Racism?

[RetiredGySgt]

Shut up please.

He won't. I generally ignore his ignorance and racism. Only respond when it just screams for a response or I feel like pulling his idiot chain.

Fortunately his position is so clear and obvious it seldom requires anyone to point out what a racist and ignorant person he is.

 

[lieberalism]

u liberals are idiots. in my town we dont let mexicans move in since they destroy any place they live. america needs to start doing the same before we are over run by this specie.

 

[LiberPublicrat2]

He won't. I generally ignore his ignorance and racism. Only respond when it just screams for a response or I feel like pulling his idiot chain.

Fortunately his position is so clear and obvious it seldom requires anyone to point out what a racist and ignorant person he is.

He belongs at storm front.

 

[CorpMediaSux]

OMG you guys! It's so cute. There's a genuine fossil posting on our very own board. People like liberalism are pretty rare these days so stare and gawk while you can. Certainly don't try and communicate with the thing, it doesn't understand logic, reason or I think any human language. Sort of similar to the "sub human races" it so hates! Adorable!

 

[LiberPublicrat2]

OMG you guys! It's so cute. There's a genuine fossil posting on our very own board. People like liberalism are pretty rare these days so stare and gawk while you can. Certainly don't try and communicate with the thing, it doesn't understand logic, reason or I think any human language. Sort of similar to the "sub human races" it so hates! Adorable!

It is a very strange creature indeed.

 

[lieberalism]

sorry i am white i am not a "creature" the only creatures are named pablo and paco and mow my lawn.

 

[jasendorf]

To be fair, the only time anyone in the article brings up racism is when she brings it up herself....

... not that those opposed to her are exactly kind to the Minutemen:

"We see the Minutemen as an extremist group that espouses hate and vigilanteism and some violence," said Janet Murguia, president of NCLR. "A member of such a group, no matter how upstanding in other ways, should have no place representing Kansas City."

Not exactly nice, but not calling them or her racist either.

But, if you're going to assert that someone called her racist... it should probably exist in the original story you post.

 

[doniston]

a racist mexican is like a retard proud it can tie its shoe. Who would want to be a mexican? We need to deport them all now before they turn all of America into a disgusting taco bell ghetto.

You know, there is such a thing as being TOO radical. If the shoe fits......".

 

[doniston]

Shut up please.

There is also such a thing as being too Liberal. I think that fits you to a "T"

 

[LiberPublicrat2]

There is also such a thing as being too Liberal. I think that fits you to a "T"

Too liberal? Me?

 

[William Joyce]

Here's how you know if your opposition to illegal immigration is rooted in racism or a strict adherence to your sense of the rule of law. First, when you think "illegal immigrant" what is the image that instantly pops up in your brain. Is it a white dude canoeing across the lakes from Canada or is it a poor Mexican laborer? Be honest with yourself, no one else will really know what you thought. But I suspect that most people, if they had some truth serum would admit that for them illegal immigrant = Mexican/poor brown person. It NEVER = white or European person.

Yet as a factual matter, this is true. Probably fewer than one percent of the 12-20 MILLION illegal aliens in America are white. The rest are little brown people from Mexico and countries below.

And what if this is, in fact, the motivation for whites to oppose illegal immigrants? Why would that be illegitimate? The little brown people (they are, in fact, little and brown --- just look at them) are less intelligent, less law-abiding (obviously - they violate OUR laws just by being here), have higher levels of social pathology by every indicator, and are ugly drunken slothful shits to boot. They turn neighborhoods into denuded, littered slums that look like they were airlifted out of Mexico.They are, in short, persons of inferior quality. They have not built their own stable and productive societies. Obviously, again: they have to sponge off ours. These people have almost no skills. Leaf-blowing? Please. That's your great skill? And they come here, and basically demand that we "racist gringos" give them free emergency health care, free this, free that, no taxes, no need for a license to drive, drive drunk, etc. And when we say no, then we're "racists." OK. That's what you call "being taken advantage of."

Whites have every right to oppose this invasion. I say round them up, put them on buses and send them back.

