« Home | Photo Blog of Karpenisi » | A Series of Unfortunate Events » | Weekend Excursion » | Thin is In for Britain's NHS » | Munch Worked in Retail » | Disconnecting From OTE » | Six Feet Under » | At the Mercy of My PC. » | Reporting Greece's Evils » | Fighting the Online Porn Hydra » 

Wednesday, November 30, 2005 

Racism: The Road to Nowhere

If you tolerate this, then your children will be next. --The Manic Street Preachers

1478-1834. Spanish Inquisition
1453-1821.Turkish atrocities in Greece.
1915.Armenian Genocide.
1700-1965.Slavery in the USA.
1948-1994.Apartheid in South Africa.
1940-1945. The Holocaust.
1994. Rwandan genocide.
1995. Srebernica.
2004.Darfur, Sudan.

Racism kills. It is not limited to one country, one civilisation, one time period. I've listed only 9 examples of the atrocities mankind has inflicted upon itself in the last 500 years. There are many more and there will be many more to follow because we seem incapable of change. We refuse to learn.

We've had the memorials to the victims. Speeches vowing never to let it happen again. We know about it. We have more power than ever before to implement change and prevent it and yet the best we seem to do is acknowledge its existence.

How many more Holocausts, genocides, mass murders do we need before we get it through our thick skulls that racism affects everyone, everywhere? Our apathy towards it has become the means to ensure its continuity. The continuity of racism will ensure the annihilation of the human race. Over the years, we've proven that we have become more adept at extermination rather than self-preservation. By tolerating racism in our lives, we haven't proven we deserve a better outcome.

**Kudos to Devious Diva for her continued effort to combat racism daily in her blog. If you haven't made the visit, don't waste any more time and click now as part of the Blog Against Racism Day.

Thank you. I find it quite mind numbing that, despite occurrences of genocide within our own lifetime, there are still people who peddle racism.

Great post SeaWitch and yes, I would be more than happy if you would post it over at THIS IS NOT MY COUNTRY.

The main issue is the fact of ignoring realities. The question and challenge is how do we take cognizance of it and deal with it.
The question and issue remains unanswered. The Turks slaughtered Greeks en masse. The salughter stopped when Greece attained her independence and separation of the two groups became a reality through border delimitations.

If we acknowledge that we need to recognize our differences and keep ourselves within our domains, we may have started on the road to re-formulate a plan to save us all from near elimination. History is the chronology of this reality, peoples,civilizations have come and gone, and the seeds of their dissolution have always remained the same; group conflict based on racial differentiation. Differences and the failure to acknowledge this differences have led to unending conflicts through the ages.
It is obvious that current political catechisms and social constructs are not leading us to a peaceful horizon. A crusade against racism is a self fulfilling prophecy and the target an elusive one.However it seems that the day is not far off when violent bloodshed in the name of combatting racism may become a reality.

A Zulu refuses to sit down and eat next to a Venda in a restaurant. Sotho workers are kept segregated from Shona workers in the mines of South Africa to keep the peace, the moment the barrier is lifted ,for a litttle fraternization ,bloodshed follows. Who has the God given right to force these two groups to blend together if they want to remain separate ?.
A commuter train in South Africa had a nasty episode, a Senegalese illegal was bundled out of the carriage and thrown out of the train onto the rails to his untimely death. The cause of it, one of passengers in the train,a Khoza, discovered the Senegales and accused him of stealing his job, the rest of the Khozas went beserk against the Senegalese national who only spoke a little french. Sad but real.

Maybe we need a revaluation of our values,by discarding failed social formulaes and understand that group competition in a single territory will ultimately lead to endless conflict, until one group prevails over all others.

" There is no room in the new Turkey for Greeks and Turks to live side by side".

Excerpt of a speech by Kemal Ataturk to the turkish parliament on the eve of routing the Greek forces and the sacking of Smyrna.

Greece and Turkey have been at peace thanks to the border and separation of the two peoples. The peace is tenuous and if there is an overlap by one group a reaction is expected from the other group.
The armenians were less fortunate, they were exterminated and exiled because they had no borders separating the two groups.

Let's combat racism by all means, constructively, and not by mealy mouthed declarations, by permitting different groups to have their own inviolable territories.

Sotiris, your contention reads to me as, no offense, coming from a rather defeatest attitude. There might be a need for pragmatism when confronted with the present complexities of a given situation, but I also believe it is incumbent on those practicing racism to rationalize their beliefs and behavior, especially when heinous.

I do not think there is an automatic call for forced intergration being made here. I grant that some people consider themselves citizens of the world. I am not one of them.

But even if we put the issues of immigration and cultural integration aside, that still leaves many peoples lives being adversely limited and effected; right of travel and association would essentially be lessened; in some cases, I suspect, blocked, because one side is unable to forgive the other, or simply hates it with little to no reason.

