews who convert to our religion to try to pass as non-jews) But remember, jews are a race, before a religion.

Protestant leader Martin Luther once said, "To baptize a jew, I would conduct him to the Elbe, tie a millstone around his neck, and cast him in."

Jews are not, not, not, a religion! They are a race! They are Khazars!

By the way, we're on the "White standard" because the USA was built by White Christians, for White Christians....on land stolen from First Nations people and with the wealth of slave plantations. What a proud record.

The point is, things are becoming more diverse and secular whether you like or or not - it's unstoppable. North America is a better place today than it was before the 1960s and it keeps improving despite the right-wingers trying to hold us back. Why not embrace the changes and enjoy a strong rainbow country?

Poor whites don't have the option of liberal racial favoritism - affirmative action - to help them get out of poverty. They don't have quotas in colleges or the workplace that help them progress. Even a black with an IQ barely above room temperature can progress (unfairly at someone else's expense) to a race-graded college degree and a decent job with minimal effort.

Aw c'mon. The overall effect of "Affirmative Action" (which seems to be more rumour than anything) is minimal at best. What a goofy notion to even take into consideration. I have met *plenty* of non-whites who got good educations and jobs through sheer smarts, hard work and determination - these represent the majority of their success stories, just like with the successful whites I've known. Are you claiming this is an impossibility?

"strong rainbow country". This is what they call the marvellous multi-racial/multi-cultural paradise of the new South Africa also. The new South Africa, which has one of the highest crime rates in the world. Where anti-white violence is endemic.



The highest crime rate. SA is the most violent nation on Earth, surpassing even Colombia!


Whites are 12% of the SA population, yet 45% of murder victims!


SA is the rape, infant rape, murder, etc, capital of the world!


Over 55,000 people are killed there each year! The rape is confirmed at 300,000, feared to be 1.5 million or higher.

Every 10 minutes in SA, a baby is raped. Every 23 seconds, a woman is raped. Every 30 minutes, somebody is murdered.

[QUOTE=Garaj Mahal]I never said all whites are rich or that their whiteness automatically puts money in their pockets. There are other kinds of privilege besides money (see my last post for a couple of examples). [QUOTE]

Whatever "privileges" I might have had are rapidly slipping away... All I know is this: My great grandparents, parents, aunts and uncles liked things better the way they used to be. I was born in 62', and as a result, I experienced the tail end of it. I enyoyed the neighborhood that I grew up in. We were poor, but damn it! we were proud! Now that same neighborhood has degraded into a pig sty. I do not like this "rainbow country" of yours. I liked what used to be. Because I experienced it, lived it and ultimately enjoyed it. I never cared for affermitive action, I honestly believe it's a form of "reverse racism". I go to a gym to train and all I hear is that horrible hip hop, rap, and shallow vapid danse music. Over 20 years ago when I went to the same gym, they played good ol' three chord rock n' roll!

In a sense you are much the same as the so called "nazis" you despise, instead of hating or disliking various races, you point the finger at "rich white elitist males"...Why? Have they become a conveneant target? A scapegoat? Is it because over the last few decades that it has all become "very fashionable" to do so? It seems to me and my perception, that this in fact has occured, and what's more, I am old to have witnessed it grow.

Yes!, it become fashionable or "in" as the younger crowd nowadays often say, to "bash" the white man in every conceivable way, it's history, it's culture and just everything else. Perhaps over the years we were meant to feel "guilty" (race guilt?) about our history and culture. I personally don't see why we should feel guilty! Blacks enslaved other blacks in Africa while it was going on in the US during the 19th century! But I say, if you do not like our culture and history, hate it in fact. Then you should not be taking antibiotics if you develop a nasty bacterial infection, because that was invented by a white man. Hell, stop watching TV, or reading books - after all, a white invented the printing press. Stop driving your car, or using a computer, or electricity and dozens of other inventions that we had conceived and developed, yes!, by the white man!

