Multiculturalism rocks!

[KingMerv00]

Native Americans had every right to resist their dispossession. That's normal behaviour.

*Looks in the US constitution*

Nope, no mention of lawful rebellion against white people.

If an idea isn't codified or upheld by an governmental authority, it isn't a right. It is a wish.

 

[The Man]

Why the space? Are you being clever again? It's over my head; you're just way too smart for me.

What space?

Oh, do you mean that?

The line break?

What induces you propose that as being "clever"?

Sorry, but it was not intentional and I had no idea it would leave you so dumbfounded.

I'll try not to do it again.

What kind of an answer do you think your stupid question deserves?

One actually directed at the question asked would be a start.

Every ethnic group has the right to oppose its dispossession, even White ones.

Why, how multicultural of you.

So you support the rights of those who oppose the “dispossession” of their right to emigrate, even from the “Third World”, to your world, again how multicultural of you.

 

[Ikarus]

Why, how multicultural of you.

So you support the rights of those who oppose the “dispossession” of their right to emigrate, even from the “Third World”, to your world, again how multicultural of you.

I don't think that is the automatic result of Clippy's claims. It seems his ideas are in line with ethnical fascism, if you want a label.

Fascism (as I have learned it) is based on the idea that we live in a world where resources are scarce and land is limited. So in order to survive, with an increasing global population on an already quite busy planet, it is inevitable that there will be conflict over desirable/ed resources and land. Now, we can each fight on our own (libertarianism) and let the strongest individuals have the most of everything. But that is very inefficient and it is quite apparent that you achieve more when you work as a group. To choose one and fight for resources together against the rest; that is fascism.

And then comes (IMO) a rather arbitrary decision: to which group do I belong?Some choose a race. Some choose a region. Some a country, a political party, an ideology, a culture, an ethnicity... Doesn't really matter, as long as it is a (significantly) smaller population than the total, yet to be large enough to be a strong unit. It's a strongly competitive model that relies on group identity, which can have many forms, to proclaim group superiority, which is always "we have property X so we are entitled to the fairest* share of the available resources and land".

The ethnically different people who emigrate from the third world to the first world, are (according to the game rules) inferior and should be shunned. They do not belong to the chosen (arbitrary) group and therefor they belong to the group who consume too much of 'our' resource. And, as it is with games, what the 'loser' does is his/her problem, not 'ours'. In fact, it would be best for all of us if they stopped existing.

One bottleneck of logic is the fact that you have to choose a group to belong to at some point, which is seldomly rationally argumentable. It may have to do with the comfort level of the individual vis-á-vis the size of the non-excluded group versus the excluded ones, probably in relation to the perceived scarcity of their environment's resources. Hence, fascist ideas seem to proliferate in low-level income groups more strongly -while it isn't unusual for succesful self-made people to sway that way as well (perhaps as they don't know what it's like to have a losing hand).

Ultimately, it is just a very opportunistic, simple-minded ideology. Perhaps that is it's strength, even. To exclude is easy. To acknowledge the right to live as comfortable lives as possible for all; to grant access to the pursuit of happiness to "the other".. That is a lot more difficult to think about. But that is how I would like to be treated.

*All people get a fair share. But some get fairer shares than others.


P.S. Now, as for the ethnic cleansing of Malmö, a specific example of White Flight in Europe -Scandinavia even-. Do we have a source, yet? Some figures?

 

[The Man]

I don't think that is the automatic result of Clippy's claims. It seems his ideas are in line with ethnical fascism, if you want a label.

I don’t think Clippy does either and he has already given it his own label of “normal behaviour”.

Fascism (as I have learned it) is based on the idea that we live in a world where resources are scarce and land is limited. So in order to survive, with an increasing global population on an already quite busy planet, it is inevitable that there will be conflict over desirable/ed resources and land. Now, we can each fight on our own (libertarianism) and let the strongest individuals have the most of everything. But that is very inefficient and it is quite apparent that you achieve more when you work as a group. To choose one and fight for resources together against the rest; that is fascism.

And then comes (IMO) a rather arbitrary decision: to which group do I belong?Some choose a race. Some choose a region. Some a country, a political party, an ideology, a culture, an ethnicity... Doesn't really matter, as long as it is a (significantly) smaller population than the total, yet to be large enough to be a strong unit. It's a strongly competitive model that relies on group identity, which can have many forms, to proclaim group superiority, which is always "we have property X so we are entitled to the fairest* share of the available resources and land".

The ethnically different people who emigrate from the third world to the first world, are (according to the game rules) inferior and should be shunned. They do not belong to the chosen (arbitrary) group and therefor they belong to the group who consume too much of 'our' resource. And, as it is with games, what the 'loser' does is his/her problem, not 'ours'. In fact, it would be best for all of us if they stopped existing.

