'Diversity' means chasing down Whites - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Rome, Greece, Egypt & other ancient history (c 4000 BCE - 476 CE) and pre-history.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14814724
ASIA FOR THE ASIANS, AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS, WHITE COUNTRIES FOR EVERYBODY!

Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?

But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
#14814803
The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.





It's not ancient history but there are over 1 million Koreans in Japan who need to be assimilated, which is Japan's race problem. The Koreans and other "resident aliens" make up 1% of Japan's population. Korean labourers were brought in to make up for a labour shortage from the late 1930 to the 1940s, which is exactly the situation by which the Netherlands became multicultural, taking in Moroccan workers to fill factories with Third World migrants. The ethnic Moroccans in the Netherlands, who make up 2% of the Dutch population, are descended in part from factory workers who immigrated in the 1970s and the 1980s. Unfortunately, Japan had to pass a hate speech law in 2016 to protect Korean minorities who have been increasingly targeted by Japanese nationalists in recent years and they are treated just like the ethnic Moroccans in the Netherlands.

TOKYO, May 24 (UPI) -- Japan passed its first anti-hate speech bill Tuesday in a bid to address a problem that has intensified with the country's worsening relations with South Korea.

The law condemned racist language as "unforgivable" and marks a first step for the country signatory to the United Nations' international convention on the elimination of racism, The Japan Times reported.

But the bill does not have clauses that are binding. Critics have said the legislation is mostly philosophical, according to the report.

The law doesn't ban hate speech and there are no mention of penalties for acts like holding a hate rally in public spaces.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/ ... 464114002/


Moreover, if you had an empire once, your country is multicultural to some extent. For instance, 300,000 mixed-race Eurasians who had been socialized into many Dutch customs were repatriated to the Netherlands in 1949, and Geert Wilders is one of the "Indo-Europeans," whose family had returned from the Dutch East Indies. America's race problem started when British colonists imported Africans from the African continent to work in plantations due to an acute labour shortage.

Image


The Slavs, that settled in Germany and adopted the German language and German culture, are indistinguishable from other Germans, because these people are of the same race.


Race is a vague concept and the ethnic Russians in Germany are still living in ghettos, hindering social integration. I don't think the Russians are comfortable with living with the Germans and having the same type of light skin mutation alone does not promote peaceful integration of an immigrant group. The ethnic Koreans in Japan are also known for self-segregation, refusing to integrate and still speaking Korean as a first language.

Most Russian-Germans have assimilated and integrated well into German society.[18] As with most other immigrant groups, there remain some contemporary issues. German authorities have been concerned that the high number of Russian immigrants self-segregating in certain neighborhoods hinders social integration. This has led to restrictions on immigration from Russia and the former Soviet Union. Other issues have included crime, drugs, poverty and unemployment.[19]
Last edited by ThirdTerm on 15 Jun 2017 23:11, edited 7 times in total.
#14814806
ThirdTerm wrote:It's not ancient history but there are over 1 million Koreans in Japan who need to be assimilated, which is Japan's race problem. Korean labourers were brought in to make up for a labour shortage from the late 1930 to the 1940s, which is exactly the situation by which the Netherlands became multicultural by taking in Moroccan workers to fill factories with Third World migrants.


BS, Koreans and Japanese are of the same race, you cannot distinguish them by their facial features. You deliberately confuse the terms "ethnic groups" and "races".

A Korean, that adopts the Japanese language and the Japanese culture, is indistinguishable from other Japanese.

The Slavs, that settled in Germany and adopted the German language and German culture, are indistinguishable from other Germans, because these people are of the same race.

A Sub-Saharan African, that adopts the German or Japanese culture or language, is still not similar to other Germans and Japanese, so you cannot assimilate people who are of a different race.

Do I have to explain these basic things to a grow up person?
#14814823
Anti racism itself was a concept developed in white countries. This is why it looks to be about white people only.

Those same people probably do think their code is universal because they are internationalists by nature.

Thing is they don't like to spread the anti racist thing explicitly to non whites like they do things like LGBT rights and feminism. I don't think I'd because they are anti white. In a way it is that they are, ironically, preaching To their in group because they feel more comfortable around white people.
#14814831
layman wrote:Anti racism itself was a concept developed in white countries. This is why it looks to be about white people only.

Those same people probably do think their code is universal because they are internationalists by nature.