An atmosphere of continuous hatred allows for the right of total dissociation to become the mandate it ought not be, save for extreme cases. The existence of extreme cases speaks poorly on humanity. Racism goes farther than to say, "stay out of my house." It also says, "and if I see you anywhere near me, you shall suffer." And this belief is forced on some children in their formative years in an attempt to deny them the chance to independently form an opinion about the people their parents hate. It is certainly not an easy call to say what role an equitably minded society should have in light of the teachings of individual racists within it, but this does not mean we cannot seek ways to condemn and even punish those that seek to hinder the freedoms of others through threat of violence, and the freedom of their own to chose association over dissociation.

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Thanks for posting the comments about Srebernica. I'm going to save these and pull them out the next time one of my Greek friends starts blabbering about how great the Serbs are.

War is the mother of atrocities. When war breaks out there is no "right side or wrong side" when the issue at hand is the business of killing. Turks massacred and cleansed entire Greek villages during the occupation, the Greeks had no recourse but retaliate in kind whenever and in whatever measure they could, although their retaliation did not amount to massacres or extermination of the occupying force, but killing is killing regardless of who commits it. A palestinian strikes with their suicide weapon, the Isreaelis respond with the razing of a village,demolition of their homes and further killing.
It looks like we are innately born with the streak to kill. It is a matter of degree, and God forbid that you be on the losing side. America gets its tail tweaked at the twin towers, they respond in disproportionate measure by saturation bombing regardless of casualties or consequences, civilians die but they are part of consequential damages. The bombing continues and more bombs will be dropped and more killings from both sides will be inflicted.The americans with their inbred culture of indiscriminate violence are capable of slaughtering more of their perceived enemies, of course they always hide behind the "tom tom of human rights and other abstruse theories " to carry out their killing sprees. The victor will write history the way it sees it, the loser will obviously have a different perspective, provided the loser has sufficient numbers alive left to tell its own story. The Serbs commit an atrocity, the Bosniaks retribute in kind, Kosovars were haremed by american/nato bombing, the blame was apportioned to the serbs , the KLA dispatches Serbs at will in Kosovo and drives the Serbian population out of Kosovo. Who is the worst devil ?
I heard Papandreu make a comment in English about " not wanting multiplication of secessionist movements, but integration of minorities in the Balkans". Is Papandreu stirring the pot,preparing the ground for war ? He wants to integrate minorities instead of acknowledging them and contribute to their freedom.
A crusade of any anti "ism's" is fraught in the bossom of violence and destruction.

What if racism is the default condition in human nature, and being 'race-blind' a trait that must be atttained? What if humans are already hard-wired to spot differences in 'race' amongst a community, and discriminate accordingly?

Perhaps pleas against racism are going to be as futile as rants about abstinence being the only way to prevent AIDS. For the majority of people, it just isn't going to work.

I hope I'm just being overly pessismistic...

Sotiris,

The knee jerk reaction to blame America for all the worlds ills is a common one. You are in good company. I'm not fond of conspiracy theories myself.

A polite reminder that most nations were against the Serbs, not just America. Even Greece, whose population supported the Serbs has a government which belongs in Nato, and I think it was Simitis who did not go against NATO either on these attacks.

Don't take my word on it, why don't you ask the many other UN peacekeeping forces who were in Kosovo.

The area of the former Yugoslavia now has more peace than they've had in years and I credit this to America. I know you will probably pull a disertation out of your hat to counter why I'm wrong, but even though I'm used to this by now, I still chuckle.

You merely wanted to say, "The US is a sanctimonious, Phony Bully Boy," Sotiris, and you said it.

Laguna said...

What if racism is the default condition in human nature, and being 'race-blind' a trait that must be atttained? What if humans are already hard-wired to spot differences in 'race' amongst a community, and discriminate accordingly?

You're not wrong Laguna. A recent study by Arizona State University researchers in the May issue of the "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology" stated that it IS normal, hard-wired, and a default. Here is an excerpt of what they have to say...

because human survival was based on group living, "outsiders" were viewed as -- and often were -- very real threats.

"By nature, people are group-living animals -- a strategy that enhances individual survival and leads to what we might call a 'tribal psychology'," says Steven Neuberg, ASU professor of social psychology, who authored the study with doctoral student Catherine Cottrell. "It was adaptive for our ancestors to be attuned to those outside the group who posed threats such as to physical security, health or economic resources, and to respond to these different kinds of threats in ways tailored to have a good chance of reducing them."

~~~~~~~~~snip~~~~~~~~~

Consistent with the researchers' hypotheses, findings revealed that distinct prejudices exist toward different groups of people. Some groups elicited prejudices characterized largely by fear, others by disgust, others by anger, and so on. Moreover, the different "flavors" of prejudice were associated with different patterns of perceived threat.

Follow-up work further shows that these different prejudices motivate inclinations toward different kinds of discrimination, in ways apparently aimed at reducing the perceived threat.

"Groups seen as posing threats to physical safety elicit fear and self-protective actions, groups seen as choosing to take more than they give elicit anger and inclinations toward aggression, and groups seen as posing health threats elicit disgust and the desire to avoid close physical contact," says Cottrell.

