Seriously? you want the right to discriminate, that makes you a segregationist to any thinking man, sir
No it doesn't, not by any stretch of the imagination. I'm not a journalist, yet I want freedom of the press. I do not adhere to any particular religious practice, yet I want the freedom to practice any religion. I am not queer, and the mere thought of homosexuality disgusts me, well, male homosexuality at least , yet I defend the freedom of gays to be gay. I do not currently own any firearms, but I am a strong supporter of the right to own firearms. Just because I defend a freedom or right doesn't mean that I want to exercise it. Another logical fallacy and failed slander attempt , sir. I do believe that's strike 3...
I guess I'm a segregationist? I choose not to live among the poor. I focus on poor, because race, intelligence, diversity, have all been shot down as prime movers for crime.
Most all peoples on the face of the earth voluntary self-segrigate with people similar to themselves. Look at lunch rooms in schools. Look at Neighborhoods. It is completely normal and natural. Only liberal fools think "integration" is some type of ideal. Of course, they believe in it so badly they are willing to force it upon everyone but themselves. I have noticed that those who believe so badly in "diversity" are those groups that on net take from others. Groups that are self-sufficient and not net "takers" have no need or desire for diversity aside from ethnic restaurants. That is how it is. It is like an insurance pool. The sick, careless man loves to be in a pool with healthy people because he gets lower rates and better service. The healthy man resents when the sick and careless are added to the pool, because it damages their service level and increases costs. Same thing applies to the bigger picture.
That which is, is not necessarily what should be. Set your sights a bit higher and quit making excuses for your discomfort (or worse). I am in a self-"sufficient" (there is no self sufficiency, we are social animals, "reliant" is the better word) group, and I like diversity. History is replete with assimilation. The more durable nations have used assimilation very nearly as a state strategy. The only reason your tired views are getting the air time they are is because we're in a recession. This happens every time.
I obviously do not see it that way, and somehow I think we will not be in agreement any time soon (ever). It seems to me only white people are supposed to "enjoy" diversity while every other nation and peoples should "celebrate their heritage" and form activist pressure groups to take goodies from whites. That is after all what "multiculturism" means in practice. Eventually more and more whites will wake up to this reality: "Diversity" and multiculturalism is liberal code for displace and take from white people. I understand why: People want the civilizations we created. They want to be apart of them because they work. Some people can handle that responsibility, some struggle with it, some cannot. Pretending that racism is only a "white centric event" betrays a fundamental ignorance about global conditions. None of the "diversity firsters" have made even a basic effort to provide facts that back their viewpoint. They have provided no evidence. Where are the facts? They have not disputed the reality of crime data. THey have not disputed that a small % of minorities have made America an international laughing stock relative to other advanced nations on metrics of civilization and quality of life. The fact is most diversity is zero sum: One groups win, another group looses. If we look at Somali Immigration to sweden, only a fool would think this is not damaging to native swedes or simply neutral. All the facts are on my side. If they believe it is simply "Poverty" they have not answered as to why poor white children still do better than wealthy black children and 1000 other questions I could raise. They have not provided a coherent alternative. Rather, they simply rely on the anti-white ethos of our era to do their heavy lifting. They prefer to name calling, tc. They are completely ignorant (or hope that we are ignorant) of viewpoints on race (highly non-pc) that exist in other parts of the world, such as Asia, which are popular consensus in those cultures. Well, the PC ethos works on most people (After all we are trained in it our entire lives), but obviously some percent of the population is able to independent analysis and reach their own conclusions. In my many posts here on racial issues I have posted a substantial amount of facts and made what I think are convincing arguments. All I (and the others who agree with me) get in return is name calling and, "you are wrong". Yet I doubt I am wrong. All civilizations die, and I am starting to have a guess as to why: Soft headed liberalism creates an arbitrage situation where the populations that maintain and create civilization are slowly displaced and destroyed, and the remainder are not able to manage things. Look what happened to former African colonies: From independent bread baskets to the world to international basket cases, aid recipients, slaughter factories, and havens for general mayhem. Is this the way All european civilizations will die? Ignoring the tribalism inherent in human nature, or trying to reconstruct human nature (as communists attempted to do) will end in disaster. It is a bubble that will explode. I have more confidence in the future of Asian civilization. It seems they are less susceptible to the cognitive aids virus called "liberalism" that has infected the majority of the white population. All I can say is be thankful you still have the upper hand. I do not think, however, it will last. Eventually reality will catch up and the dam of lies will break, it is as inevitable as the bursting of each financial bubble.
