I'm pretty sure a multi-cultural yogurt ad confirms the Right's greatest racist fears.

Wow, you're an old white cop.

That explains a lot.

Accept it Lantern, you're racist. You're a cop. You're a racist cop.

Maybe - jingoist - is a better way to describe it.
But extreme nationalism & racism go hand in hand.

You regularly say shit like " [Obama] has next to nothing in common with American traditions and history. "

You don't think that's a racist comment. But it is.

You're implying Obama is a foreigner & shouldn't be trusted.

In other words, "Go back to africa! Stop corrupting our pure Anglo-Saxon traditions with your muddy brown multi-culturism! Damn socialist lib-tards!"

P.S. -

Just because you say - "I've got a black-asian-female-lesbian friend" - doesn't mean you're not racist.

Talk about deluded.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

Anyone care to enlighten me as to why these supposed conspirators blew up the towers? I mean, it must have been a pretty extensive operation to plan, so I'm guessing they didn't just murder a few thousand of their own citizens for shits and giggles.
Hell, even maddox isn't retarded enough to actually believe this shit.


In his book, The Grand Chessboard, Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski (former national security advisor for President Carter, former director of the Council on Foreign Relations, and a member of the Trilateral Commission along with Bush Sr. and Dick Cheney) writes of an imperialistic endeavor of controlling the world's vast natural resources (oil, natural gas, minerals, gold, etc.) and also human labor in Eurasia (specifically central Asia/Uzbekistan) that the U.S. must undertake to maintain global domination despite the American public's indecisiveness towards the external projection of American power (in which he reminds the reader that the American public supported U.S.'s engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor) and cautions that it will become more difficult to establish consensus on foreign policy issues with an ever increasingly multi-cultural society in America unless the public widely perceives a massive direct external threat. (killtown.911review.org)

It's easy to scoff at other human's rights when you're in the majority that decides the value affixed to those rights. But what if you weren't?

Whites are already minorities, both by corruption and deliberately erasing American principles and history. Or didn't you notice that Whites are exempt from equal protection under the law ("hate crimes") when the assailant(s) are Black? Either everyone has the same rights or no one has any rights. And right now, you know as well as I do if you utter anything a minority finds offensive in 'polite' company--including demonstrable facts--our vicious, retarded 'multi-cultural' society-keepers will escort you to the street. And really, what is a "minority" anyway? Women outnumber men and yet the former remains a minority. Whites are already minorities in California. There is no "reverse affirmative action" there.

Let me put it in a way that might pique your sensibilities. It's only a matter of time before white people are no longer the majority in the US. I'm just assuming you're white, by the way. So, let's say Latinos and Hispanics make up the majority vote in ten years or so: let's say it's the year 2022.

And let's say they think you should pay trillions in foreign aid for South America and Mexico, and so they vote that as national policy. And let's say they think the US should protect interests in that region, so they send a lot of the poor, disenfranchised whites (who in this version of the future now make up the majority of the military) to be international defense for places like Mexico and Guatemala and Brasil and so on.

And they start to talk how they're the indigenous people of the Americas, and white people are just trespassers who staked their claim via conquest and war.

This is a retarded argument; I know you didn't create it, but yeah, it's out there, and "they" will believe anything as "they" have never been taught differently. These "clever" lefties who claim Whites were trespassers in primitive centuries the world over is ridiculous. Back then there were no unified nations with solid borders, language and culture in the New World to invade, just warring Indian "nations". They forget that England and France, countries filled with White guys--were at war with each other for centuries. And let's not forget all the Asian nations, each one a cultural gem...that wants all other Asian peoples destroyed. The Chinese and Japanese are mortal enemies, and neither likes Koreans.

Within years, you and your family are deported to Denmark - that is if any of you survived the civil war. And what if you lose the right to protest, or vote, or the right of Habeas Corpus? Who will stand up for you? Those already oppressed who were once in the majority? Or would you want some Libertarian-Latino to recognize your rights because you are a living, breathing human being?

If Mexican and African minorities are the future for America, I don't expect any respect of Whites' rights, or right to exist, just like now. There's a whole poor-me victimization industry out there. They create enemies (and excuses) out of whole cloth.

If you want a glimpse of America's fucked-up future, look at Mexico. Mexicans are fine people and Mexican immigrants who assimilate have enriched America, yet somehow their original cultural model in Mexico is simply fucked, an entire nation with enormous natural resources yet run by kleptocrats and drug lords. Anyone concerned with American 'plutocracy' should view the shit going on down yonder.

You sort-of asked but I'm telling you--all of you--anyway. When the White American population falls below 50%, it's Game Over for American principles. America in 2050 will be an even bigger parody of what it is now. Detroit is the future of America. Brokeass idiot California is the future of America. Americans all over are voting with their feet right now. They're leaving liberal meccas and moving to business-friendly states with low taxes (don't expect to hear anything about it on CNN or MS-DNC). But it can't last. Soon there'll be nowhere to run.

I've already made peace with the idea that there will be a civil war, hopefully States against the federal leviathan. And I fully expect DC to turn a war of principles into a racial thang to save its ugly ass.

