The Future is NOW ! !

Post Reply New Topic

I'd rather have a cohesive unit of players all from one race with a similar background pulling together towards one goal.

RH wrote:

I doubt it would interest you much, but I actually grew up in a very diverse neighborhood, in a diverse school with lower-middle class parents who never expressed any "racist" views, at least not to me. They actually made a huge effort to expose me to all sorts of different individuals and activites. They had no religious bent as well......... I'd describe them as Agnostic.

My teachers as well for the most part were dyed-in-the-wool liberals and moderates, both in public school and college.

So you would think that the natural formula bandied about "more liberal education = less conservative "close-mindedness?" would apply? Why am I not another clueless multiculturalist?

Also, I actually identified myself as a "liberal" until age 17 or so. I never really had any strong political persuasions actually until I was about 16 or so, but I was politically aware I suppose. I recently looked back over a scattering of school-papers I had written when I was 15 or so and was dismayed by the spoon-fed liberal ideology that I spouted off on those assignments in a Pavlovian manner. I didn't really care at the time of course on issues like immigration......... I was more than content just to process the propaganda and then recite it back in the necessary style just to ge credit for the assignment.

Still, with my feelings in High School, I would have classified myself as 'Left-Center.' I did have many acquaintences who were from many ethnicities............ India, Muslim-Land, Africa, Latin America........... the whole smorgasboard.

The only time I ever went to church besides weddings and funerals was with an evangelized friend of mine who dragged me along a few times when I was 14 or so. I found it terribly boring and it did not influence me at all.





You make good points, but I don't feel that immigrants should even be a part of "the nation" in the first place.

Its like immigrants playing on national sports teams, and representing countries like France in the World Cup as 'official representatives' and 'frenchmen.' Even if the immigrants may be better soccer players or faster runners, it makes any success the 'French' team has meaningless if the Cup is just won by ringers. Better for France to be represented by actual white Frenchmen. The "French" team didn't even have any success btw, but got eliminated in an embarassing farce. They would have done better to field all white Frenchmen who actually had some identity with the flag they represented.

You used sports as an example........... The ethnic identity of national teams should be that of their indigenous majority. Like the German team filling up with Poles and Turks and Africans.......

--------------- And btw, the 'diverse' French, German, and British squads have been getting routinely surmounted by the Spanish and Italian football squads, which are still virtually 100% white. So I'm not sure your analogy of the superiority of mixed-race squads always holds up. It would seem that the vaunted superiority of touted mixed-race squads is getting thrown back in their face by the countries still fielding all-white teams.

I'd rather have a cohesive unit of players all from one race with a similar background pulling together towards one goal. Find a common background with a common culture.

Football and Basketball are kind of shoddy examples because blacks are so dominant in those and control the culture of every team, so its hard to find one NFL team that is "all white" to hold up against the pack. I would actually strongly suggest that an 'All-white" NFL franchise would absolutely dominate the league.

In baseball though, I've noticed that teams that routinely staff their squads with mostly whites consistently have more success and less "clubhouse drama."

The Cardinals for example used to be an underacheiving team in the early 90's with many blacks and mexican players. After Tony La Russa took charge, he cleaned out the team of most of the minorities and staffed the team with solid white players(most of whom weren't superstars,) but the dysfunction went away and the team started winning. For periods of years, there wouldn't even be a black player on the team, and only Dominican players like Pujols who were superstar-caliber and who he knew were of a higher caliber of personality.

I do think we actually could and would get along very well. I've talked about these issues many times before with blacks and other minorities face to face, as well as more everyday things. I think blacks and other immigrants are perfectly capable and all of that. I just don't see the need to change the cultures of the host countries and allow massive immigration.

-----------------

Why do you use inverted commas so often for "racist" and "racism", Hanotaux? Would you prefer a more politically correct term?

What Politically Correct term did you have in mind?

If diversity is "so natural," why is there virtually always so much natural hostility towards it whenever it is introduced into a new culture? Why is diversity never automatically welcomed by the host people? You would think it would be if it was something we so naturally celebrated parallel with our human instinct.

If there is "no such thing as race," as the slogan goes, than how can it be called "racism".............. which references race.

If diversity is "so natural," why is there virtually always so much natural hostility towards it whenever it is introduced into a new culture? Why is diversity never automatically welcomed by the host people? You would think it would be if it was something we so naturally celebrated parallel with our human instinct.

I'll leave that one to you - I found it intriguing that the term bothered you.