Yes Garah Mahal, I ask you again, is my perception any less relevent than yours?

The highest crime rate. SA is the most violent nation on Earth, surpassing even Colombia!


Whites are 12% of the SA population, yet 45% of murder victims!


SA is the rape, infant rape, murder, etc, capital of the world!


Over 55,000 people are killed there each year! The rape is confirmed at 300,000, feared to be 1.5 million or higher.

Every 10 minutes in SA, a baby is raped. Every 23 seconds, a woman is raped. Every 30 minutes, somebody is murdered.

This behavior didn't exactly develop in a vacuum. "Black people" were treated terribly under law for a long time. This is more likely resentment rather than inherent desire to rape "white women".

Why not embrace the changes and enjoy a strong rainbow country?


Because I'm not a lunatic or a brainwashed idiot. Your dream is my nightmare.

This behavior didn't exactly develop in a vacuum. "Black people" were treated terribly under law for a long time. This is more likely resentment rather than inherent desire to rape "white women".


And yet it still happens. Mistreatment under apartheid is no defense for committing a crime. Whites are being raped and killed by blacks. Were the country not as 'integrated' as it is, such crimes would not occur.

(What really blows my mind is the child rape. What kind of sick heathen bastard rapes a baby?)

(What really blows my mind is the child rape. What kind of sick heathen bastard rapes a baby?)

They believe by raping virgins, they are cured of AIDs... And who is sure to a virgin, babies... Sick people, we westerners have tried to teach them what is what, and right from wrong. But they just don't learn.

They believe by raping virgins, they are cured of AIDs... And who is sure to a virgin, babies... Sick people, we westerners have tried to teach them what is what, and right from wrong. But they just don't learn.

As though westerners are somehow morally superior. Don't forget that for thousands of years, "white people" were just as misogynistic and brutal as other "races". It wasn't until recently that women were even allowed to vote. Not to mention the whole nuclear weaponry thing.

And yet it still happens. Mistreatment under apartheid is no defense for committing a crime. Whites are being raped and killed by blacks. Were the country not as 'integrated' as it is, such crimes would not occur.

That wouldn't address the root problem of hate and resentment caused by apartheid.

As though westerners are somehow morally superior. Don't forget that for thousands of years, "white people" were just as misogynistic and brutal as other "races". It wasn't until recently that women were even allowed to vote. Not to mention the whole nuclear weaponry thing.



That wouldn't address the root problem of hate and resentment caused by apartheid.


Yes, we white men used to hate our white women! Whatever!

Why did we go to war to protect them from Huns, Mongols, etc. We used to fight and die to protect our women... Women didn't need to be "liberated", and they weren't. All they were "liberated" from, was natural instincts that are healthy and normal. Mainly the instinct to raise your children, rather than murdering them in the womb and calling it "a choice" !

The highest crime rate. SA is the most violent nation on Earth, surpassing even Colombia!


Whites are 12% of the SA population, yet 45% of murder victims!


SA is the rape, infant rape, murder, etc, capital of the world!


Over 55,000 people are killed there each year! The rape is confirmed at 300,000, feared to be 1.5 million or higher.

Every 10 minutes in SA, a baby is raped. Every 23 seconds, a woman is raped. Every 30 minutes, somebody is murdered.

Lets also not forget 25-35% of the population is confirmed to have HIV or AIDS.

About 20 years ago during Arpethid it was the richest sub saharan country in the world. They had one of the lowest AIDs rate in Africa. They had the most black doctors and lawyers in the world. Once Arpthedid ended everythign went down hill and the entire system is collaspsed.

Now if you have a car you have to pay someone to guard it while you go into a store or it will be stolen thats how bad it is there now that they let everyone have an "equal" say.

Never! Cause then there wouldnt be any place to get my favorite food, spicy central-Vietnamese soup!