This isn't about racial "superiority" in the slightest, but if you'll direct your attention to the screen, which races have invented the most advanced tech, including the best kinds of government (so far)? Don't answer that, you'll just be nailed to the cross of tolerance.

I'm Jewish (by blood, not faith) so I figure I'm screwed anyway. I guess I can scooch to Israel. Observe that many of the new kickass technologies were invented by Israelis, while Silicon Valley is stuck holding its dick with eco-green bullshit. "Next year in Jerusalem!" Nice and peaceful over there.

Really, I don't overly give a shit any more. The wrong people now control schools that shouldn't even exist, so the generations coming up are ignorami. The wrong peeps run most of the media and entertainment that arguably appeal to the worst sides of humanity. Freedom is hard work. Who wants that?

Getting angry at me for telling the truth will just waste your time. I already know how you FEEL. Those loudly announcing that neurosurgeons and witch doctors are cultural equals in the name of multicultural tolerance now run the show. And when the show ends they quietly go see the neurosurgeon.

Libertarian ethos ain't gonna save us. Neither will socialism. Mayhap it would be better if the world ended next year.


>> ^blankfist:

>> ^quantumushroom:
You can't hold a trial for a vermin who declares war on an entire society, hell, an entire civilization. It's as moronic as trying to "understand"--in the moment--the socio-cultural-economic motives of someone trying to kill you in an alley.
All we had to do was threaten to level mecca and the 'good' muslims would've turned his raggedy ass in by September 13th, 2001.
War works.

Of course we can hold trial for someone who declares war on entire societies. Yes, very much so. We can hold trial, or at least attempt to hold trial, for anyone. And we should.
It's easy to scoff at other human's rights when you're in the majority that decides the value affixed to those rights. But what if you weren't?
Let me put it in a way that might pique your sensibilities. It's only a matter of time before white people are no longer the majority in the US. I'm just assuming you're white, by the way. So, let's say Latinos and Hispanics make up the majority vote in ten years or so: let's say it's the year 2022.
And let's say they think you should pay trillions in foreign aid for South America and Mexico, and so they vote that as national policy. And let's say they think the US should protect interests in that region, so they send a lot of the poor, disenfranchised whites (who in this version of the future now make up the majority of the military) to be international defense for places like Mexico and Guatemala and Brasil and so on.
And they start to talk how they're the indigenous people of the Americas, and white people are just trespassers who staked their claim via conquest and war. Within years, you and your family are deported to Denmark - that is if any of you survived the civil war. And what if you lose the right to protest, or vote, or the right of Habeas Corpus? Who will stand up for you? Those already oppressed who were once in the majority? Or would you want some Libertarian-Latino to recognize your rights because you are a living, breathing human being?

I have to admit, being raised and living in Canada does leave one sheltered to some of these issues.
We are a nation of multi-culture. Yes, I hear about fighting on the news but it seems so far away when you never see it for real. I also hope the people immigrating to Canada will continue to leave some of this behind before coming over and joining our country. I know many come here for a fresh start but some can't help but hold on to old views. So far, they are still a minority and we have many programs aimed at teaching community and tolerance.

So ya, I guess I am a little sheltered on the issues.

In reply to this comment by demon_ix:
Well, first off, the world is much smaller today than it was in the 40s. Talking to others, learning about others, understanding others is much easier. The world Jews lived in until the 20s-40s (When the first waves of immigration or Aliyot as we call them started) was much different. Even though the Jewish communities in Europe were thousands of years old, they were still very much outsiders. There were Jewish neighborhoods, Synagogues and cemeteries were desecrated and there was occasional violence (In Russia they were called Pogroms).

My point in all of this, isn't to justify hatred, Israeli violence against Palestinians or anything like that.
It's simply this: Jews here still feel like the world is out to get us at worst, or simply resents us at best. Whenever I hear someone say the Jews control the US (paging Rick Sanchez), that Jews are greedy, even I get a little feeling that says "You're not safe, they don't trust you".

I'm one of the more informed Israelis. I go out on the web, I read more than just local stuff and I understand most of that is ignorance, but I am aware that true anti-semitism is still out there. A friend of mine is studying in Europe right now, and I hear stories of skinheads, swastikas and bricks-through-windows regularly.

----------

Bah, I talk too much

Cheers dude, I was hoping I didn't come across the wrong way. Believe me I don't like feeling like this and thinking the worst of a religion. To be honest as a Catholic I've despised my former religion for quite a while (I'm still a hypocrite though, as I happily read from the Bible at a friend's funeral a few weeks ago) but Islam as a political ideology that has no tolerance for non-believers really bugs me now. That YouTube video goes further in rationalising Islam as something that provides it's followers with a toolkit to either convert or kill non-believers. It's either submit to Allah or Jihad. At the moment I am convinced by those arguments but I'm still a novice in fully developing my views. I'm smart enough to know this is a complicated business.