 

[Doug]

<b>CorpMediaSux</b> is getting at something, and I don't think the responses to him (her?) have sorted it out.

He says, in effect: you conservatives object to illegal immigration because it is being done by poor Mexicans. If the illegal immigrants were poor whites -- say, from Poland or Rumania -- you would not object. Or would not object as much.

Some posters -- I will assume they are not "false flag" operators -- have said: "You're damned right! We are racists!"

Others -- mainstream conservatives, I take it -- have rejected <b>CorpMedia's</b> accusation, and have claimed that they would be just as opposed to illegal immigration by anyone. Others have mentioned the terrorist threat which uncontrolled immigration might enhance.

However, I think that everyone -- with perhaps the exception of the open 'racists' -- is being less than honest here. It is important to be honest with ourselves, because this is and will remain an important issue. We must think clearly about it.

For starters, let's not get panicked by Leftist demagogues who use the term "racist" as their trump card in arguments. As used today, the term has been largely emptied of meaning. Considered dispassionately, it is used by people in several different ways, each rather different from the other.

One use is: someone who believes that one race (usually his own) is superior (usually by reason of its genetic endowment) over another (usually in matters of intelligence). For example, members of the Ku Klux Klan believe this about their own race, as against Blacks. But liberals can believe in this kind of racism too: the famous writer and academic Jared Diamond (author of Collapse and Guns, Germs and Steel) believes this.

The degree of sophistication of this view can vary: primitive racists of this sort believe every member of their race is superior to every member of the 'other' race. More sophisticated holders of this view will grant that there can be individual exceptions on both sides, but that some aggregate measure of superiority/inferiority will show a distinct advantage for one or the other race.

More to come .... perhaps someone will wish to comment on the propositions put forward above first.

 

[doniston]

Yet as a factual matter, this is true. Probably fewer than one percent of the 12-20 MILLION illegal aliens in America are white. The rest are little brown people from Mexico and countries below.

And what if this is, in fact, the motivation for whites to oppose illegal immigrants? Why would that be illegitimate? The little brown people (they are, in fact, little and brown --- just look at them) are less intelligent, less law-abiding (obviously - they violate OUR laws just by being here), have higher levels of social pathology by every indicator, and are ugly drunken slothful shits to boot. They turn neighborhoods into denuded, littered slums that look like they were airlifted out of Mexico.They are, in short, persons of inferior quality. They have not built their own stable and productive societies. Obviously, again: they have to sponge off ours. These people have almost no skills. Leaf-blowing? Please. That's your great skill? And they come here, and basically demand that we "racist gringos" give them free emergency health care, free this, free that, no taxes, no need for a license to drive, drive drunk, etc. And when we say no, then we're "racists." OK. That's what you call "being taken advantage of."

Whites have every right to oppose this invasion. I say round them up, put them on buses and send them back.

After reading your rendition of Pure racial tripe. I would dearly like to see you confronted by several of those "Little Brown People"

 

[lieberalism]

<b>CorpMediaSux</b> is getting at something, and I don't think the responses to him (her?) have sorted it out.

He says, in effect: you conservatives object to illegal immigration because it is being done by poor Mexicans. If the illegal immigrants were poor whites -- say, from Poland or Rumania -- you would not object. Or would not object as much.

Some posters -- I will assume they are not "false flag" operators -- have said: "You're damned right! We are racists!"

Others -- mainstream conservatives, I take it -- have rejected <b>CorpMedia's</b> accusation, and have claimed that they would be just as opposed to illegal immigration by anyone. Others have mentioned the terrorist threat which uncontrolled immigration might enhance.

However, I think that everyone -- with perhaps the exception of the open 'racists' -- is being less than honest here. It is important to be honest with ourselves, because this is and will remain an important issue. We must think clearly about it.

For starters, let's not get panicked by Leftist demagogues who use the term "racist" as their trump card in arguments. As used today, the term has been largely emptied of meaning. Considered dispassionately, it is used by people in several different ways, each rather different from the other.