About 20 years ago during Arpethid [South Africa] was the richest sub saharan country in the world.And wealth was concentrated almost exclusively in the minority white population.
They had one of the lowest AIDs rate in Africa.I have no idea what hole you scraped your info from, but twenty years ago the AIDS virus was just being identified and the extent of infection throughout the world was essentially unknown.
They had the most black doctors and lawyers in the world.Do what???!! What South Africa did have was one of the largest majority black populations living in subhuman conditions and working for slave wages.

Once Arpthedid ended everythign went down hill and the entire system is collaspsed.
It's spelled apartheid. And that's just a moronic statement.

Implied or not, there is no valid comparison between South Africa and its post-Apartheid society and any hypotethical integrated society. For as many years that S.A. lived (and the majority black peoples subexisted) under apartheid an equal number of years will be needed for adjustment to live without apartheid. Only then can the success of integration be measured.

Yes, we white men used to hate our white women! Whatever!

Why did we go to war to protect them from Huns, Mongols, etc. We used to fight and die to protect our women... Women didn't need to be "liberated", and they weren't. All they were "liberated" from, was natural instincts that are healthy and normal. Mainly the instinct to raise your children, rather than murdering them in the womb and calling it "a choice" !

Seriously, why do you keep bringing this up? It's completely off the topic. If you hate feminists, and you think women should be property-FINE. You're an asshole, there's tons of them in the world, somehow we'll deal with it.

But stop bringing it up on threads that have no mention of it-aside from what YOU'VE posted.


Whatever "privileges" I might have had are rapidly slipping away... All I know is this: My great grandparents, parents, aunts and uncles liked things better the way they used to be. I was born in 62', and as a result, I experienced the tail end of it. I enyoyed the neighborhood that I grew up in. We were poor, but damn it! we were proud! Now that same neighborhood has degraded into a pig sty. I do not like this "rainbow country" of yours. I liked what used to be. Because I experienced it, lived it and ultimately enjoyed it. I never cared for affermitive action, I honestly believe it's a form of "reverse racism". I go to a gym to train and all I hear is that horrible hip hop, rap, and shallow vapid danse music. Over 20 years ago when I went to the same gym, they played good ol' three chord rock n' roll!

In a sense you are much the same as the so called "nazis" you despise, instead of hating or disliking various races, you point the finger at "rich white elitist males"...Why? Have they become a conveneant target? A scapegoat? Is it because over the last few decades that it has all become "very fashionable" to do so? It seems to me and my perception, that this in fact has occured, and what's more, I am old to have witnessed it grow.

Yes!, it become fashionable or "in" as the younger crowd nowadays often say, to "bash" the white man in every conceivable way, it's history, it's culture and just everything else. Perhaps over the years we were meant to feel "guilty" (race guilt?) about our history and culture. I personally don't see why we should feel guilty! Blacks enslaved other blacks in Africa while it was going on in the US during the 19th century! But I say, if you do not like our culture and history, hate it in fact. Then you should not be taking antibiotics if you develop a nasty bacterial infection, because that was invented by a white man. Hell, stop watching TV, or reading books - after all, a white invented the printing press. Stop driving your car, or using a computer, or electricity and dozens of other inventions that we had conceived and developed, yes!, by the white man!

oh, boo fucking hoo, the gym doesn't play the music you like.

Why do we blame rich, elitist, white males? Maybe because they CAUSE FUCKING PROBLEMS. Ever hear of "corporate greed?" Oh, but why do they always have to be white? Because that's what the god damn stereotype is. White buisnessmen are fat and corrupt. Indian people are either doctors or shop clerks. Welcome to the world of idiot stereotypes! Population: ALL OF US.

Now-and I COULD be wrong-but I didn't see anyone post in this thread "White people are evil and nothing good EVER comes from their culture!" I've been seeing a lot of it on the OTHER side, however. Pull your head out of your ass, and try READING what people post. You incredible douche bag.

Yes, without us rich, elitist, white males, the diversity we're always oppressing would still have its place in the sun.

