Has Fergussun Proved the Futility of Ending Racism?

[JimBowie1958]

No, minorities have MORE rights than whites, since whites c an be legally beaten and attacked for expressing their beliefs and the cops do little more than tell them to clear the area. Whites that try to defend their rights in this racist system called Identity Politics are immediately slandered and accused of being racists, just like you did.
I have no problem using the word ****** as a word for discussion, but I have never in my life ever called a person a ******, unlike a whole lot of Democrats in office today.
No, that is not life, that is the result of PC Nazis, according to Bill Maher, who target people for their beliefs and who are intolerant, thoughtless, little pricks. People across the spectrum should be opposing these bastards, but thanks to bastards like you who run interference for them they get away with targetting people over and over.
BINGO.

I am not now nor have I ever advocated for segregation. Period.

You are a proven liar now.

The south didn't enact segregation because they believed black people were equal to them. They believed they were superior to them. That's racism.

So that proves that I am a racist? roflmao

You said that ending racism is futile. So you are advocating for racism and the acts that come with it.

Lolol, so asserting that ending racism is futile now = advocating racism? roflmao

Thank you for illustrating your ideological blinders.

 

[Rikurzhen]

It proves that we'll never be rid of racists such as the OP and those who agreed with him.

Once again, libtards go ionto a circle jerk accusing people of being racists when they do not and cannot prove such accusations.

Kiss my ass, the both of you. You have nothing, no facts, no reason, no anything.

Just running you cum guzzling little ***** mouths.

They're liberals, they don't need facts or reason. All they need do is denounce you, and to other liberals (the only people who count) they've both won the debate and increased their stature/reputation for forthrightly denouncing you and simultaneously announcing that they hold the correct Marxist/Leninist enlightened position.

And still not a one of them will answer these questions:

I'll take a shot at answering your questions.

So why don't whites have the right to represent their own interests in the Political Identity system that we have now, where every other race is organized to defend their own interests?

We're dealing with two white factions. One faction, yours, is focused on principle and equity. The other faction is focused on symbolism. They consider it gauche to acknowledge racial identity. They feel that they are above that. By implication they also believe that they are above minorities who do acknowledge racial identity, just as they are above whites who do the same.

Secondly, you see this outlook expressed like Unkotare is expressing it - you're a loser because you feel the deck is stacked against you and he's a winner because he's succeeding against the same stacked deck. Notice how his response is still focused on symbolism and how it always reflects back on him, making him look better, tougher, more enlightened for not focusing on race. He never touches the issues of principles or fairness, and that's because he, and those in his camp, can't rebut your points and they don't even want to, for principal and fairness are not what motivates them - like all liberals they need an enemy to bash in order to make themselves feel better about themselves, it's symbolism and self-aggrandizement, always.

Do white people have the right to defend themselves?

Sure you do, but you can never do so in a group fashion, like you see with blacks, Hispanics and Asians in this country, because whites have a traitor class, white liberals, just like blacks have their "Uncle Toms" like Clarence Thomas. The difference between white traitors and Uncle Toms is that Uncle Toms are not actively trying to harm blacks, they just want to be able to live true to their own principles. There is no black-black civil war like there is with the white-white civil war. Liberal whites have the utmost contempt for the wrong kind of whites. Look upthread - liberal whites at our leading universities bend over backwards to admit unqualified blacks and whose hide is whipped - intelligent Christian whites from fly-over country, the wrong kind of whites. They hate these whites so much that they're willing to abandon principles like merit and fairness in order to disadvantage and harm the wrong whites.

To defend yourself on a group level requires a cease-fire with the liberal whites. They won't give you a cease-fire. Look at what was actually acknowledged in the UK - The Labour Party purposely opened the immigration floodgates to bring in Pakistanis and Africans in order to punish conservatives whites because Labour couldn't win their vote fair and square, so they wanted to ram multiculturalism down the throats of the wrong kind of whites.

Whites can't defend themselves as a group so long as one faction of whites in hellbent on being a spoiler.

Why does the mere suggestion that whites organize to defend themselves send libtards off into such a little hissy fits?