One use is: someone who believes that one race (usually his own) is superior (usually by reason of its genetic endowment) over another (usually in matters of intelligence). For example, members of the Ku Klux Klan believe this about their own race, as against Blacks. But liberals can believe in this kind of racism too: the famous writer and academic Jared Diamond (author of Collapse and Guns, Germs and Steel) believes this.

The degree of sophistication of this view can vary: primitive racists of this sort believe every member of their race is superior to every member of the 'other' race. More sophisticated holders of this view will grant that there can be individual exceptions on both sides, but that some aggregate measure of superiority/inferiority will show a distinct advantage for one or the other race.

More to come .... perhaps someone will wish to comment on the propositions put forward above first.

I would have no problem with the amount of illegals coming in now if they were from Europe. Imagine this scenerio: our southern border is france, germany, or sweden. I wouldn't require more than a driver's license to get across the border then, in fact treating it more like crossing state lines than country lines.

The problem is that we dont want more mexicans in america. Every part of America that is made up of mexicans is poor and crappy. You idiot libs can call me racist, but go to any city with over 100k people and if one part is dominantly black or mexican, it is consider the "bad" part of town. There is only one black township around here and it is always where the murders and shit happen the most at. No white people go there, and its a whole township of over 5000-10000 people and they have no businesses there, so they have to go to adjacent towns. Luckily I live beyond the buffer zone

 

[Doug]

Most people prefer, everything else being equal, to live in a state in which their tribe is the dominant majority. This almost certainly has deep Darwinian roots, and in any case is easy to demonstrate.

Leftists like to shriek about white "racism", but in fact "racism" in the sense of preference for your own tribe is universal among mankind. And given human nature, mixing two or more tribes in one area is not generally a good idea, unless you are the sort of person who likes to put two scorpions in a bottle to see them fight. Dozens of examples from contemporary history, to go no further back, can be adduced in support of this proposition.

However, everything is not always equal, and, to escape poverty, people have also shown themselves willing to immigrate to countries where they are a racial minority.

America is something of an exception among nations, in that its population has been built from immigrants from all over the world. In the ideal, these immigrants, or their descendants, lost their original tribal identification, or saw it radically attenuated, and become "Americans".

However, note that the original immigrants were mainly white Christian Europeans, and that this ethnic group -- its Anglo-Saxon component in particular -- remained the dominant group, shaping the culture and habits of the whole country.

It is useful to examine where "assimilation" has not occurred: African-Americans have remained a separate group over time, in a way that, say, Irish or German-Americans have not.

Similarly, Orientals have remained a self-identified separate group.

What is in common here is race: the skin color and facial features that signal what genetic line we come from. Intra-racial merger is still rare in the US.

Interestingly, religion, which in some parts of the world is a strong separator of peoples otherwise closely-related genetically, is not so important. Thus Jews are "marrying out" at a rate greater than 50&#37;. Perhaps this is caused by the decline of religion among the better-educated classes.

So from where does the objection to mass Hispanic immigration come?

(1) Some of it is probably from the small but vocal number of "pure" conscious racists -- the kind of people who would object to the presence in the United States of anyone, and literally any one, from a race other than their own. But I suspect these people are rare.

(2) Some of it comes from those who object to large numbers of poor people coming into their area, regardless of race. They know that poor people also tend to behave poorly: with higher rates of crime and social disorder (graffitti, litter, noise) and welfare dependency. Objections to this sort of development are perfectly rational.

(3) Some of it is motivated by pure economic reasons: people who are low wage earners, or who are advocates on behalf of low wage earners, know that the increased supply of unskilled labor will lower the price that unskilled laborers can demand for their labor. (And surely it is the desire to get cheap labor that explains the Republican Party's unwillingness to have strict immigration laws. It's what the rich people who control the Party want.)

When the liberal magazine The Nation had an issue a few months ago with the usual liberal race-guilt wailings on immigration, they were inundated with a firestorm of letters from their usually-loyal readers who saw how the bringing in of yet more poor people was hurting the poor people who are already here. It was very funny to read!