~~~~~~~~~snip~~~~~~~~~~

Neuberg and Cottrell are both adamant to point out that just because prejudices are a fundamental and natural part of what makes us human, that doesn't mean that learning can't take place and that responses can't be dampened.



A synopsis of this article can be found at the Science Daily. The full scientific research article can be found in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Laguna, I believe racism is learned. If you want to see our "default condition" look at very young children. Before the age of three or four. Before they have been indoctrinated into the culture of "difference is bad"


"and when a child is born
Into this world
It has no concept
Of the tone of skin it's living in
And there’s a million voices
And there’s a million voices"
Neneh Cherry. 7 seconds

Rants against racism on an individual basis are useless. Tidal waves of rants can make a difference. It is one of the only ways we have the power to bring about change. Words alone will not do it. Words that inspire action will.

As I was writing this ethnocentrist replied to your comment. He omits the last line of the report:

"Evolution may have prepared our minds to be prejudiced, but our environment influences the specific targets of those prejudices and how we act on them"

A child may have the ABILITY to become prejudiced towards vast groups of people because of a "percieved threat". We have the responsibility, as parents and educators, to ensure those instincts are channelled properly and are not towards generalised fear based on misguided notions.

Today, parts of former yogoslavia that have come under the sponsorhip and tutelage of the USA/NATO and EU forces have become veritable powder kegs.

The UN is busy running the drug cartel and the trafficking of white slavery ,jointly with the KLA ,in the hornet's nest called Kosovo and Methojia. A formerly peaceful area of Christian orthodox Serbia ,with large number of churches and monasteries has ben convulsed ,through American intervention ,and delivered into a cauldron of hatred, intolerance and racism. Today desolation and utter devastation reigns in Kosovo under the steely heel of the KLA .

The Kla racists are driving the Serb population out of Christian Kosovo.

200.000 Serbs have fled their ancestral homes , which ironically , UN/American/Nato "peace keeping forces" have been powerless or unwilling to prevent. They are refugees in their own country,( another 1922 in the making ,although in a different degree) waiting for a sunny day when they can reclaim their province and return to their homes, some now inhabited by the peacekeeping forces, others confiscated by the KLA mafia gangs, others destroyed.

The Balkans,with the exception of Greece, have long been a freeway for smugglers of cigarettes, drugs, weapons and prostitution.
These "trade industries" are now booming and being orchestrated with the baton of Albanian and Kla elite, under the watchful eye and guardianship of America/Nato/UN syndicate, who are also connivers and partners in these criminal enterprises.

The peace that America/Nato/EU troika of peacekeepers has brought to Kosovo is the kind of peace where no bishop,priest or monk can travel within the provinces ,to visit chiuches and monasteries, without an army escort. The remaining Serbs can not move about as they please. UN peace keeping tanks are everywhere, barbed wire surrounds the towns and villages of orthodox Serbs.
I understand, this is what America calls peace. Maybe we should ask the Serbs in Kosove their views on the interpretation and application of the word "Peace".



Whilst Americans at home and abroad were celebrating Thanksgiving day by piling and gorging themselves ,with enormous gusto, into their stuffed turkeys, the orthodox Serbs in Methojia were starving.
This is not a matter for a chuckle, it is a matter of life and death. However I understand that a chuckle is permissible as long as one is not having the roof over his head blasted to smithereens by bombs being dropped from high altitudes.

Regarding Simitis, the elegiac gentleman is incapable of solving his own problems without having to ask his bosses from USA/EU/Nato what to do. 1996 IMIA.

Simitis could only jump in the direction ordained by his paymasters.

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

As I said, I am extremely skeptical that 'feel-good' messages against racism will help stem the problem. The main reason is that they miss the actual point. What we are concerned about is not racial discrimination per se (discrimination defined as being able to note the differences between one group of people and another), but thuggery, pure and simple.

Simple analogy: a group of white teenagers beat up a 8 year old black kid walking along a dimly lit street and leave him for the dead. Was this racially motivated? I think the main reason why the teenagers did it was because the kid was weak and defenseless, not because he was black.

Same with the list of examples sea-witch originally posted. Though they may have racial links, the main reason they occurred was because it involved a stronger group of people oppressing a weaker group of people. In fact, the Spanish Inquisition (first example) was not because of racial reasons, but religious.

Pardon if my point has already been brought up by sotiris earlier. I only just read through his post ;-) Very insightful indeed.

Sotiris, can you give me a non-Greek source for your jingoism so I may read up on what you are talking about. I haven't heard this before except from Greeks. A non biased source would benefit me.

And, one more thing. In reference to Imia. In Clinton's book, I think he mentions something about getting woke up out of a deep sleep over a rock and some goats. Now, that was funny!