Which is to say, they'd be chucking spears at each other, eating bugs, and commiting human sacrifice.

Pre-civilized poverty is better oppression than anything Lester Maddox ever dreamed of.

I am mostly Irish and Scots with a few dashes of Lithuanian and Jewish blood to add some spice (and a few other ingredients as well). However:

I love French cooking.
I love German cooking.
Heck I even love English Fish & Chips.
Spanish cooking is wonderful.
Chinese cooking is fantastic.
Korean hot soup is ... hot, and kimche is interesting.
Thai cooking is ... dangerous actually since I'm allergic to peanuts.
Sushi is life ...
Indian cooking is delightful.

I have (baring the occasional visit to Canada) never been outside the U.S.

The United States was once called a melting pot. But it has also been called a salad bowl. A salad is a wonderful thing, filled with different flavors yet each item having its own identity. Just like there is styles in cooking and all of them are good, there is classical, jazz, rock, salsa, and they too are all good.

No I want to live in an all you can eat/see/hear/feel buffet where everything is on the menu so I can sample all the world has to offer. I want a world where Charlie Parker and Wolfgang Mozart jam in the same house. Where Beethoven and Gillespie play duets.

Because that, I believe is a true paradise!

And wealth was concentrated almost exclusively in the minority white population.
I have no idea what hole you scraped your info from, but twenty years ago the AIDS virus was just being identified and the extent of infection throughout the world was essentially unknown.
Do what???!! What South Africa did have was one of the largest majority black populations living in subhuman conditions and working for slave wages.


It's spelled apartheid. And that's just a moronic statement.

Implied or not, there is no valid comparison between South Africa and its post-Apartheid society and any hypotethical integrated society. For as many years that S.A. lived (and the majority black peoples subexisted) under apartheid an equal number of years will be needed for adjustment to live without apartheid. Only then can the success of integration be measured.

Direct your attention to this: http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5979

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7514

this one is about the general state of Africa: http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6295

Direct your attention to this: http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5979 ...<snipped>That's your source of information? Three articles (none of which provide any source citations) by the same person, who is associated with a right-wing think tank? That's just pathetic.

Seriously, why do you keep bringing this up? It's completely off the topic. If you hate feminists, and you think women should be property-FINE. You're an asshole, there's tons of them in the world, somehow we'll deal with it.

But stop bringing it up on threads that have no mention of it-aside from what YOU'VE posted.






I never said women should be property, far from it. But in your current racially suicidal society, women are not protected by the gov't. If the gov't protected white women, they'd let it be known that most rapists are black. Also they'd let it be known that black heterosexual males are 14x as likely to have AIDs than white heterosexual males. Black males are over 50x as likely to have syphilis, and various other forms of VD.

I never said women should be property, far from it. But in your current racially suicidal society, women are not protected by the gov't. If the gov't protected white women, they'd let it be known that most rapists are black. Also they'd let it be known that black heterosexual males are 14x as likely to have AIDs than white heterosexual males. Black males are over 50x as likely to have syphilis, and various other forms of VD.And most rapes are perpetrated on black women (whether the rapist is black or white). In addition, African-Americans as a group have access to fewer healthcare resources (including preventive measures) and tend to use public healthcare vs. private healthcare (leading to increased reporting of STDs. If you're going to throw around statistics make sure you provide the whole picture.

Women, no matter the color, do not need "government protection" as you seem to define it. What women need and want is fair and equal treatment and effective enforcement of the law.

And most rapes are perpetrated on black women (whether the rapist is black or white). In addition, African-Americans as a group have access to fewer healthcare resources (including preventive measures) and tend to use public healthcare vs. private healthcare (leading to increased reporting of STDs. If you're going to throw around statistics make sure you provide the whole picture.

Women, no matter the color, do not need "government protection" as you seem to define it. What women need and want is fair and equal treatment and effective enforcement of the law.


Ther are 32,000 black on white rapes, and 100 white on black rapes, in the USA each year.