See above two answers.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It proves that we'll never be rid of racists such as the OP and those who agreed with him.

Once again, libtards go ionto a circle jerk accusing people of being racists when they do not and cannot prove such accusations.

Kiss my ass, the both of you. You have nothing, no facts, no reason, no anything.

Just running you cum guzzling little ***** mouths.

They're liberals, they don't need facts or reason. All they need do is denounce you, and to other liberals (the only people who count) they've both won the debate and increased their stature/reputation for forthrightly denouncing you and simultaneously announcing that they hold the correct Marxist/Leninist enlightened position.

And still not a one of them will answer these questions:

I'll take a shot at answering your questions.

So why don't whites have the right to represent their own interests in the Political Identity system that we have now, where every other race is organized to defend their own interests?

We're dealing with two white factions. One faction, yours, is focused on principle and equity. The other faction is focused on symbolism. They consider it gauche to acknowledge racial identity. They feel that they are above that. By implication they also believe that they are above minorities who do acknowledge racial identity, just as they are above whites who do the same.

Secondly, you see this outlook expressed like Unkotare is expressing it - you're a loser because you feel the deck is stacked against you and he's a winner because he's succeeding against the same stacked deck. Notice how his response is still focused on symbolism and how it always reflects back on him, making him look better, tougher, more enlightened for not focusing on race. He never touches the issues of principles or fairness, and that's because he, and those in his camp, can't rebut your points and they don't even want to, for principal and fairness are not what motivates them - like all liberals they need an enemy to bash in order to make themselves feel better about themselves, it's symbolism and self-aggrandizement, always.

Do white people have the right to defend themselves?

Sure you do, but you can never do so in a group fashion, like you see with blacks, Hispanics and Asians in this country, because whites have a traitor class, white liberals, just like blacks have their "Uncle Toms" like Clarence Thomas. The difference between white traitors and Uncle Toms is that Uncle Toms are not actively trying to harm blacks, they just want to be able to live true to their own principles. There is no black-black civil war like there is with the white-white civil war. Liberal whites have the utmost contempt for the wrong kind of whites. Look upthread - liberal whites at our leading universities bend over backwards to admit unqualified blacks and whose hide is whipped - intelligent Christian whites from fly-over country, the wrong kind of whites. They hate these whites so much that they're willing to abandon principles like merit and fairness in order to disadvantage and harm the wrong whites.

To defend yourself on a group level requires a cease-fire with the liberal whites. They won't give you a cease-fire. Look at what was actually acknowledged in the UK - The Labour Party purposely opened the immigration floodgates to bring in Pakistanis and Africans in order to punish conservatives whites because Labour couldn't win their vote fair and square, so they wanted to ram multiculturalism down the throats of the wrong kind of whites.

Whites can't defend themselves as a group so long as one faction of whites in hellbent on being a spoiler.

Why does the mere suggestion that whites organize to defend themselves send libtards off into such a little hissy fits?

See above two answers.

Excellent answers.

I agree with your analysis. Liberals are traitors to fellow whites in the same sense that they claim that conservative blacks are traitors to their own race.

I hesitate to incorporate such thinking, as I have been conditioned to it for decades now, but you are right; white liberals are traitors to their race, their country and their own humanity.

 

[Rikurzhen]

No, minorities have MORE rights than whites, since whites c an be legally beaten and attacked for expressing their beliefs and the cops do little more than tell them to clear the area. Whites that try to defend their rights in this racist system called Identity Politics are immediately slandered and accused of being racists, just like you did.



I have no problem using the word ****** as a word for discussion, but I have never in my life ever called a person a ******, unlike a whole lot of Democrats in office today.



No, that is not life, that is the result of PC Nazis, according to Bill Maher, who target people for their beliefs and who are intolerant, thoughtless, little pricks. People across the spectrum should be opposing these bastards, but thanks to bastards like you who run interference for them they get away with targetting people over and over.



BINGO.

I am not now nor have I ever advocated for segregation. Period.

You are a proven liar now.