Scruffy American

You are asking me for non greek sources ? If you don't beleive in what I say I am neither hurt nor chagrined. My own personal experiences and my own personal conclusions, in this case I am a greek and therefore I may come across to you as "suspicious and jingoistic". I am sorry. I also have a distrust and feel threatened of America's foreing policy makers. I visited Yugoslavia before the fratricidal conflict of the 90's, and was in Kosovo Methojia, with great difficulty,nine months ago.

As far as Clinton's wake up call from his deep sleep ( maybe she was with Lewinsky at the moment of the call ?) by Simitis about a"rock in the Aegean", it only reinforces my view that an employee must ask his manager, or his boss, for guidance when he is faced with a problem . The Turkish generals or the then turk PM, did not consult Clinton before landing a party on the islet. They went and did it. At the same time Clinton displays his ignorance of geography, the Aegean,strategies and power play. He was the President of the most powerful country, and Greece happens to be in America's sphere of influence, therefore he should have made it his job to know about the geography and geopolitics of a region considered as of vital importance to the USA.An unacceptable faux pas of a President, but then again what can one expect from an inmoral creature in the White house who has debauchery as his priority, licentiousness as a pastime,and kept a log book with records of his amorous exploits. Don Juan or Casanova, or even Boccacio, can not measure up to Clinton

Since you are asking about sources, I will quote you the ruminations of a famous Harvard professor : Professor Ignatiev, the eloquent professor fulminates thus :::

" The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists. The key to solving the social problem of our age is to abolish the white race. We intend to keep bashing the dead white males and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as the white race is destroyed ,not deconstructed but destroyed"

::: thus spoke Zarathustra ??, No thus spoke Ignatief, Harvard professor. Please, since you seem desireous of non greek sources, I am confident you'll enjoy an American source.

Another famous American of the "Give me you huddled poor and your masses etc, etc, Susan Sontag elucidated that " The white race is the cancer of society"

Well what do we make of these expressions ?. Are they racists, antiracists, or Lovists expressions ?

We should ask a Greek, a Russian, a Serb, or even a Basque what do they think if some professor called their nation and race "a social construct".As a Greek and white person I am recognizing the professor as a very dangerous, pernicous, and diabolical character.
I am not holding my breath waiting for charges of "hate speech " to be brought against Beelzebub Ignatiev.

A similar opinion being aired but replacing the word white with black, would have provoked strident howls of condemnation, vilification from academia, main stream media,and other concerned bodies of humanitarians, and a demand that the opinion maker be sent to a Lubyanka type of institution to bee weeded out in sensitive training and other psychological torments and finally made to recant before being bundled into jail never to be seen or heard again. In the meantime everuthing is fine at Harvard with the tenured professor belching out his gems of social and philosophical wisdom.

Yes we need a big demonstration against racism, against the Ignatievs and Sontag types.

The word racism did not exist in Greece during the 50's and 60's, 70's. It begun to rear its ugly head with the uninvited arrival of strange foreigners. Now ,after 20 years of an uninterrupted flow, Greece is going to be faced with a crisis.

We can not crusade against reality, we can only fool ourselves. We need to demonstrate against racism, we Greeks have been victims through our history. The Turks defiled and exploited us, the Turks extracted blood tribute from their subject races for centuries, young boys were taken away from their parents and hauled off to the interior of the Ottoman Gulag to be brought up as Turks and constitute the bulk of the Jannissaries. Abduction of girls to provide fresh meat for the harems of the unspeakable Sultans and Beys and other Ottoman plutocrats. We had a turkish occupation and genocide perpetrated against greeks and orthodox subjects, serbs,bulgars, armenians ( who were decimated to the last one) assyrians. Now we are faced with the threat of another occupation, this one on the surface appears peaceful and innocuous, but it will be just as lethal as the Turkish one. We greeks are still the victims. We need to demonstrate against racism, yes , Racism kills indeed ,we don't want another occupation.
We just want to be Greeks in our Greece. I don't believe any foreigner should have a problem with that , apart that is from a certain Harvard professor Ignatiev.

He omits the last line of the report

I really didn't omit anything of relevance. This last quote of the news article is what is termed "cover your ass". Whether the authors believe it or not, and my hunch is not because I read the original article as well as some other points that need not be delved into here, is irrelevant because it needs to be said in order to blunt any potential professional backlash. Scientists are not ignorant and are well aware of the sensitivity these topics raise in not only the public, but in academia as well. They have seen colleagues crucified in the past for saying or writing the wrong things. A prime example is JP Rushton from the University of Western Ontario who wrote about IQ and races in the late 80's. He nearly had his career ruined, brought up on incitement of racial hatred charges where the truth was no defense, and had to spend untold amounts of money to free himself of the tentacles of political correctness. The courts did not have a problem with his research, they only had a problem with him saying it. Such are the "hate laws" of the Socialist Republic of Kanada.