Which is to say, they'd be chucking spears at each other, eating bugs, and commiting human sacrifice.

As opposed to firing nukes at each other, eating genetically engineered corn, and priests raping children. That sounds like such an improvement.

80-90% of rapes against women (except for American Indian women) are committed by someone of the same racial background as the victim. (US Dept. of Justice 1994)

According to the National Victim Center, 683,000 women are raped each year. (1992)

Reported rape victimization by race is: 34% of American Indian/Alaska Native; 24% women of mixed race; 19% of African American women; 18% of white women; 8% of Asian/Pacific Islander women. (Tjaden and Thoennes, National Institute of Justice 1998)

18% of 683,000 is 122,940. 10-20% of 122,940 is 12,294 to 24,588. Someone here is lying, and I believe that it is CM...

80-90% of rapes against women (except for American Indian women) are committed by someone of the same racial background as the victim. (US Dept. of Justice 1994)

According to the National Victim Center, 683,000 women are raped each year. (1992)

Reported rape victimization by race is: 34% of American Indian/Alaska Native; 24% women of mixed race; 19% of African American women; 18% of white women; 8% of Asian/Pacific Islander women. (Tjaden and Thoennes, National Institute of Justice 1998)

18% of 683,000 is 122,940. 10-20% of 122,940 is 12,294 to 24,588. Someone here is lying, and I believe that it is CM...


http://www.amren.com/color.pdf


The Color of Crime


The sensational crime study that proves:
There is more black-on-white than black-on-black crime.
Blacks are statistically 50 times more likely to attack whites than vice versa.
Blacks are twice as likely as whites to commit hate crimes.
Blacks are as much more dangerous than whites as men are more dangerous than women.
And much more.

Not an acceptable source. Dispute my numbers or give it up...

Regarding black on white crime, the following was written in National Review, the December 1992 edition (it was an article by Jared Taylor who wrote the book "Paved with Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America"). <snipped>And where is Mr. Taylor's book reviewed? Why Stormfront, of course. hehehe.

Try harder next time.

Regarding black on white crime, the following was written in National Review, the December 1992 edition (it was an article by Jared Taylor who wrote the book "Paved with Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America"). I don't expect most liberal bigots to read the whole article, they lack concentration especially on a subject they would rather ignore. But here goes anyway:

"When whites commit violence -- rape, murder, assault -- how often do they choose black victims? Shouldn't a nation of bigots target blacks most of the time? At least half of the time? Of course, it does not. When whites commit violence, they to it to blacks 2.4 percent of the time. Blacks, on the other hand, choose white victims more than half the time.317

In those cases in which the race of the killer is known, blacks kill twice as many whites as whites kill blacks. Black-on-white robberies and gang assaults are twenty-one times more common than white on black. In the case of gang robbery, blacks victimize whites fifty-two times more often than whites do blacks.318

The contrasts are even more stark in the case of interracial rape. Studies from the late 1950s showed that the vast majority of rapes were same-race offenses. Research in Philadelphia carried out in 1958 and 1960 indicated that of all rapes, only 3.2 percent were black-on-white assaults and 3.6 percent were white-on-black. Since that time, the proportion of black-on-white rapes has soared. In a 1974 study in Denver, 40 percent of all rapes were of whites by blacks, and not one case of white-on-black rape was found. In general, through the 1970s, black-on-white rape was at least ten times more common that white-on-black rape.319

Because interracial rape is now overwhelmingly black on white, it has become difficult to do research on it or to find relevant statistics. The FBI keeps very detailed national records on crime, but the way it presents rape data obscures the racial element rather than clarifies it. Dr. William Wilbanks, a criminologist at Florida International University, had to sift carefully through the data to find that in 1988 there were 9,406 cases of black-on-white rape and fewer than ten cases of white-on-black rape.320 Another researcher concludes that in 1989, blacks were three or four times more likely to commit rape than whites, and that black men raped white women thirty times as often as white men raped black women.321
Interracial crime figures are even worse than they sound. Since there are more than six times as many whites as blacks in America, it means that any given black person is vastly more likely to commit a crime against a white than vice versa."