The south didn't enact segregation because they believed black people were equal to them. They believed they were superior to them. That's racism.

You said that ending racism is futile. So you are advocating for racism and the acts that come with it.

You think that this is only a Southern attitude? You like JFK? I'm going to assume that maybe you're from his neck of the woods, that you favor a local son. If so explain how enlightened Bostonians could do this:

The Boston busing crisis (1974–1988) was a series of protests and riots that occurred in Boston, Massachusetts in response to the passing of the 1965 Racial Imbalance Act, which ordered public schools in the state to desegregate. W. Arthur Garrity Jr. of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts laid out a plan for compulsory busing of students from predominantly white areas of the city to schools with predominantly black student populations. The legislation provoked outrage from white Bostonians and led to widespread protests and violent public disturbances. The conflict lasted for over a decade and contributed to a demographic shift in Boston public schools, with dramatically fewer students enrolling in public schools and more white families sending their children to private schools instead. . . .

In the Boston metropolitan area, Judge W. Arthur Garrity Jr. of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts found a recurring pattern of racial discrimination in the operation of the Boston public schools in a 1974 ruling. His ruling found the schools were unconstitutionally segregated.

As a remedy, he used a busing plan developed by the Massachusetts State Board of Education to implement the state's Racial Imbalance Law that had been passed by the Massachusetts state legislature a few years earlier, requiring any school with a student enrollment that was more than 50% nonwhite to be balanced according to race. The Boston School Committee consistently disobeyed orders from the state Board of Education. Judge Garrity's ruling, upheld on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and by the Supreme Court led by Warren Burger, required school children to be brought to different schools to end segregation. The final Judge Garrity-issued decision in the case came in 1988. . . .

For three years after the plan commenced, Massachusetts state troopers were stationed at South Boston High.[2] The first day of the plan, only 100 of 1,300 students came to school at South Boston.[2] Only 13 of the 550 South Boston juniors ordered to attend Roxbury showed up.[2] Parents showed up every day to protest, and football season was cancelled.[2] Whites and blacks began entering through different doors. . . .

Of the 100,000 enrolled in Boston school districts, attendance fell to 40,000 from 60,000 during these years.[2] Opponents personally attacked Judge Garrity, claiming that because he lived in a white suburb, his own children were not affected by his ruling. The author of the busing plan, Robert Dentler, lived in the suburb of Lexington, which was unaffected by the ruling. . . .

There were a number of protest incidents that turned severely violent, even resulting in deaths. In one case, Theodore Landsmark, a Yale-educated attorney, was attacked and bloodied by a group of white teenagers as he exited Boston City Hall.[4]. . . In a retaliatory incident the next day, black teenagers in Roxbury threw rocks at a white man's car and caused him to crash.[2] The youths dragged him out and crushed his skull with nearby paving stones. When police arrived, the man was surrounded by a crowd of 100 chanting "Let him die" while lying in a coma from which he never recovered.

In another instance, a white teenager was stabbed nearly to death by a black teenager at South Boston High School. The community's white residents mobbed the school, trapping the black students inside.[9] There were dozens of other racial incidents at South Boston High that year.[2] The school was forced to close for a month after the stabbing.[2] When it opened again, it was one of the first high schools to install metal detectors; with 400 students attending, it was guarded by 500 police officers every day. . .

By the time the experiment with busing ended in 1988, the Boston school district had shrunk from 100,000 students to 57,000, only 15% of whom were white.[10] In 2008 Boston Public Schools were 76% black and Hispanic, and 14% White.​

 

[The2ndAmendment]

2nd, I came off a little harsh the first time, let me take another crack at it, seriously.

How about we learn to interact with each other??
Let's leave guns and police out of this thread and concentrate on peace between blacks and whites??

How is that black family unit doing?? I know you are white, but how about asking some of the blacks what the truth is??

Can we rebuild family units that have values??
Do you think religion plays into this conversation??

Do you think we need morals in this culture??
Where are we supposed to get those morals at??

Can we agree places like Chicago and Detroit that are predominantly black are in desperate times??
Do you really want to have a civil conversation??