One bottleneck of logic is the fact that you have to choose a group to belong to at some point, which is seldomly rationally argumentable. It may have to do with the comfort level of the individual vis-á-vis the size of the non-excluded group versus the excluded ones, probably in relation to the perceived scarcity of their environment's resources. Hence, fascist ideas seem to proliferate in low-level income groups more strongly -while it isn't unusual for succesful self-made people to sway that way as well (perhaps as they don't know what it's like to have a losing hand).

Ultimately, it is just a very opportunistic, simple-minded ideology. Perhaps that is it's strength, even. To exclude is easy. To acknowledge the right to live as comfortable lives as possible for all; to grant access to the pursuit of happiness to "the other".. That is a lot more difficult to think about. But that is how I would like to be treated.

*All people get a fair share. But some get fairer shares than others.


P.S. Now, as for the ethnic cleansing of Malmö, a specific example of White Flight in Europe -Scandinavia even-. Do we have a source, yet? Some figures?

Well that was basically the point. As your group grows and expands it needs more resources so your group must emigrate and dispossess (to use Clippy’s term) some other group. Additionally one of those resources your group might need is cheaper labor, so you give some other group or groups the right to immigrate to your world in exchange for perhaps some cheaper labor. Fascism like racism is just a game where everyone loses, but some like to think it is a game they can, or their group simply should, win.

 

[Jono]

Yes, I was referring to White flight.

My position on multiculturalism is that it is a distraction. It is only dealing with symptoms. People think by talking about it they can avoid the subject of race (or ethnicity). Racism is an illegitimate term, promoted by Jewish Bolsheviks. 99.99999% of what is called 'racism' is normal behaviour and does not require any label.

As someone with a spare-time interest in linguistics, I can certainly find examples of loaded terminology (like "racist/ism) to be discussable and debatable. But you simply had to invoke the chestnut of "jewish bolsheviks".
As it is, the term does nothing for your argument other than sending the signal to people like me that you're ascribing to the 'hive-mind' myth of what I prefer to categorize; gutter anti-semitism. I.e, nonsensical critique of several/many/most jewish orgs, people, movements et al.

White people should have been asked whether they wanted their nations to be transformed.

While that might be true, people in general are rarely asked per se about notable changes to the nation. They get to vote, but historically in most cases are too preoccupied with making a living and providing for their family to remove the proverbial benefit of hindsight regret. So the fact that there have not been a, what we call in Sweden, "peoples vote" on immigration etc is a problematic argument to be made coherently.

 

[Red3]

Source:BNP,MPA

Well this was shocking... no wait, it wasn't!
This is something we brain dead racist have known for quite a while now, but don't listen to us who have the answers.

And remember, if you're voting anything other than the BNP you're voting the keep the floodgates wide OPEN.

Hmmm, to me it looks like the stats just prove that all races capable of, and do commit crime.

From your supplied link:

5. Based on accounts supplied by victims and witnesses, the breakdown for offences with three or more suspects since 2003/4 to 2008/9, is as follows: groups of all white suspects have dropped from 11% (eight offences) to 8% (seven offences). Where there are groups of mixed ethnicity, this has risen from 14% (10 offences) to 24% (22 offences). Groups of all black suspects have dropped from 44% (31 offences) to 32% (30 offences).

Now, in London - let's call it inner city London (has the higher crime levels) - what are the chances of having an "all white" gang of youths? It doesn't mean there is less white crime, it just means that in London., like a lot of English inner cities, gangs comprise of members of different races...SO, it doesn't make all the other races look worse, it just makes all white gangs more rare. If anything it points towards poverty and class as a point of interest. The lower/working classes in England are mixed, the middle/upper classes are predominantly white. If you studied rape cases in isolated, more well off areas (even though there would be less crime) you would no doubt find most of the offenders to be white. The offenders in any crime stats are gonna be more numerous in/from poorer parts of a city/country, which in the modern world means more ethnic minorities.

There's is a marked difference in black/non white offences, - but that's to be expected in any crime study due to the areas where crime is commited ( ie: lower class) -due to the social/environmental issues that unfortunately still exist, and is far less of an issue than you have skewed the data to make out.

Lambeth for example, has about 55% white, and the second biggest group is black, at about 22%. Blacks are more likely to live lower to the poverty line than whites due to reason you probably ignore. So in any crime stats you'll have more blacks and less whites, but the difference isn't all that great. It also said in the report all black gangs had fallen considerably, which is a good thing. It shows that people are becoming more integrated - even if it is in rape gangs

And for the record, I won't be voting for your party of knuckle dragging, ignorant racist, thugs in suits. I still wouldn't vote for them if I was racist because they're politically inept and have no solid policies on anything including race and immigration. But, then again, if I was racist, I probably would vote for you because racists for the most part are ****ing morons.