Thing is they don't like to spread the anti racist thing explicitly to non whites like they do things like LGBT rights and feminism. I don't think I'd because they are anti white. In a way it is that they are, ironically, preaching To their in group because they feel more comfortable around white people.


Are Ashkenazi Jews white Europeans?
#14816183
Bulaba Jones wrote:Have you ever heard of a single self-respecting, honest "Defender of the White Race" say that being a Jew doesn't automatically disqualify someone as being white?


The jewish identity is funny because it is often treated as a race while it is really a religious culture. It should be an oxymoron to say Jewish atheist just like it is to say Muslim atheist or Christian atheist but somehow it isn't.

Racially jews fall across various categories not unlike other religious cultures: Ethiopian jews are negroid, Mizrahi are basically iranic or arab like, while the Ashkenazi are white caucasian people.

Image

Image

Image
#14816190
SolarCross wrote:The jewish identity is funny because it is often treated as a race while it is really a religious culture. It should be an oxymoron to say Jewish atheist just like it is to say Muslim atheist or Christian atheist but somehow it isn't.

Racially jews fall across various categories not unlike other religious cultures: Ethiopian jews are negroid, Mizrahi are basically iranic or arab like, while the Ashkenazi are white caucasian people.

Image^



Image

Image


You are touching an absolute taboo.

How could the Zionist elite (speak the White Ashkenazi Jews) accuse their perceived enemies of "racism" (speak Anti-Semitism or white Supremacism), if the Normies relaise, that Jews are just a religious group, that the non-white Jews are just victims of White Zionists, who are neither Semites, nor religious Jews.

If such an understanding is achieved, the word "Jew Hater" or "Anti-Zionist" would not be tantamount to "racism" or "Anti-Semitism".

Nobody is called a "racist" or "Anti-Semite", if he openly instigates hate against Semitic Muslims or Semitic Christians.

You can be an anti-Muslim or an anti-Christian, no problem with that.
You can be an Anti- or Pro-Communist, no problem with that, nobody will accuse you of "racism".

But if you talk about Zionism and Israel, they can easily insinuate that you are hating innocent "Semites" just because of their supposed Semitic origin.

That is what the fake term "anti-Semitism" is about.
#14816191
ArtAllm wrote:You are touching an absolute taboo.

How could the Zionist elite (speak the White Ashkenazi Jews) accuse their perceived enemies of "racism" (speak Anti-Semitism or white Supremacism), if the Normies relaise, that Jews are just a religious group, that the non-white Jews are just victims of White Zionists, who are neither Semites, nor religious Jews.

If such an understanding is achieved, the word "Jew Hater" or "Anti-Zionist" would not be tantamount to "racism" or "Anti-Semitism".

Nobody is called a "racist" or "Anti-Semite", if he openly instigates hate against Semitic Muslims or Semitic Christians.

You can be an anti-Muslim or an anti-Christian, no problem with that.
You can be an Anti- or Pro-Communist, no problem with that, nobody will accuse you of "racism".

But if you talk about Zionism and Israel, they can easily insinuate that you are hating innocent "Semites" just because of their supposed Semitic origin.

That is what the fake term "anti-Semitism" is about.

Actually there is not such a difference between denigrating racial and ideological identities. You can certainly get in trouble with muslims for denigrating their ideology for example. The charge of "anti-semitism" is read as a racial attack because jews innocently though erroneously believe their religious culture has a homogenous geneological origin. It doesn't matter really though whether "anti-semitism" is not better thought of as hatred against a religious culture. It can just as easily be the jewish equivalent of Islamophobia.

Modern hate crime legislation tends to place racially motivated hate on the same level as religiously motivated hate. Christians have successfully used hate crime legislation to prosecute harassment by athiests for example.
#14816193
SolarCross wrote:Christians have successfully used hate crime legislation to prosecute harassment by athiests for example.


Yes, and it seems that some people are pushing for a Middle-Age-Style inquisition and legislation, but this time this is not about Christians or Christianity...
#14816198
ArtAllm wrote:Yes, and it seems that some people are pushing for a Middle-Age-Style inquisition and legislation, but this time this is not about Christians or Christianity...


But there is a difference between the Catholic Inquisition and its blasphemy laws and the modern hate crime legislation because modern hate crime legislation is basically open for everyone to use against whoever they like.