We should learn to interact with each through trade and tourism only. It's been proven that multiculturalism is a failure. We can still have a large "federation of nations and states" under a single Constitution, but it's best that the races and even religions be segregated locally. Islam should be banned/prohibited in the United States, since it's not a peaceful religion at all. It abhors the Enlightenment and Classical Liberalism. As we speak, Sweden is being decimated by Islam. Yeah Sweden. The UK is totally fucked up with Sharia law, and it goes on.

Yes, Chicago and Detroit are primary black and in desperate times, because they are dependent on whites (parasites) and the whites (hosts) have abandoned them (white flight) coupled with Unions ruining the economy.

Racism is genetic. Any race of humans that was NOT inherently "racist" went extinct. It's an extremely biologically adaptive trait. So long as two races ling among each other, one will dominate the other, or the weaker race will be a parasite on the stronger race.

Let every race take care of itself. We should teach and educate the public about the benefits of segregation and having pride in their culture. Since humans voluntarily segregate themselves, it wouldn't' require any government mandates to achieve it.


The black family unit was thriving before the Civil Rights movement...Religion will be the only way out for blacks. They abort more than 40% of their young. They are genociding themselves.

Morals will be rebuilt when Progressives are run out of this country.

 

[JimBowie1958]

No, minorities have MORE rights than whites, since whites c an be legally beaten and attacked for expressing their beliefs and the cops do little more than tell them to clear the area. Whites that try to defend their rights in this racist system called Identity Politics are immediately slandered and accused of being racists, just like you did.



I have no problem using the word ****** as a word for discussion, but I have never in my life ever called a person a ******, unlike a whole lot of Democrats in office today.



No, that is not life, that is the result of PC Nazis, according to Bill Maher, who target people for their beliefs and who are intolerant, thoughtless, little pricks. People across the spectrum should be opposing these bastards, but thanks to bastards like you who run interference for them they get away with targetting people over and over.



BINGO.

I am not now nor have I ever advocated for segregation. Period.

You are a proven liar now.

The south didn't enact segregation because they believed black people were equal to them. They believed they were superior to them. That's racism.

You said that ending racism is futile. So you are advocating for racism and the acts that come with it.

You think that this is only a Southern attitude? You like JFK? I'm going to assume that maybe you're from his neck of the woods, that you favor a local son. If so explain how enlightened Bostonians could do this:

The Boston busing crisis (1974–1988) was a series of protests and riots that occurred in Boston, Massachusetts in response to the passing of the 1965 Racial Imbalance Act, which ordered public schools in the state to desegregate. W. Arthur Garrity Jr. of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts laid out a plan for compulsory busing of students from predominantly white areas of the city to schools with predominantly black student populations. The legislation provoked outrage from white Bostonians and led to widespread protests and violent public disturbances. The conflict lasted for over a decade and contributed to a demographic shift in Boston public schools, with dramatically fewer students enrolling in public schools and more white families sending their children to private schools instead. . . .

In the Boston metropolitan area, Judge W. Arthur Garrity Jr. of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts found a recurring pattern of racial discrimination in the operation of the Boston public schools in a 1974 ruling. His ruling found the schools were unconstitutionally segregated.

As a remedy, he used a busing plan developed by the Massachusetts State Board of Education to implement the state's Racial Imbalance Law that had been passed by the Massachusetts state legislature a few years earlier, requiring any school with a student enrollment that was more than 50% nonwhite to be balanced according to race. The Boston School Committee consistently disobeyed orders from the state Board of Education. Judge Garrity's ruling, upheld on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and by the Supreme Court led by Warren Burger, required school children to be brought to different schools to end segregation. The final Judge Garrity-issued decision in the case came in 1988. . . .

For three years after the plan commenced, Massachusetts state troopers were stationed at South Boston High.[2] The first day of the plan, only 100 of 1,300 students came to school at South Boston.[2] Only 13 of the 550 South Boston juniors ordered to attend Roxbury showed up.[2] Parents showed up every day to protest, and football season was cancelled.[2] Whites and blacks began entering through different doors. . . .