Notes
317. "What Should Be Done," US News & World Report (August 22, 1989), p. 54. See also Department of Justice, Criminal Victimization in the United States, 1987 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989), p.7.
318. Department of Justice, Criminal Victimization in the United States, 1987.
319. Gary D. LaFree, "Male Power and Female Victimization: Toward a Theory of Interracial Rape," American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 88, No. 2 (September 1982).
320. William Wilbanks, "Frequency and Nature of Interracial Crimes," submitted for publication to the Justice Professional (November 7, 1990). Data derived from Department of Justice, Criminal Victimization in the United States, 1987, p. 53.
321. Andrew Hacker, Two Nations, pp. 183, 185.

That is a bit more acceptable then the wild numbers that CM just pulled out of his ass. But you have to remember two things:
One, that there are more then 6 times (12 times as many non-black women then blacks) as many non-blacks as there are blacks, and that blacks commit a disproportional amount of crimes.

Two, that blacks tend to be below the poverty line more often then whites, and they tend to live in urban areas more then whites. Poverty causes crime, not race, and being in an urban area just exaggerates that effect (more people).

That is a bit more acceptable then the wild numbers that CM just pulled out of his ass. But you have to remember two things:
One, that there are more then 6 times (12 times as many non-black women then blacks) as many non-blacks as there are blacks, and that blacks commit a disproportional amount of crimes.

Two, that blacks tend to be below the poverty line more often then whites, and they tend to live in urban areas more then whites. Poverty causes crime, not race, and being in an urban area just exaggerates that effect (more people).

While I don't condone all of the racist statements in this forum, poverty is not justification for crime. I'm not saying that race is the cause of crime either, just that being in a certain area with a certain amount of poverty is no excuse.

You obviously don't understand statistics. And poverty is not an explanation for black on white rape.

I've found that most people are talking out of their ass when they make a statement like that without explaining why.

And poverty is an explanation for black on white rape, because blacks commit more crimes, and there are less black women then white women. You should know that if you have studied statistics...

While I don't condone all of the racist statements in this forum, poverty is not justification for crime. I'm not saying that race is the cause of crime either, just that being in a certain area with a certain amount of poverty is no excuse.
I'm not making it an excuse, I'm pointing out that crime has more to do with poverty then with race...

No. Rape is not a poverty-related crime. According to most (liberal) psychologists it's about power. About control. Some liberals say that blacks are replaying the rape of their ancestors by white slave owners, getting revenge, but that's a pretty sad excuse. It means blacks are trapped by their past, are history-driven automatons with no hope. It's not an adequate explanation.

While that would be pretty sad, I doubt it's true. The second part anyway. Yes, it's a power/control thing. Just not related to race. It's a personal thing. This kind of refutes my previous statement but I suppose it could be related to poverty. Someone who grew up with next to nothing would want to have power and control later in life.

No. Rape is not a poverty-related crime. According to most (liberal) psychologists it's about power. About control. Some liberals say that blacks are replaying the rape of their ancestors by white slave owners, getting revenge, but that's a pretty sad excuse. It means blacks are trapped by their past, are history-driven automatons with no hope. It's not an adequate explanation.

*sigh*...the poorer you are, the less education you are going to get, the more likely you are to be exposed to that kind of behaviour, the move likely you are to be sexualy abused, etc etc.