So I do not have too much doubt that the authors here are doing the same thing, that being self-preservation. They MUST parrot the PC dogma in order to prevent any form of ostracism. For ostracism is the way accurate racial research IS muted and/or prevented in toto. In essence, what they are trying to say is that what makes us human needs to be tampered with. We need to change human evolution in order to fit the PC Marxist ideology of equality, first and foremost. Though this changing only seems to be a problem with white people. Other races do not need any tampering.

A child may have the ABILITY to become prejudiced towards vast groups of people because of a "percieved threat". We have the responsibility, as parents and educators, to ensure those instincts are channelled properly and are not towards generalised fear based on misguided notions.

A child also is not aware a red hot stove top will burn him, yet he does not want this. A child is not aware falling down stairs will kill him, yet does not want this. A child is not even aware of the finality of death, yet does not want this either. A child is unaware of many things that are meant to be innate, and are, yet due to the immaturity of mental developement, will do things that ARE contra to self-preservation. Using that as an example holds absolutely no water in the context of social, psychological, and evolutionary research that shows just the opposite.


As far as Serbia goes, it is clearly evident that Kosovo was not Albanian, ever. It most certainly was not Muslim either. The ruthless leaders of the KLA, who now are making similar noises in the government of FYRO Macedonia are nothing but criminals who have been given saint status due to the major fuck up and "wag the dog" scenario of that fat piece of shit, Clinton. As to the ethnic cleansing of the SERBS BY THE ALBANIANS, Sotiris is 100% correct. Scruffy, you need to learn history before siding with self-serving assholes. It is akin to California clamouring for independence thanks to the invasion of Mexicans living there, the US government trying to stop this from occurring and sending back the Mexicans to Mexico, and another country bombing the US in order to stop this "ethnic cleansing". While the US President is brought up on sham charges of "crimes against humanity", the Americans of California are cleansed by the Mexicans living there. Wouldn't this sort of piss you off a bit?

Good post, Sotiris.

Regarding Ignatiev and Sontag, coincidentally enough, they both are Jewish. Neither of them are eagerly awaiting the destruction of Isreal, for some reason.

" Well, you are so correct as always, ethnocentrist.,
Sorry there but it seems you have an answer for everything and you DID omit a VERY relevent line of the article as far as I am concerned. Well, "cover your ass" to me means you do not stand by what you say, you are only protecting what you think, against the opinion of the majority?
"
There is no need to answer, we will never agree. You will keep posting your opinion, (with "facts and statistics") which I disagree with completely and visa versa.
I thought at one point we found a common ground?
Over to you.

Not quite. If I meant to omit or cover anything, I wouldn't have posted this paragraph...

Neuberg and Cottrell are both adamant to point out that just because prejudices are a fundamental and natural part of what makes us human, that doesn't mean that learning can't take place and that responses can't be dampened.

...nor the actual link to the news article if I were truly looking to hide anything or sway opinion subversively. If I had the link to the official journal publication, that would have been linked as well. You can think of me in all sorts of uncomplimentary ways, however liar is not one of them, for sure. I am quite confident in my opinions of things that I do not need to twist facts to suit me. That is the modus of the leftist.

Ethno and Sotiris: I really am learning from you too. All I'm asking for is a non-Greek (or Serb) source that confirms what you are saying that the Serbs are somehow innocent (and being framed) for what the WORLD (not America) is saying against them. As a reminder, we're talking about "Srebernica". Just because they don't acknowledge this in Greece doesn't mean it didn't happen!!

Ethno wants me to learn history. I do, but please give me something relevant to back up what you are saying. I didn't ask for racist statements (from some nutty professor) against white folks. As a white man myself, I don't enjoy racist statements against me either. No one does! However, you are skirting the issue. I'm talking about the Serb atrocities which the whole world talks about (except Greece).

Again, more specifically, can you please give me a link or non-Greek (or Serb) source that says that the Serbs are somewhat innocent of what EVERYONE knows. Have you no source? If not, then that's ok.

I think I finally found my kryptonite with you guys. You don't have a non-Greek source regarding "Srebernica" do you?

As always, KAF "Kapios Allos Ftai" (Someone else's fault) is at work with the Greeks.

Ethno, by the way, on a SIDEBAR, Who do you hate more? "Clinton or Bush". Now, that would be interesting to know. Since Bush has no interest in the Balkans, I'm betting that you like Bush better, eh?

And, as a bonus jab: If you Orthodox Greeks are such haters of Muslims (Turks, Albanians etc), why do you raise such a fuss when America has a war with Iraq. In theory, you (Greece) should have joined America since America is a mainly Christian country. Some people (CERTAINLY NOT ME) believe the war in Iraq is a Christian Crusade? If so, I thought the Greek Orthy's would have jumped at the chance to fight on the side of Christianity, as they sure did in Yugoslavia.