Of the 100,000 enrolled in Boston school districts, attendance fell to 40,000 from 60,000 during these years.[2] Opponents personally attacked Judge Garrity, claiming that because he lived in a white suburb, his own children were not affected by his ruling. The author of the busing plan, Robert Dentler, lived in the suburb of Lexington, which was unaffected by the ruling. . . .

There were a number of protest incidents that turned severely violent, even resulting in deaths. In one case, Theodore Landsmark, a Yale-educated attorney, was attacked and bloodied by a group of white teenagers as he exited Boston City Hall.[4]. . . In a retaliatory incident the next day, black teenagers in Roxbury threw rocks at a white man's car and caused him to crash.[2] The youths dragged him out and crushed his skull with nearby paving stones. When police arrived, the man was surrounded by a crowd of 100 chanting "Let him die" while lying in a coma from which he never recovered.

In another instance, a white teenager was stabbed nearly to death by a black teenager at South Boston High School. The community's white residents mobbed the school, trapping the black students inside.[9] There were dozens of other racial incidents at South Boston High that year.[2] The school was forced to close for a month after the stabbing.[2] When it opened again, it was one of the first high schools to install metal detectors; with 400 students attending, it was guarded by 500 police officers every day. . .

By the time the experiment with busing ended in 1988, the Boston school district had shrunk from 100,000 students to 57,000, only 15% of whom were white.[10] In 2008 Boston Public Schools were 76% black and Hispanic, and 14% White.​

Oh, shit, you are quoting facts to a libtard, how ride!

/s

Yeah, the old Democratic party prior to 1968 had a lot of things that Dimbocraps today wont accept, showing how far to the left they have drifted.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

2nd, I came off a little harsh the first time, let me take another crack at it, seriously.

How about we learn to interact with each other??
Let's leave guns and police out of this thread and concentrate on peace between blacks and whites??

How is that black family unit doing?? I know you are white, but how about asking some of the blacks what the truth is??

Can we rebuild family units that have values??
Do you think religion plays into this conversation??

Do you think we need morals in this culture??
Where are we supposed to get those morals at??

Can we agree places like Chicago and Detroit that are predominantly black are in desperate times??
Do you really want to have a civil conversation??

We should learn to interact with each through trade and tourism only. It's been proven that multiculturalism is a failure. We can still have a large "federation of nations and states" under a single Constitution, but it's best that the races and even religions be segregrated.

Racism is genetic. Any race of humans that was inherently "racist" went extinct. It's an extremely biologically adaptive trait. So long as two races ling among each other, one will dominate the other, or the weaker race will be a parasite on the stronger race.

Let every race take care of itself. We should teach and educate the public about the benefits of segregation and having pride in their culture. Since humans voluntarily segregate themselves, it wouldn't' require any government mandates to achieve it.

Seriously??
You actually believe that shit don't you??
I was serious, I think any race can be compassionate and caring for any other race as long as respect and decency enter into the equation ................

Well @ least I have a better insight into where you fit in the scheme around here ..............

Why such apathy??
Did you spend quality time with your father??
Did you spend time with your mother??
Family diners around the table on Sunday after church??

 

[Rikurzhen]

Racism is genetic. Any race of humans that was inherently "racist" went extinct. It's an extremely biologically adaptive trait. So long as two races ling among each other, one will dominate the other, or the weaker race will be a parasite on the stronger race.

Racial affinity is inborn, but racism most certainly is not. Let's keep our terms straight. Here is the definition of racism:

Racism:

The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races:

Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior:​

Awareness of race, taking account of race, is not racism. Interactions in one's life which intersect with race MUST BE MOTIVATED by the belief that one's race is superior in order to be classed as racism.

We are not born with the concepts of racial superiority and racial inferiority. Secondly, for racism to be in play any statement or action must be motivated by the belief of racial superiority/inferiority.

 

[Unkotare]

All races naturally and voluntarily segregate themselves. Just go to a wedding --- 99% of the party of one race.

Wow, that is some solid logic right there...

 

[Unkotare]

Is English your first language?