So you use people's resistance to change to evaluate if something is "natural" or positive? New ideas or measures, no matter how benefiting in the long run are never easily embraced by the masses.

it doesn't really bother me, its just that leaving the term unisolated implies that I accept it as a more.



I agree actually........

It was fine the way it was though.............. Now we have a big ugly melting pot spilling over on what used to be a nice white stove.

wonderful, truly wonderful...

You make good points, but I don't feel that immigrants should even be a part of "the nation" in the first place.

Its like immigrants playing on national sports teams, and representing countries like France in the World Cup as 'official representatives' and 'frenchmen.'

Even if the immigrants may be better soccer players or faster runners, it makes any success the 'French' team has meaningless if the Cup is just won by ringers. Better for France to be represented by actual white Frenchmen. The "French" team didn't even have any success btw, but got eliminated in an embarassing farce. They would have done better to field all white Frenchmen who actually had some identity with the flag they represented.

You used sports as an example........... The ethnic identity of national teams should be that of their indigenous majority. Like the German team filling up with Poles and Turks and Africans.......

--------------- And btw, the 'diverse' French, German, and British squads have been getting routinely surmounted by the Spanish and Italian football squads, which are still virtually 100% white. So I'm not sure your analogy of the superiority of mixed-race squads always holds up. It would seem that the vaunted superiority of touted mixed-race squads is getting thrown back in their face by the countries still fielding all-white teams.

I'd rather have a cohesive unit of players all from one race with a similar background pulling together towards one goal. Find a common background with a common culture.

Football and Basketball are kind of shoddy examples because blacks are so dominant in those and control the culture of every team, so its hard to find one NFL team that is "all white" to hold up against the pack. I would actually strongly suggest that an 'All-white" NFL franchise would absolutely dominate the league.

In baseball though, I've noticed that teams that routinely staff their squads with mostly whites consistently have more success and less "clubhouse drama."

The Cardinals for example used to be an underacheiving team in the early 90's with many blacks and mexican players. After Tony La Russa took charge, he cleaned out the team of most of the minorities and staffed the team with solid white players(most of whom weren't superstars,) but the dysfunction went away and the team started winning. For periods of years, there wouldn't even be a black player on the team, and only Dominican players like Pujols who were superstar-caliber and who he knew were of a higher caliber of personality.

I do think we actually could and would get along very well. I've talked about these issues many times before with blacks and other minorities face to face, as well as more everyday things. I think blacks and other immigrants are perfectly capable and all of that. I just don't see the need to change the cultures of the host countries and allow massive immigration.

-----------------

Yes, great stuff, Macbeth.
Have you ever considered a career in stand-up comedy?
I think you'd make a fine guest on one of those topical panel shows that are so popular nowadays. I think you'd fit right in among the various socialist worker party members and/or Oxbridge toffs, cracking jokes about rural Britons who've never seen a black person before. I can never get enough of that sort of thing!

But dude you are living in a country built on immigration.

Were your family there before the slaves?

Are you saying that the USA soccer team should be made up only of Native Americans?

Go back far enough and you're an African.

I'll bet the Native Americans were not to pleased about the influx of white immigrants

Did you know that 2010 was Spain's first ever World Cup win? Or that Italy finished bottom of their group with zero wins. Did you know that the team with the most World Cup wins is Brazil. The most diverse of all.

So when/where was this white utopia of happiness that was so much better?

I think I read somewhere that people from India have both african and caucasian ancestry

Like I said I am standing up against you.

Quit being a moron.

BigK wrote:

Man, I was really starting to respect you, until you spit out the hardcore inculcated liberal textbook tenets.



I doubt it either. Whites must learn from the lesson of the Native Americans, breed more leaders like Tecumsah, and resist more forcefully.

Anyway, go back even farther than "African," and we are all bacteria and such things. And mabye Native Americans should play for a Siberian team?



I was referring to Italy's win in 2006. Also, look at a picture of Brazil's football team - largely lighter-skinned.



America 1945 -1955? (note sarcasm)

DMK wrote:

Do you think? Or do you know?

I'm glad I guess you could be bothered to drop the joystick and pick up a copy of Nat-Geo once in a while.



OK. Thank you.



Are you quiet dove? Or mabye quiet-dove 2.0 ! !!

Something "Not true" about the fact that America is built on immigration? AS I said, an Empty America would be some sort of Utopia. Well, maybe not for Americans, but I'm sure everyone else would be happy.