phenomena now I have a better idea where your thinking is coming from. The reasons why you see blacks as a threat to the health and safety of white people. A lot of people would see the actions of those criminals as evil individual choices, but you seem to see them as part of a wider genetic tendency among certain groups. I have always thought that men tend to rape mostly within their own racial group and when they crossed racial lines they would probably only rape women that they had some sort of sexual attraction to. So white men, many of whom are not attracted to black women would probably be less likely to rape them, and would definately not go into the "hood" to try and find them. Likewise, white people are seen as having the money and privileges in society, so robbers who plan on stealing money would naturally target them. These same black and hispanic criminals have been targeting their own communities for years and have done much of the damage to the cities that you were talking about. For a very long time people have been making excuses for them and doing very little to permanently halt their activities. Now they are increasingly spreading their criminal activity to the suburbs. These criminals are usually not black and hispanic supremecist, as they love to attack and prey on their own races. In fact a black male is much more likely to be the victim of another black male's attack than a white man. Based on the stories that influence your thinking and your past experiences I am quite surprised that you do not own and carry any firearms. I am a huge supporter of the second amendment and believe that law-abiding citizens should carry guns for self-defense. These affirmative action programs were mostly created in the 1960s and 1970s as a means of trying to allow blacks to participate in american society. There was a lot of fear in certain circles that the black community was ripe for long term exploitation by communist forces to potentially de-stablize some portions of the USA. A lot of the thinking at the time was that by giving blacks opportunities in American society you would give them a stake in the country and they would less likely be influenced by the anti-us forces on the march around the world. Now the situtation has changed and affirmative action programs are in retreat. My home state of Michigan voted against them even while electing a democratic governor 4 years ago. Blacks and Hispanics are not enough of a voting block to keep these programs going, so if whites want them gone then they are gone. The problem is that some authorities are probably debating if that might eventually end up with a greater drain on GDP than the 4% that was cited on that video you posted. Would the tax base shrink? Would more blacks and hispanics eventually end up in prison rather than going to college? Is a black person with a college degree and a job as an accountant less likely to try and hit you over the head to take your wallet? If more and more blacks get professional jobs wouldn't they then pay more and more in taxes and share the burden for the welfare programs? I guess that if a person believes that genetic differences are not the sole determination of success in life, then it should be time for these affirmative action and diversity programs to die. However if one thinks that blacks are just not intelligent enough to compete with whites and east asians, based on genetics which cannot really be changed, instead of cultural defencies which can be, then would getting rid of Affirmative Action programs eventually lead to a greater tax burden for whites and drain on GDP... if only to build more prisons? In my opinion the Department of Justice has exercised very poor judgement in forcing the City of Dayton to lower their standards in order to get more Black police officers. There are plenty of blacks around the nation who could have passed that test the way it was. The problem is that those with college degrees and who have good academic backgrounds are just not very interested in police work. Many of them come from these inner city areas and know exactly what to expect. They know that those black criminals will not respect them just because they are black. They know that they will likely be shown even less mercy than the white officers. For the few blacks that do make it thru a good college and obtain a bachelors degree, their families have probably made a lot of sacrifices and would encourage them to get jobs that would lead to more lucrative opportunities. The obvious solution for the City of Dayton is for them to hire only those who meet the qualifications that they see as important and for the Justice Department to stop trying to force inferior police officers on black people...lol!!! In regards to affirmative action in general the key to keeping those programs is to eliminate any racial, sexual or religious stipulations. The criteria should be based on income levels. That way white males could also participate in them. White females have benefited from them for years, so why not let white males also benefit. If a white male comes from a disadvantaged background he may need more of a helping hand than a black man or woman who's mother and father are both professionals. A program that targets those in need, but not based on race would also be less likely to be struck down by the courts. In truth with the high drop out rates, less and less black are even able to take advantage of these programs to get into good universities and eventually good jobs, but I think that it is good if society keeps a door open for poor people, even if they all turn out to be white, to move up the social economic ladder.
1prometheus I am curious to hear what your solutions are to these racial issues in the USA. In prior post phenomena outlined what he thinks should happen, but what is your opinion? Do you believe a new form of segregation would be helpful for the nation? Are you a supporter of sending blacks back to Africa? It would seem that since you think the problems are genetic, more extreme measures are needed to fix things?
They are not racial issues, they are culture issues. We have a permanent underclass, like many societies, but unlike several others.