Not only is English my first language, but you will never know even a tiny fraction of what I know about the English language. All you know is that you're a weak, bitter, frightened old man.

I have learned a little Japanese though.

No, you haven't. You just typed some letters into a Google search. You didn't know what you were typing and you didn't understand the search results. You're an ignorant, frightened little fool.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Wow, that is some solid logic right there...

Are you contesting that claim? I've worked over 600 weddings in the four years.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

All races naturally and voluntarily segregate themselves. Just go to a wedding --- 99% of the party of one race.

Wow, that is some solid logic right there...

Isn't he amazing man, he can make a complete fool of himself if you just wind him up and give him a little leeway!!

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Seriously??
You actually believe that shit don't you??

Are you saying multiculturalism has been a success?

There will always be violence and tension where races and religions are integrated.

The UN segregated warring populations many times.

Equality under the Law is as far as I go. The Constitution applies to all.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Seriously??
You actually believe that shit don't you??
I was serious, I think any race can be compassionate and caring for any other race as long as respect and decency enter into the equation ................

The past shows you that you are correct. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 came about because of white willingness to let it come about. Whites saw injustice, sought to erase injustice and went so far as to privilege blacks under cover of law.

When the nation was 88% white and 12% black, this compassion was feasible and the cost was affordable - 7 whites could carry the cost of uplifting 1 black.

Today whites are about 64% of the population and they're burdened with uplifting 36% minorities and the cost is no longer so easy to bear 1.8 whites bearing the burden of uplifting each minority.

When whites fall down to 50% of the population, then the cost becomes unbearable - every white is disadvantaged in order to uplift one minority.

Compassion is easier to offer when the cost of doing so isn't burdensome.

The future doesn't look glowing. We all know about the upcoming Social Security & Medicare crisis which is going to involve a lot of raised taxes to care for our elderly. Here's where we get to put your compassion issue to the test. The future of the US is going to be very multicultural and what we're going to see is burdensome taxes hurting the working class, majority brown people, in order to pay for the retirement of an elderly class, mostly white people. How's that going to play out?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Isn't he amazing man, he can make a complete fool of himself if you just wind him up and give him a little leeway!!

You're the one on record saying it's ok for cops to point guns at journalists and say "I'm gonna **** kill you."

 

[Unkotare]

Wow, that is some solid logic right there...

Are you contesting that claim? I've worked over 600 weddings in the four years.

I'm saying you're an illogical douchebag. You could 'work' a thousand weddings and you still wouldn't understand a damn thing.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Seriously??
You actually believe that shit don't you??

Are you saying multiculturalism has been a success?

There will always be violence and tension where races and religions are integrated.

No, but in response to that one moronic statement segregation did not work .................
You are promoting going backwards in our cultural evolution not forward.
I just made the statement that all cultures need to interact and that all cultures need to find some religious morals.

You keep dodging this part of the discussion, funny what little tiny snippet you choose to converse on .....

Yes, if not for the Dutch, British and later Irish, etc, etc this country would not be what it is!!
Will you segregate out the Arabs, Mexicans, Jews........... just where do you make these divides??
So no more free travel unless your culture owns the territory you are in??

I offered to deal with you civilly and I see you just don't have it in you do you??

 

[The2ndAmendment]

In other words @DrDoomNGloom your claim is that multiculturalism is working.

The Government doesn't make any laws or rules regarding segregation. We let everyone do it voluntarily and encourage it. Individuals are best equipped to decide which groups they want to be a part of.

But we need to teach it and embrace it in the media.

Any race or religion that seeks to actively dominate others (Islam) outside it's own community, must be rebuked and banned.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Isn't he amazing man, he can make a complete fool of himself if you just wind him up and give him a little leeway!!

You're the one on record saying it's ok for cops to point guns at journalists and say "I'm gonna **** kill you."

Your point would be??
Given that situation and those circumstances, I might have said the same thing.
Stressed from dealing he uttered a few words that will not change his life forever. Though there will be those, like you who seek some type of phantom justice that shall never be doled out.

 

[Vigilante]