Regarding black on white crime... quoting Taylor:

"...The contrasts are even more stark in the case of interracial rape. Studies from the late 1950s showed that the vast majority of rapes were same-race offenses. Research in Philadelphia carried out in 1958 and 1960 indicated that of all rapes, only 3.2 percent were black-on-white assaults and 3.6 percent were white-on-black. Since that time, the proportion of black-on-white rapes has soared. In a 1974 study in Denver, 40 percent of all rapes were of whites by blacks, and not one case of white-on-black rape was found. In general, through the 1970s, black-on-white rape was at least ten times more common that white-on-black rape.319

Because interracial rape is now overwhelmingly black on white, it has become difficult to do research on it or to find relevant statistics. The FBI keeps very detailed national records on crime, but the way it presents rape data obscures the racial element rather than clarifies it."Before we get well down the rabbit hole, let's get some real DOJ statistics in here, instead of this slanted crap.

From the 1994 DOJ study Violence Against Women. (Rockville, Maryland: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.): 80-90% of all violent crimes against women are intra-racial; most rapists attack persons of the same race.

And from the 1997 ed. of the Bureau of Justice Statistics' Sex Offenses and Offenders (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice): 77% of completed rapes are committed by someone who is known to the victim. That figure goes up to 90% when the victim is under 12.

Rape is NOT predominantly inter-racial. The myth of the over-sexed, aggressive black man is just that, a myth, which blows the underpinnings out from under those arguments.

You know, most rapes occur between aquantinces.

We must protect the white women! No more leaving the house! :eek:

You know, most rapes occur between aquantinces.



I don't believe that, and besides, just because the black man accidentally bumps into the woman twenty minutes before he tries to rape her, doesn't make them acquainted.

That me clarify that post - make it really simple for the retards. White men, per capita, commit more acts of rape against white women than anyone else. And Black men commit more acts of rape against black women than anyone else. So it appears when the great majority of rapes are committed within the race that rape is not interracial. But black men commit far, far more rapes against white women than white men commit against black women. White rape against black women is almost unknown, a statistical nonentity. But black male rape against white women is in the double digits of all rapes against white women.

You keep saying that like it's true, but you still haven't provided objective data. And now I'll quote you again, "when the great majority of rapes are committed within the race" then rape is not statistically interracial. Back to Statistics 101 for you.

And while we're at it, you are also displaying a great ignorance of the dynamics of rape reporting. Minority women do not report rape at the same rate that white women do, because they know little will be done about it.

I don't believe that, and besides, just because the black man accidentally bumps into the woman twenty minutes before he tries to rape her, doesn't make them acquainted.You can disbelieve it all you want, but objective statistics support it as fact.

And you're right, the anonymous black on white rape is essentially non-existant. Get it through your thick head (no not that one, the other one) women who are raped know their rapists in the majority of cases.

.

And you're right, the anonymous black on white rape is essentially non-existant. Get it through your thick head (no not that one, the other one) women who are raped know their rapists in the majority of cases.


www.amren.com/color.pdf


A large number of black on white rapes, occur when a misguided and confused white female, who has been brainwashed by the jewish controlled media into thinking blacks are equals, is attacked and raped by a black she thought she could trust.


And anonymous black on white rape is not non-existent. I know white women who have been raped by black males that were strangers to them. This in the USA. anonymous black on white rape is much more common than you are willing to admit.


In South Africa, virtually all black on white rape is by a stranger. Given time, the USA will slowly come to resemble South Africa more and more.

www.amren.com/color.pdf

A large number of black on white rapes, occur when a misguided and confused white female, who has been brainwashed by the jewish controlled media into thinking blacks are equals, is attacked and raped by a black she thought she could trust.

And anonymous black on white rape is not non-existent. I know white women who have been raped by black males that were strangers to them. This in the USA. anonymous black on white rape is much more common than you are willing to admit.

In South Africa, virtually all black on white rape is by a stranger. Given time, the USA will slowly come to resemble South Africa more and more.

Ahahahaha. Now I know you're joking.

1. New Century Foundation is the farthest thing from an objective source of data as you can get. All that article proves is that white supremacists manipulate statistics in order to prop up their baseless arguments.

2. You really do have a piss-poor attitude about women and their ability to think. "Brainwash"? "Jewish controlled media"? What a moronic statement.

