An Appropriate Thread

[Shusha]

Multiculturalism is a mental disease ...

I'm just going to leave this here so people can take a look at it.

 

[José]

UNITED NATIONS' DEFINITION OF GENOCIDE

acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.

The international legal definition of genocide - Prevent Genocide International

Flooding America and Canada with non-white immigration is clearly "an act committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic group".

Promoting mixed-marriages and the glamourization of black, latino popular culture among the american youth through the mass media and education system is clearly "an act committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic group".

What's been happening in America and Canada since the end of WWII fits the UN definition of genocide to a T.

 

[montelatici]

And "obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle."

As the UN Resolution stated: The creation of a Jewish National Home in Palestine ran counter to that principle as stated in the Covenant of the League of Nations and the UN Charter. Palestine was not the ancestral homeland of Europeans, it was the home of the Muslim and Christian inhabitants whose ancestors had lived there for thousands of years. Ancestors who practiced various religions prior to converting to Christianity as required by the Roman/Byzantine Empire and eventually many to Islam.

As the UN resolution stated: "(1) The placing of the country "under such political, administrative arid economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home, as laid down in the preamble . . ." .

Your issue is with the UN and resolving your IJH which obviously consumes your every waking moment.

And, they said about this this National Home "obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle."

No one is saying that the UN did not support and facilitate the creation of the Jewish National Home. It did so by ignoring the principle of self-determination for the Muslim and Christian inhabitants favoring the European Jews. Totally contrary to the terms Covenant of the LON and the UN Charter.

 

[José]

Originally posted by Shusha
I'm going to go take a shower.

I'm gonna take a shower too...

This morally depraved woman not only justifies the herding of the palestinian people into ethnic enclaves and their murder when they try to leave them, she also supports the ongoing genocide that's been happening in North America.

 

[Hollie]

And "obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle."

As the UN Resolution stated: The creation of a Jewish National Home in Palestine ran counter to that principle as stated in the Covenant of the League of Nations and the UN Charter. Palestine was not the ancestral homeland of Europeans, it was the home of the Muslim and Christian inhabitants whose ancestors had lived there for thousands of years. Ancestors who practiced various religions prior to converting to Christianity as required by the Roman/Byzantine Empire and eventually many to Islam.

As the UN resolution stated: "(1) The placing of the country "under such political, administrative arid economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home, as laid down in the preamble . . ." .

Your issue is with the UN and resolving your IJH which obviously consumes your every waking moment.

And, they said about this this National Home "obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle."

No one is saying that the UN did not support and facilitate the creation of the Jewish National Home. It did so by ignoring the principle of self-determination for the Muslim and Christian inhabitants favoring the European Jews. Totally contrary to the terms Covenant of the LON and the UN Charter.

Yours are just cheap excuses that we've read frequently. You obviously miss understanding the very concept of the principle that befuddles you so. No group favored the Jewish people in their establishment of self-determination. In fact, the Arabs-Moslems initiated a war attempting to prevent the goal of self-dermination that established the Jewish state.

You're looking for excuses to explain why the Arabs-Moslems could not and still cannot take the steps necessary for self-determination. You want excuses for Arab-Moslem ineptitude and failure.

There was nothing contrary to the UN charter or the LON with regard to the Jewish people seeking self-determination and it is not a function of either the UN or the LON to "grant" self-determination.

You're just hopelessly befuddled as you desperately frail about with topics you know nothing about.

 

[montelatici]

Just facts. The UN stated that self-determination was withheld from the native Muslims and Christians in writing in Resolution A/364. You just can't handle the truth.

"176. With regard to the principle of self-determination, although international recognition was extended to this principle at the end of the First World War and it was adhered to with regard to the other Arab territories, at the time of the creation of the "A" Mandates, it was not applied to Palestine, obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle."

Keep making things up, it is entertaining.

 

[Hollie]

Just facts. The UN stated that self-determination was withheld from the native Muslims and Christians in writing in Resolution A/364. You just can't handle the truth.

"176. With regard to the principle of self-determination, although international recognition was extended to this principle at the end of the First World War and it was adhered to with regard to the other Arab territories, at the time of the creation of the "A" Mandates, it was not applied to Palestine, obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle."

Keep making things up, it is entertaining.

Keep re-writing the articles you cut and paste. They get more incoherent as your lack of articulation tends toward befuddled writing.

Odd, don't you think? The very article you cut and pasted identified the goal of a Jewish National Home.

Keep editing the articles you cut and paste. It's a laughable joke as you stutter and mumble with revising those articles. LOL

 

[Shusha]

What's been happening in America and Canada since the end of WWII fits the UN definition of genocide to a T.