Professor Ignatiev is called "nutty". The professor is not nutty, he has a very brilliant mind, that is why is a tenured professor, and I may say above the law. To call him nutty is a sign of deep ignorance.
The professor's mind is as razor sharp ,cold, calculating ,and his schedule is rigged to a timetable and a mission. He is no expatriate living in some exotic island and taking gratuituous shots against the people he lives amongst.

Scruffy seems to have a terrible ax to grind with greeks,serbs and othodoxy.

The Croats under the watchful eye of the U.N, banished 150.000 Serbs from the Krajina region. Banished, expelled, gone for ever. We shall not mention the 200.000 from Kosova driven out by the Albanian KLA under the auspices of America/Nato/UN. I don't blame neither the croats nor the Bosniaks but the culprits are, blood thirsty and genocidal social engineers, sitting in the USA/UN.

During the war every federated state in former yugoslavia did bad things to each other. War does kill.And when the killing starts it is not easy to stop it. The difference now is that it is politically expedient to castigate Serbia. As usual after the conflict is over a scapegoat has to be found. Self defence by Serbia is an act of aggression therefore the matter of Sebrinica will be kept on the boil for as long as it will suit USA/NATO/UN. Nothing more could be said that has not been said about Sebrinica.
The forces that lit the fuse to render former yougoslavia asunder are the incumbent occupying forces of KFOR, UN and American troops. They came, they saw, they plundered and despoil and dispossess the natives of their land, territories. Nothing is said about the plight of all Serbs refugees, refugees in their own country, dispossessed and debased by foreign forces. Don't they count ? maybe they are not humans ? It reminds me of Madame mademoiselle Allbright when in a radio show, in 1998, expounded her humanitarian and compassionate facet, by declaring that " If 500.000 Iraqui children have to die in a year, it is worth it". It is worth it because it serves the purposes of the great Moloch, America.By the same logic let the Serbs and christian orthdox suffer, "it is worth it".


What idiotic maniac would propose that Greece should go to war in Iraq together with the megalomaniac Bush and his fire and brimstone gangsters in the white house, because, the Iraquies are moslems? Did Iraq threatened Greece's integrity ? I don't see the Iraqui 6th fleet sailing in the Aegean sea and keeping every client state in thrall.I don't see Iraqui army garrisons in Greece or in Europe, but I do see mushrooming American army bases in Europe preparing for war, I do see the American six fleet, american bombers, american bluster, american bullying, and american prepotence.
The seeds of war are being sown, and the time for the harvesting is not far off, I only pray that Greece may be spared.

Sotiris,

You still haven't given me any non-Greek sources to verify what you are saying. Please do so if they exist. I promise I will look them over.

Also, if you visited my blog, you'd see that my posts are usually about my skepticism on the Greek point of view. I'm not trying to start an argument, just a friendly debate. As I've said many times and on my blog, I truly do enjoy living in Greece and it's people. My wife is Greek and I have a baby daughter. I just want them (Greeks) to re-examine the conspiracy theories that run their daily lives.

Yes, I agree with Sotiris again, though not in full, but in predominance. The issues are clear and the only thing cloudy is the angle with which one wants to view the unfolding of events. It goes along the lines of what this thread was originally written for, i.e. "racism". Which to me, and most others inclined in believing scientific research, is due to an inborn trait that makes us human and has allowed us to reach this point, in time and space.

Scruffy, before jumping all over shit, you need to read my posts thoroughly before spouting YOUR jingoistic, pro-American tirades. I agreed with Sotiris' post that dealt with Kosovo/Serbia, Clinton, Ignatiev, and Sontag. That post was impeccable in my opinion. If you would have taken time to notice in your eagerness to defend the US, I didn't jump into the Bosnian Serb posts. Kosovo is Serbian for over 1000 years, if not 1300 years. This is fact. Albanians have lived their for ~300 years. Case closed on who has rights to it, in my book.

You want an answer and link absolving Serbs from Srebrenica? I surely do not have any. Though, as Sotiris points out, it WAS WAR. War is not kind nor peaceful, is it? It also was a glaring example of how different peoples, though in this case, based on religion, need to be separate and NOT forced into the same region. (HINT: Look at the current state of most major European cities, Canada, and the US) I, and certainly you, do not know the intracacies involved in the workings of Bosniaks and Orthodox Serbs in Bosnia prior to the dissolution of Yugoslavia, though there WERE issues, of which I am sure. This led to deep seated, and historic negative feelings which were brought to their full, horrific light during the war. Despite Bosniaks being Serb and converting to Islam thanks to the Turk, it still caused a division down religious and cultural lines. You see how the "US versus THEM" ideology always rears its ugly head? Always!