I await:
- anti-fa being prosecuted using hate crime legislation for their hate crimes against "fascists".
- gays prosecuting imams for hate speech and even imams prosecuting gays for offending their religion by their acts.
- communists being prosecuted for hate crimes against "capitalists".

The shitshow has barely started.
#14816205
SolarCross wrote:But there is a difference between the Catholic Inquisition and its blasphemy laws and the modern hate crime legislation because modern hate crime legislation is basically open for everyone to use against whoever they like.


The Middle-Age blasphemy laws were used against Christians, too.

The Commie-Laws were used against Commies, too. And precisely against those Commies, who invented and passed these laws.

The new inquisition laws will be used against the authors and pushers of these laws, but they are too stupid to understand what they are doing.

They believe that these laws will help them to perpetuate the Status Quo and protect their own interests.
#14816228
Image
“Israeli beauty” is exemplified by the blue-eyed, blonde model Bar Refaeli.

15 and 20 percent of European Jews are blond and have blue eyes, suggesting the presence of the HERC2 gene which causes blue eyes. Coincidentally, 17.5% of them also belong to Y-DNA haplogroups R1a1, which is common among Russians, and R1b, the majority Y chromosomal lineage in Western Europe. Behar et al. (2004) estimated an overall historical male admixture rate of 5–8% with European populations, since the founding of the Ashkenazi Jewish population. Y-DNA haplogroup A, which is rare outside Africa, is the most common paternal lineage among Ethiopian Jews (41%). But the presence of haplogroup J in their genome at a minor frequency shows that Ethiopian Jews do have remote Jewish ancestry traced back to the Middle East, which has been diluted by admixing with local African populations.

Yet this Middle Eastern/European distinction in the Ashkenazi gene pool may be an oversimplification. Some of these Middle Eastern Y chromosomal lineages were brought by Middle Eastern settlers during the Stone and Bronze Ages colonization of Europe, then introduced through admixture between Europeans and Jews (Semino et al. 2000). The most common Ashkenazi Jewish Y chromosomal types of European origin are R1a1 and R1b with frequencies of 7.5 and 10 %, respectively. R1a1 is very common among Russians, Ukrainians, and Sorbs (Slavic speakers in Germany), as well as among certain Central Asian groups. This may be the signal of much-speculated Khazar admixture with Ashkenazi Jews, although the admixture may have occurred with Ukrainians, Poles or Russians (Nebel et al. 2005). However, it should be noted that a Middle Eastern origin for some R1a1 lineages cannot be ruled out. R1b is the most common Y chromosome branch of Atlantic Europe. Its occurrence among Ashkenazi Jews may be an indicator of admixture that occurred in the Rhine Valley prior to the Ashkenazi Jewish migration to Eastern Europe or at later time points in certain locales (Nebel et al. 2005). This branch is also prevalent in Lebanon among the Maronite Christian community and may reflect the admixture with Crusaders following their invasions in the 11–13th centuries CE (Zalloua et al. 2008).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3543766/
Last edited by ThirdTerm on 18 Jun 2017 23:29, edited 1 time in total.
#14816300
Yet this Middle Eastern/European distinction in the Ashkenazi gene pool may be an oversimplification. Some of these Middle Eastern Y chromosomal lineages were brought by Middle Eastern settlers during the Stone and Bronze Ages colonization of Europe, then introduced through admixture between Europeans and Jews.


How can professionals talk about Jews in the Stone and Bronze Ages?

Even if Middle Eastern settlers moved to Europe, what has this to do with Monotheism? Jews were a proselytising religious group, how can any conversion to monotheism change your genome?

And is it not obvious, that blond people cannot originate from a desert region with high solar radiation?

It seems that some scientists are sooooo desperate to find a common oriental origin of Jews, who are now "returning" to Palestine, that they are proposing wilder and wilder theories.
#14816303
AlphaBeta wrote:ASIA FOR THE ASIANS, AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS, WHITE COUNTRIES FOR EVERYBODY!

Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?