3. The statistics in the (blatantly biased) article you cited don't even support a large amount of anonymous black/white rape. Can you read?

4. South Africa is irrelevant. Not that you've provided objective data about that either.

4. South Africa is irrelevant. Not that you've provided objective data about that either.


http://www.africancrisis.org/Ph_TenYears.asp

Ten years after Apartheid (1994-2004): The Raw Facts
South Africa's first "democratic election" was held on 27th April 1994.

Here are the things you will never see in the major news media regarding post-Apartheid South Africa:-

(Information at link)

http://www.africancrisis.org/Ph_TenYears.asp

Ten years after Apartheid (1994-2004): The Raw Facts
South Africa's first "democratic election" was held on 27th April 1994.

Here are the things you will never see in the major news media regarding post-Apartheid South Africa:-

(Information at link)I'll make it easy for you...

objective: adj. Uninfluenced by personal prejudices.

Now when you say "things you will never see in the major news media" bright bright red flags flare up and a person starts smelling the stink of bias. Low and behold, yep your link goes to a neocon, white supremacy site.

Oh and just to make sure you got the important part... South Africa is irrelevant to the argument.

I'll make it easy for you...

objective: adj. Uninfluenced by personal prejudices.

Now when you say "things you will never see in the major news media" bright bright red flags flare up and a person starts smelling the stink of bias. Low and behold, yep your link goes to a neocon, white supremacy site.

Oh and just to make sure you got the important part... South Africa is irrelevant to the argument.


The mainstream media indeed doesn't report the farm attacks and massive black on white crime in SA. Indeed the publication of crime statistics to people outside the nation has been forbidden by the SA president Thabo Mbeki... Well how is that for bias?

And they aren't neocons...


Neocons are neither new or conservative, they are as old as babylon and wicked as hell.

The pictures speak for themselves.

Quiet word of advice: last time that link was posted the mods demanded that a warning for extremely graphic content be made, IIRC. You might want to edit your post to add that warning.

Quiet word of advice: last time that link was posted the mods demanded that a warning for extremely graphic content be made, IIRC. You might want to edit your post to add that warning.


Okay, I didn't realize that, I must have missed it or forgotten. Edited out, thank you for telling me.

Okay, I didn't realize that, I must have missed it or forgotten. Edited out, thank you for telling me.

No, apparently all that was required was a warning about the content, IIRC, the link was still allowed, but with danger signs to protect the innocent.

Why automatically assume that someone who wants their country to be homogenous is an "intolerant bigot"?

I personally don't mind if minority groups come to my country, as long as they try to assimilate and don't behave like a bunch of whingers. I'm happy to say that Australia's minorities are generally well-behaved.

But there are probably advantages to living in a homogenous country, and some people may have logical reasons for preferring a homogenous country over a multiracial one. You can't just call these people "intolerant morons" without becoming "intolerant" yourself!

These people may live in countries where their minorities DON'T behave well. I've heard that in some countries, the crime rate among white people has stayed the same but has risen for negroes and the indiginous. (I'm sure I've spelt that word wrong). Can you blame citizens of these countries for wanting a halt to immigration?

Moral of the story: Think before you open your stupid "intolerant" liberal trap, you "moron".

As opposed to firing nukes at each other, eating genetically engineered corn, and priests raping children. That sounds like such an improvement.

Who has ever fired a nuclear missile at anyone else? (Nobody.) Who in the last 58 years has used any nuclear weapon on anyone else? (Nobody.)

What's wrong with genetically-modified foods? (Nothing.)

Can you blame the actions of a few poof priests against everyone in society? (It's very unfair to do so.)

If you think our society is worse than the primitive ones, you are free to move to outback Australia and take up residence with the Aboriginies. No offence intended - If you think our society is undesirable, join theirs! And unless you've got dark skin, you might want to take some sunscreen... oh, sorry, that would be an invention of Western civilisation and therefore completely undesirable to you.