(4) Some of the objection to mass immigration from Mexico undoubtedly is motivated by the race of the immigrants. If the new immigrants did not assimilate, so that what we saw was the gradual Mexicanization of the Southwest of United States, this would be something to worry about, from the point of view of the non-Mexican inhabitants.

However, the cultural distance between the Catholic Christian Hispanic immigrants, and the 'white' community, is no greater than the distance that existed between Russian Jews and Anglo-Saxons. And we already have numerous examples of Hispanic-Anglo integration and assimilation.

So, if we can expect assimilation in the future, there should be no rational objection to immigration.

But ... the pattern of assimilation that has existed in the past may not work in the future. In this case, fears about mass immigration are not at all irrational.

There are at least three reasons for pessimism.

(To be continued.)

 

[William Joyce]

After reading your rendition of Pure racial tripe. I would dearly like to see you confronted by several of those "Little Brown People"

Too late. Happens every day in the parking lot of the 7-11. We are confronted by millions of them, daily --- they assault us with their lawsuits, their claims, their saturation of American emergency rooms, with their sex assaults, with their crime, with their litter, with their costs, with the "MS-13" spray paint, their blasting "salsa" music.

Doug's last two posts make a great deal of sense and analyze these issues pretty thoroughly. Give 'em a read.

 

[Cynic-American]

this may change how you see illegal immigration-

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/kouri/060622

 

[doniston]

Too late.
QUOTE] Not for what I think you deserve. if it had happened you would likely be in the hospital, or worse.

 

[William Joyce]

you would likely be in the hospital-- or worse.

Huh.

So you for believing as I do, you'd like me to suffer physical violence.

You wouldn't like to see me proven wrong. You wouldn't like to see me confronted with facts proving me a liar. You don't fantasize that somehow I'll be shown that the little Mexicans invading us now are actually little savior angels who are magically going to make our lives better, and I will hang my racist white head in shame when I see it.

No.

You'd like me to be beaten.

And you assume that Hispanics would carry this out. I might note that this could very well be its own version of "racism," but never mind. What sorts of stereotypical behaviors would they engage in, doniston? Whooping "aye aye aye" and brandishing machetes? Dancing around my limp, beaten body to mariachi music?

I think you need to go sit in the corner, think of an argument, and then come back to the play circle when you can act like a big boy.

Listen, I can appreciate wanting harm to befall a person who harbors what's perceived to be a wrong notion. But it's not really an argument, after all. And I could just as easily dream of ways in which you would be harmed... say, by KKK night riders armed with a rope, etc. I'm sure I could get very creative with it all. But you see, when you go down that road, it's just not very productive. Fun, yes. Advancing the discussion, no.

 

[doniston]

Huh.

So you for believing as I do, you'd like me to suffer physical violence.

You wouldn't like to see me proven wrong. You wouldn't like to see me confronted with facts proving me a liar. You don't fantasize that somehow I'll be shown that the little Mexicans invading us now are actually little savior angels who are magically going to make our lives better, and I will hang my racist white head in shame when I see it.

No.

You'd like me to be beaten.

And you assume that Hispanics would carry this out. I might note that this could very well be its own version of "racism," but never mind. What sorts of stereotypical behaviors would they engage in, doniston? Whooping "aye aye aye" and brandishing machetes? Dancing around my limp, beaten body to mariachi music?

I think you need to go sit in the corner, think of an argument, and then come back to the play circle when you can act like a big boy.

Listen, I can appreciate wanting harm to befall a person who harbors what's perceived to be a wrong notion. But it's not really an argument, after all. And I could just as easily dream of ways in which you would be harmed... say, by KKK night riders armed with a rope, etc. I'm sure I could get very creative with it all. But you see, when you go down that road, it's just not very productive. Fun, yes. Advancing the discussion, no.

I don't mince words. Yes, I think you deserve at least a beating for what you have posted. KKK Nightriders were prone to look for the blacks. but I am colored too ----sort of a pink beige. But my heart is red. apparently yours is black as the ace of spades.