WTF?!

 

[montelatici]

Just facts. The UN stated that self-determination was withheld from the native Muslims and Christians in writing in Resolution A/364. You just can't handle the truth.

"176. With regard to the principle of self-determination, although international recognition was extended to this principle at the end of the First World War and it was adhered to with regard to the other Arab territories, at the time of the creation of the "A" Mandates, it was not applied to Palestine, obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle."

Keep making things up, it is entertaining.

Keep re-writing the articles you cut and paste. They get more incoherent as your lack of articulation tends toward befuddled writing.

Odd, don't you think? The very article you cut and pasted identified the goal of a Jewish National Home.

Keep editing the articles you cut and paste. It's a laughable joke as you stutter and mumble with revising those articles. LOL

You just can't accept the facts. There are no "articles" they are parts of a UN Resolution you idiot.

 

[Hollie]

Just facts. The UN stated that self-determination was withheld from the native Muslims and Christians in writing in Resolution A/364. You just can't handle the truth.

"176. With regard to the principle of self-determination, although international recognition was extended to this principle at the end of the First World War and it was adhered to with regard to the other Arab territories, at the time of the creation of the "A" Mandates, it was not applied to Palestine, obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle."

Keep making things up, it is entertaining.

Keep re-writing the articles you cut and paste. They get more incoherent as your lack of articulation tends toward befuddled writing.

Odd, don't you think? The very article you cut and pasted identified the goal of a Jewish National Home.

Keep editing the articles you cut and paste. It's a laughable joke as you stutter and mumble with revising those articles. LOL

You just can't accept the facts. There are no "articles" they are parts of a UN Resolution you idiot.

I gave you the facts from the article you cut and pasted. You were either too lazy or incompetent to review what you cut and pasted.

Your cut and paste article spells out the intent to facilitate establish of the Jewish National home. The Jewish people used that mandate to establish self=determination. The Arab-Moslem squatters could not and still can not accomplish self-determination.

Your being befuddled about the articles you cut and paste is due to your own incompetence.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Yes, I fully understand that. The oldest surviving "people of the place", as Tinman calls them, are the Jewish people.

The Jews were not the first people there nor were they ever the only people there.

There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state. History call for a multi religious place.

So, in the context of this thread, then, you are arguing that States which are homogeneous and built around a specific culture or ethnicity should not exist. Or are you applying this only to Jews?

You have been reading my posts for a year and this is what you think?

WOW!

 

[yiostheoy]

There ya go José

Here's the questions again:

It is morally correct to exclude people from movement or immigration based on their ethnicity or former nationality. Yes or no?

It is morally correct to create borders between nations. Yes or no?

It is morally correct to segregate people based on their race, religion, or ethnicity. Yes or no?

It is morally correct to protect a nation's citizens from hostile actors through the use of checkpoints, walls, no-go zones and LEO's. Yes or no?

Those are a lot of questions.

How and why did you become so inquisitive?

 

[yiostheoy]

1. Depends.
2. Yes.
3. Depends on the circumstances.
4. Yes.

Everything always depends. Everything.

 

[yiostheoy]

Originally posted by Shusha
It is morally correct to exclude people from movement or immigration based on their ethnicity or former nationality. Yes or no?

Despite decades of multiculturalist indoctrination in America the fact remains that nations are

an aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family, often speaking the same language or cognate languages.

the definition of nation

China and Japan are in their most basic definition asian tribes/countries/nation-states.

A China with a white or black majority would not be China anymore it would be another country.

The United States is in its essence a white, european country.

One of the reasons the United States is classified as part of the West is exactly its white majority... otherwise, extremely westernized countries like Japan would be part of the western civilization as well.

Preventing mass immigration from destroying the asian identity of China, the black identity of Nigeria, the pre-Columbian Indian majority of North America and the United States european identity was/is, therefore, not only morally correct but also an absolute imperative to guarantee the survival of one of the core components of those peoples/nations.

Even racial dictatorships like 19th century America, South Africa under apartheid and Israel have the right to protect their racial composition against FOREIGNERS, individuals whose historical homeland is not comprised by the territory of the state, like when Israel deports illegal Somalis, Nigerians, etc... but never against the NATIVES OF THE LAND, this is no longer immigration control, this is dehumanization, supremacism ethnic, moral depravation.

It is morally correct to create borders between nations. Yes or no?

Borders between real countries, yes.

Fake borders separating ethnocratic states from ethnic enclaves, no.

Even supremacist states can have real borders with neighboring countries like the ones South Africa under Apartheid had with Mozambique and Zimbabwe, and Israel has with Egypt and Jordan (a de facto border).