There is more to this region and this war than what is revealed. Sotiris points this out when he talks about the UN/US/NATO. It has a long history and will continue to have a long future. The US, with Clinton and Bush, should just stay the fuck out. Two ignorant, self-serving morons dictating on what "is right". I absolutely am disgusted with Bush more than Clinton, though it is close. Bush is no conservative and only interested in further improving his family dynasty at the expense of the average man. He has sold out the US for money and power and in my mind deserves to be treated as a traitor, with public hanging and all. Clinton is the same, make no mistake. Just a smoother, sleeker, slimier version.

I really am surprised at your unrelenting jingoism, Scruffy. Despite having lived in Greece for 20 years, having a Greek wife, and now a child. You certainly do have an axe to grind and it is not subtle in the least. And no, I do not believe it is only for certain Greeks and not the "good" ones. The good ones are the ones who do not bother engaging you in your tirades against the place, it seems.

Ethno,

One man's jingoism is another mans truth.

Oh, come on man! This time it's you who should chill. You live in America and as you told me, you don't want America to fail, correct? So, what are you doing to make sure it doesn't happen since you live there and I don't.

And, I don't really consider you a Greek since you are a Greek-American. You are more American to me. So, that's why I'm so comfortable barbing with you.

Most of these folks on these sites are Greek Ex-pats and I wonder if there are any local Greeks even out there on these blogs?

I don't have an axe to grind against Greece and Greeks. Am I not allowed to question the Greek view on things. You certainly have made your point clear and I certainly didn't accuse you of having an "axe to grind" against America, although I may have called you anti-American. But, you said you were not so I tried not to call you that again.

I never had a local Greek tell me I couldn't express my displeasure with them. Certainly, sometimes they aren't happy with my opinion, but they never told me I couldn't have it. By golly, this is Greece the land of democracy and democracy means being able to disagree. Would you like me to just be a "yes" man and agree with everything you put out there.

So, if I disagree with you guys and ask for more facts from other sources, why can't that be ok?

Plus, I'm not angry and didn't use profanity as you have. I certainly didn't want you to get upset over this.

Debating is supposed to fun, but if this is becoming too stressful and causes people to snap at each other, maybe I should just back off and go back to posting on the basket weaving blogs where I used to post.

P.S. I just updated my blog today and you may find it humorous and I won't be offended if you disagree with me.

Even if Srebrenica was every bit as bad as the Muslim Bosnaiks claim it was, it was still equalled only 5% of the fatalities that the turks inflicted on their Kurdish population during the 1984-1999 War of Kurdish Supression.

Yet, for some reason, Clinton and Blair were quite proud to have Turkish bombers attacking the Serbs during the Kosovo War, only a couple of months after Kurdish President Ocalan was abducted from Kenya. I seriously doubt that has anything to do with the fact that the West has traditionally viewed Turkey as a "key strategic partner"; that simply can't be the reason for this apparent double standard...

Nothing is changed through silence.

In each case made against the concept of an anti racism day the argument seems to be that racism is an inborn condition which leads to wars when disparate groups are "forced" to cohabit, or that racist hatred is justified by past or present context.

I understand a people's continued aversion toward its aggressors, and that both sides might be guilty of terrible acts, but there are more contexts than war.

A day against racism does not need to be guaranteed as effective. And few things, it seems, are. It needs to do one thing, exist, as a small seed, an idea, whose time should come. Many of you can suggest or say outright that is naive, unrealistic and idealistic. So what if it is? All silence does is perpetuate the problem. Racism exists in more instances than the war or war like examples that have been cited.

Racism is not merely fear and ignorance, it is irrationality; it is guilt by association; it is evil for its incessant stupidity.

Obviously changing the minds of people under a cloud of fear with a reasonable basis like war and non existent peace treaties is difficult, if even possible. But the reasonable minimum that is asked is not forced immigration and integration, nor the bending of the status quo to the norms of immigrants, as some fear it is, and, I admit, and some want it to be, it is that a person not be made the victim of hate based violence when his only crime is being related his abusers enemies despite that a war is not present. Throughout much of the 20th century, many blacks were lynched in America, some for no worse crime than being near the wrong person, such as a white woman. What internal war existed in the US then to justify their murders. Where was the rationalizer of war then? Does bitterness over losing the civil war and whatever burdens reconstruction might have caused make the murders right and pointless to condemn?

Look, the crux of the matter is that people do what is instinctual to them. It is not based on learned or evil intentions as the PC establishment has done a tremendous job instilling into people. People want to be with like kind and that is normal. The term racism, as Sotiris alludes to, is a new invention to bludgeon dissent. That is what people are trying to get across. No one is advocating violence or inhumanity, though wanting one's country to be rather homogenous is NOT a crime against humanity as it is sold in this day and age.

On another note, you state...

Throughout much of the 20th century, many blacks were lynched in America, some for no worse crime than being near the wrong person, such as a white woman.

I'll ignore the blatant inaccuracies due to indoctrination, however a point you brought up indirectly is that black behaviour in the US was "kept in line" through fear prior to the civil rights movement. No doubt advanced liberalism in society has done wonders for the behaviour of certain ethnic groups after their "emancipation".