But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

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


What? There is a whole raft of problems here, but I want to address one thing in particular. This whole nonsensical rant takes as its unspoken assumption that there is a coherent "White race." This simply does not make sense, as even a cursory examination of history will show--the Irish were not considered "White" for a long time; the question of whether Jewish people are "White" continues to be debated. "Whiteness" is nothing inherent, and there is no coherent "White culture." There is Irish culture, and Jewish culture, and French culture, etc., but there is no coherent "White" culture about which we can talk with any coherence.
#14816304
minivanburen wrote:What? There is a whole raft of problems here, but I want to address one thing in particular. This whole nonsensical rant takes as its unspoken assumption that there is a coherent "White race." This simply does not make sense, as even a cursory examination of history will show--the Irish were not considered "White" for a long time; the question of whether Jewish people are "White" continues to be debated. "Whiteness" is nothing inherent, and there is no coherent "White culture." There is Irish culture, and Jewish culture, and French culture, etc., but there is no coherent "White" culture about which we can talk with any coherence.


How do they manage to institutionally discriminate against Whites via affirmative actions, if there is no such thing, as Whites?

And how can they accuse the whites in "supremacism" and guilt them into collective suicide, if there are no whites?

The concept of reverse discrimination has two different meanings. In the broadest sense, it refers to discrimination against Whites or males in any area of life, including employment and education. In a narrower sense, it refers to the specific negative impacts Whites or males may experience because of affirmative action policies. The two meanings are often conflated, which leads to confusion and misinformation.[3]:1160–1162

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_discrimination


If Whites and gender are just "social constructs", how do they manage to do their "reverse discrimination" against Whites and males or "White Males"?

Do they ask these White males, if they feel as Whites and as males, or do they manage to find out who they are without asking them?

:D
#14816305
ArtAllm wrote:How do they manage to institutionally discriminate against whites via affirmative actions, if there is no such thing, as whites?

And how can they accuse the whites in "supremacism" and guilt them into collective suicide, if there are no whites?

If whites and gender are just "social constructs", how do them manage to do their "reverse discrimination" against "White Males".

Do they ask these white males, if they feel as whites and as males, or do they manage to find out who they are without asking them?



There is no "discrimination" against Whites, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. But I digress. It is not that "Whiteness" doesn't exist; it's that there is a difference between a socially constructed category and a coherent ethnicity capable of constituting a nation-state. Moreover, to the extent that you're suggesting that the United States is a "White" nation, it bears noting that people of color have lived and contributed to this country since its birth. A Black man was the first casualty of the American Revolution.
#14816365
minivanburen wrote:There is no "discrimination" against Whites, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.


I have quoted the Wiki-article about "reverse discrimination", but you deny obvious facts?

Reverse discrimination is discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group, in favor of members of a minority or historically disadvantaged group. Groups may be defined in terms of race, gender, ethnicity, or other factors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_discrimination


They admit that reverse discrimination (in terms of race and gender) exists, period. No discussion about this phenomenon is needed.

My question was: How can they find out, who belongs to the White race, if race is just a social construct? Do they ask the people, if they feel like "Whites", before discriminating against them, or do they manage to find this out without asking them?

A very straightforward question, but you refused to answer it.


minivanburen wrote:. It is not that "Whiteness" doesn't exist; it's that there is a difference between a socially constructed category and a coherent ethnicity capable of constituting a nation-state.


Sorry, but I cannot understand this New-Speak-Gibberish. Do you really believe that the legislators have constructed a category "Whites", to discriminate against them? Again, if even that was true, how did they manage to do that? Did they ask the people if they feel "White", and after that they applied against them the "reverse discrimination"?

And what do you mean with "coherent"? The white nation states existed for a long time and did fine, as long as they were not "enriched".

minivanburen wrote:Moreover, to the extent that you're suggesting that the United States is a "White" nation, it bears noting that people of color have lived and contributed to this country since its birth. A Black man was the first casualty of the American Revolution.


There is no doubt that all founding fathers of the USA identified themselves as Whites, and there goal was a creation a nation for White people.

What to African Americans, if they were not happy that their Black African slaveholders sold them to non-Christian slave traders, who shipped them to the USA, a country, created by Whites, why did then not move back to Africa, after they were freed?

If USA was such a bad anti-African state, why not just use the moment and not move back to a black state in Africa, or create a new black state in Africa?

White American leaders were ready to pay compensations for the years of slavery, and ship all Blacks back to Africa, if they wished to return to their home continent.

But only a few Black Africans took advantage of this proposal, most of them preferred to stay in a "racist White country".

Does that make sense?