The "pseudo-borders" South Africa had with the bantu homelands and Israel has with Gaza and the WB do not qualify as real borders, they are just the limits of the ethnic enclaves imposed by the ethnocratic state to preserve their artificial ethnic majorities.

It is morally correct to segregate people based on their race, religion, or ethnicity. Yes or no?

As Pete has pointed out in a previous post the government cannot promote racial, religious segregation but individuals must have a reasonable degree of freedom of association.

It is morally correct to protect a nation's citizens from hostile actors through the use of checkpoints, walls, no-go zones and LEO's. Yes or no?

Checkpoints, walls and no-go zones separating real nations yes.

Despite all the global commotion, America would be well within her rights to build a wall along the mexican border because there is no ethnic supremacism involved.

But if the "hostile actor" is not a foreign country or national but displaced natives of the land then the checkpoints and walls serve a clearly supremacist, dehumanising purpose.

What a bunch of mental crap.

You seem to have brainwashed yourself with your own B/S.

 

[yiostheoy]

It's funny how people jump into personal philosophy without knowing anything at all about Philosophy.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

 

[ChrisL]

1. Depends.
2. Yes.
3. Depends on the circumstances.
4. Yes.

Everything always depends. Everything.

Not everything but a lot of things.

 

[Phoenall]

And "obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle."

As the UN Resolution stated: The creation of a Jewish National Home in Palestine ran counter to that principle as stated in the Covenant of the League of Nations and the UN Charter. Palestine was not the ancestral homeland of Europeans, it was the home of the Muslim and Christian inhabitants whose ancestors had lived there for thousands of years. Ancestors who practiced various religions prior to converting to Christianity as required by the Roman/Byzantine Empire and eventually many to Islam.

As the UN resolution stated: "(1) The placing of the country "under such political, administrative arid economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home, as laid down in the preamble . . ." .

Your issue is with the UN and resolving your IJH which obviously consumes your every waking moment.

And, they said about this this National Home "obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle."

No one is saying that the UN did not support and facilitate the creation of the Jewish National Home. It did so by ignoring the principle of self-determination for the Muslim and Christian inhabitants favoring the European Jews. Totally contrary to the terms Covenant of the LON and the UN Charter.

LIAR as they were accomodated in the formation of trans Jordan

 

[Phoenall]

Just facts. The UN stated that self-determination was withheld from the native Muslims and Christians in writing in Resolution A/364. You just can't handle the truth.

"176. With regard to the principle of self-determination, although international recognition was extended to this principle at the end of the First World War and it was adhered to with regard to the other Arab territories, at the time of the creation of the "A" Mandates, it was not applied to Palestine, obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle."

Keep making things up, it is entertaining.

And the next article says


177. As to the claim that the Palestine Mandate violates Article 22 of the Covenant because the community of Palestine has not been recognized as an independent nation and because the mandatory was given full powers of legislation and administration, it has been rightly pointed out by the Peel Commission:

" (a) That the provisional recognition of certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire as independent nations is permissible; the words are can be provisionally recognized, not 'will' or 'shall';

" (b) That the penultimate paragraph of Article 22 prescribes that the degree of authority to be exercised by the mandatory shall be defined, at need, by the Council of the League;

" (c) That the acceptance by the Allied Powers and the United States of the policy of the Ball-four Declaration made it clear from the beginning that Palestine would have been treated differently from Syria and Iraq, and that this difference of treatment was confirmed by the Supreme Council in the Treaty of Sevres and by the Council of the League in sanctioning the Mandate."

 

[Shusha]

Yes, I fully understand that. The oldest surviving "people of the place", as Tinman calls them, are the Jewish people.

The Jews were not the first people there nor were they ever the only people there.

There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state. History call for a multi religious place.

So, in the context of this thread, then, you are arguing that States which are homogeneous and built around a specific culture or ethnicity should not exist. Or are you applying this only to Jews?

You have been reading my posts for a year and this is what you think?

WOW!

Perhaps you should stop saying things which contradict your own arguments, huh? Not to mention paying attention to mine.

I did not say the Jewish people were the first people, nor the only people. I said they are the oldest surviving people of the place. Nor did I (or anyone) call for an exclusive Jewish state. Or for one with only one religious group.

 

[montelatici]

The oldest surviving people of the place are the native people, now of the Muslim and Christian faith. Just because the native people converted to other religions over the centuries doesn't change the fact that they are the indigenous people.

People from Europe or other continents, regardless of religion are not "the oldest surviving people" of the place. That's just silly. Those who follow the Hindu Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition in the U.S. and Europe do not miraculously become indigenous to West Bengal.