In Britain I think we're reaching this point where there's this debate about multi-culturalism and what that really means. Again it's one of those terms that everyone has taken for granted but perhaps not really understood. Some of the far-right groups attack it of course but I suspect if you took religion out of the equation then we'd all get along a whole lot better. We would just have alot more in common.



In reply to this comment by enoch:
that was a great comment on the pat conell vid.
i still feel he is coming from a general ignorance but one thing you brought to light is that i dont live in britain,and while i am aware of the huge influx of mid eastern and asian muslims,that was a factor i never considered.
does that make a difference?
quite possibly,but then i think the argument should include the cultures and not just focus on the religion.
i am vehemently anti-fundamentalist,of any nature or color,but i feel using such a broad brush to admonish a whole religion while ignoring the cultural and religious history is a disingenuious(sp?) argument.
then again,
i dont live where pat conell lives,and have not experienced what he ,or you have.
it's easy to throw stones from shore,
much harder when your in the water.
thank you very much my friend.
till next time.
namaste.

>> ^RhesusMonk:
And to those with linguistic ability: do you really think that an increased capacity for polyglot-ism is the norm? I think if you truly understood your talents, you would see that you are different.


I honestly think I'm rubbish at languages in general, because if that weren't the case, I'd be speaking perfect German and Russian by now. English is the only foreign language I've picked up really well - I'm not sure why. But like I said, the reason for me being able to discern the pronunciations is that I've had a couple of multi-cultural experiences; that's it. I'm definitely not linguistically-gifted.

Watch the chaser more often - this guys shtick is to go and make an ass of himself and offend everyone including the viewer. Same general idea as Jackass or any other comedian out there who is out to get a reaction, good or bad. It's not exactly top-class entertainment but its still a joke.

The skit is also somewhat ironic (and therefore funny) because there isn't a hell of a lot to rant about when it comes to Aussie culture, being such a new, small, multi-cultural civilization.

Fjordman is a quality writer on European social issues.
Lol, yeah, he's from Trøndelag, Muslim population: 3. He doesnt know shit. I live in one of the most multi-cultural streets in this country, and I've got nothing to complain about. I wont say immigration is problem-free, but people like him presents a one-sided propaganda-like image, Take for instance his comparison of Malmø and Copenhagen, this is classic statistics-poisoning, As far as I know Denmark is one of the most liberal immigration-states in scandinavia, Malmø may have a higher percentage of Muslims, but Copenhagen still has lots, besides, the high crime rate COULD be directly linked to immigration, and it could be a number of other social, economic and security issues. Most likely its a combination of all of the above. When morons like fjordman presents statistics, they are looking to prove a point, which is the first flaw in reading statistics, and a crime of sorts when presenting them.


In short, the fjordman fellow is certainly not a respected authority on "European social issues", and given this first article that I've now seen of him, I dont consider him a quality writer on the issue either. More likely he's a scared little redneck in a remote part of Trøndelag typing this baloney with a shotgun at his side, knowing nothing about immigrants nor immigration.

Is it wrong that I clicked on this because of misreading for "bukakke"?

No, I guess it it's not, cuz it shows I'm very multi-cultural.

If you must call us something call us "Prysmatic"
it took me ten years to get that word in the dictionary. Beats the hell out of "mutt"

****

Definitions of Prysmatic: Submitted to Merriam Webster dictionary 8-2007

* A derivative of the word prismatic

* Noun: "Prysmatic" A person who is multi racial, multi cultural, and or, multi national. A living bridge between peoples, races and nations through ancestry, cultural philosophy or personal ideology.

* adjective: exhibiting traits formed by the multi national, multi cultural and inter racial experience.

* verb: to defy hereditary, cultural, social or historically imposed limitations.

****

I don't have a problem with religion being taught in public schools, but how the heck would it ever work? When would it be taught? Which religion? Surely there isn't enough funding to teach all religions present in a multi-cultural country (and classroom) like the USA, or any other. What constitutes as a religion? Fundamentally, I think it would be impossible to teach religion in the classroom without infringing on others beliefs and the idea of the separation of church and state.

If you want religion in the classroom, enroll your child in a private school like St. Mary's, or any other equivalent. That's what they're for.

And the fruitfly debate-if there ever was be a debate-is ridiculous. Either Palin is working with her writers to make political suicide-so she can break off and pursue her own goals-or her writers don't have a flipp'n clue what they are putting on paper. Clearly there has been no research or foresight in calling the fruitfly research a waste of resources.

Or, she actually knows the-what she would call "facts"-and believes it anyway, in which case she was born about 400 years too late.

Most prosperous and most advanced.

Active trading and open market consisted of multi-cultural populace.

Contrasting image of today's China.

>> ^Farhad2000:
This is the answer that never gets added to this segment of Wafa Sultan speaking out.

I wonder how many people in the Islamic-centric part of the world share her point of view. I would hope more rather than less. Unfortunately it seems that her perspective may not be given as much credence because she is "a secularist" or when seen through the eyes of the host, "a heretic". Which really makes her points seem valid, that this is an issue of backwardness - in that multi-culturalism and religious diversity aren't supported.