The Society for the Colonization of Free People of Color of America, commonly known as the American Colonization Society (ACS), was a group established in 1816 by Robert Finley of New Jersey which supported the migration of free African Americans to the continent of Africa. It helped to found the colony of Liberia in 1821–22 on the coast of West Africa as a place for free-born American blacks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_ ... on_Society


It seems that Whites can do without Blacks, they can survive on their own.
But Blacks constantly whine about "white Racists", but they need Whites, they prefer countries, created by Whites, to their own black countries.

It is also true for neighbourhoods.

If a neighbourhood becomes black, Whites and even some blacks move out of this neighbourhood, and move on to another neighbourhood, that is still white.

A good example is Luther King's widow.

Martin Luther King Jr.'s widow moved from the home she bought with her late husband in 1965 after a series of burglaries, including one by a man who later confessed to killing several women in the neighborhood, her oldest son said Friday.
...
"The neighborhood's not a great neighborhood, but it's where my dad wanted to live," he said. "And as she was getting older and up in years, we felt very much concerned for her security and safety."

http://siouxcityjournal.com/news/king-s ... de201.html


The widow of Luther King abandoned the neighbourhood of her own people, and moved into a neighbourhood, that was stille white!!!

How pathetic!

:D
#14816366
ArtAllm wrote:I have quoted the Wiki-article about "reverse discrimination", but you deny obvious facts?


Yes--a Wikipedia article isn't proof of anything, as anyone can edit it. Even if it were curated by a reputable group of people or organization, it would still not be any specific evidence of this actually happening. It's just a definition.

My question was: How can they find out, who belongs to the White race, if race is just a social construct? Do they ask the people, if they feel like "Whites", before discriminating against them, or do they manage to find this out without asking them?

A very straightforward question, but you refused to answer it.


I gave your question the kind of response it deserved.

Sorry, but I cannot understand this New-Speak-Gibberish. Do you really believe that the legislators have constructed a category "Whites", to discriminate against them? Again, if even that was true, how did they manage to do that? Did they ask the people if they feel "White", and after that they applied against them the "reverse discrimination"?


They don't think it be like it is, but it do.

And what do you mean with "coherent"? The white nation states existed for a long time and did fine, as long as they were not "enriched".


https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/coherent

There is no doubt that all founding fathers of the USA identified themselves as Whites, and there goal was a creation a nation for White people.


They also identified as Christians, as men, as heterosexuals, as wealthy and slaveholders, as a lot of things--is this country only for people who by whatever happenstance resemble the Founding Fathers most closely? What a nonsensical position.

What to African Americans, if they were not happy that their Black African slaveholders sold them to non-Christian slave traders, who shipped them to the USA, a country, created by Whites, why did then not move back to Africa, after they were freed?


This statement verges on the nonsensical, but to the extent I can understand it at all, my response would be that: (1) by the point the slaves were freed, the United States was the only thing they knew; going "home" wouldn't have been home at all because Africa was utterly foreign to them; (2) even if they wanted to go back, they wouldn't have been able to due to the cost of intercontinental travel and the universal impoverishment of former slaves.

If USA was such a bad anti-African state, why not just use the moment and not move back to a black state in Africa, or create a new black state in Africa?


See above. Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia

White American leaders were ready to pay compensations for the years of slavery, and ship all Blacks back to Africa, if they wished to return to their home continent.

But only a few Black Africans took advantage of this proposal, most of them preferred to stay in a "racist White country".

Does that make sense?


Nothing you're saying makes sense, actually. I'm going to need a citation to a reputable source for your wild assertions that "White American leaders were ready to pay compensations for the years of slavery." And, again, the reason so few African-Americans wanted to return to Africa is that they had already been held in the United States for generations and knew nothing about Africa--in part because they were prohibited from learning to read.

It seems that Whites can do without Blacks, they can survive on their own.
But Blacks constantly white about "White Racists", but they need Whites, they prefer countries, created by Whites, to their own black countries.

It is also true for neighbourhoods.

If a neighbourhood becomes black, Whites and even some blacks move out of this neighbourhood, and move on to another neighbourhood, that is still white.

A good example is the wife of Luther King's widow.


Literally what.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Russia does not really claim be a democratic nati[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]

Based on what? On simple economics. and in t[…]

In other news ... According to his lawyers, Trum[…]