American Renaissance

Some of the "highlights":

Interracial Crime

• Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.

• Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black.

• Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.

• Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes against whites than vice versa.



Sorry about these "racist" facts gleaned from the DOJ and FBI.

I have not spoken specifically spoken out against homogeny. What I have been saying is that there are limits to what homogeny, instilled or natural hatred, or preference not defined as hatred, can justify, and that it goes too far when it unduly limits the freedom of others. People should not forever fear their presence in some place when they are legally residing, visiting or passing through it, and nations should not be forever holding onto anger from past generations. A time of growing up has to occur at some point. I have granted that some situations likely exist where not much can be done, I am not naive about that reality. And a nation which seeks strong, let alone absolute isolation is fair game for questioning and criticism as to the basis for its preferred homogeny; why would not immigrant A, legally here (as we should all agree he should be), be worthy of living here? If you want to claim the right to homogeny, fine, I shall not harp on the issue but to say that I am sure, and I think your are not wholly anti immigration, so you might agree, that some persons are likely good assets to a new nation and no immigrants character should automatic be presumed as being detrimental to his new nation.

And you ignored the matter of racism existing outside the complexity of war, strawmaned (A) my point about war not being the only context underwhich, aside from naturally born hatred, where the practice of racism exists, being the context where racists or generally unfair and irrational violence exists, and cited statistics to speciously (b) imply a war exists.

A., whether or not there exists a specific example of a black person being hung for improper, however that is defined, relations with a white woman is irrelevant. The point is is that blacks were lynched, more than whites, in some cases by a substantial margin, and that is unjust. The actual guilt of some of those lynched is also irrelevant in a just society that claims to believe in due process.


B., there was no, and is no, internal, declared and literal war within the US then and today (so far as I am aware, but if you know of one of significance, please point it out to me). There were racists who took it upon themselves to take "justice" into their own hands in a disproportionate way. And your reference to FBI, et al, statistics does not establish a conspriracy nor a centralized effort on the part of the black population to war with the majority whites. Even if granted that your statistical citations show blacks as generally more involved in criminal activity, it does not prove collusion or announced intent to bring down the majority. Your war is claimed by effect, existing by amalgamating instances with similar [i]and[/i] divergent causes. That is not a war context; it is not reason to lynch blacks, let alone hate them collectively.

The problem or issue of race is never a legal, economic,religious,or even a social problem so much as it is a biological and a poltical problem.

I have never heard of racism demonstrations neither in Japan, China, India, or African countries.

Why not, surely these nations should be concerned about the perils and dystopic conditions that racism engenders. It seems that they have learnt the wisdom of the ages, the biological awareness, and keep their borders tightly sealed. There are no immigration policies, in these countries. Neither are they burdened with minority disturbances, riots and "No go areas" in their cities. Therefore they don't have to hold marches against racism.

Many Koreans migrated to Japan betwen 1910 and 1945, when Korea was part of the empire. There are now thousands of third- generation Koreans, who look, act, and sound just like japanese. They have permanent legal residence, but they are not citizens. They cannot vote or hold government jobs, and most japanese would not marry or employ them. The general feeling is that if Koreans don't like it, they can always go back to Korea which is where they belong.

In South Africa, ever since the European abdicated his position, 2876 european defenceless farmers have been brutally slain. The murder campaign is continuing.

The Asians are doing something right, we are not.

Racism can not be peddled, nor is a commodity to be bought in the boutiques of Paris or in the Brandenburg gate.

Competing groups, of biological disparate units ,locked in a single territoy and forced to mingle is an explosive cocktail for eventual disaster.

Today the racist tag and racism have become tools and weapons for certain groups ( immigrant groups) to enter into a process that will ultimately lead to their political and dominant ascendancy over another group ( the host ).
This should serve as a reminder to us all that while in the West we have been sounding the alarm against racism, now Asia and Africa have been sounding a clarion call of their own --that they are coming to conquer us.

4BN Asians and 1BN Africans, are searching and seeking a "a better life" in our homelands, or put it in another way using our homelands as dumping ground for their excess populations.

According to Spengler, he served advanced warning that in the XIX century "our western civilization, is threatened by not one but by two cataclysmic revolutions of grave magnitude. Neither of these two revolutions has been gauged or estimated as to its depth, reach and profound effects.The first one originates in the bottom , the second one has external origins : "the class struggle and the race struggle". The first one will move vertically and the second horizontally, they will converge as allies and the European peoples will then be faced with the ultimate challenge to their survival, whether they like or not ".

Each group of people deserves to be in his nation, in his own turf,enjoying his own rights, his own flag; then we can have relative peace and harmony, at least in the racial sphere.

We need to demonstrate against the racism that we are being subjected to in our daily lives. Distorting our history,calumniating our heroes, instilling a feeling of guilt, making us insecure and dispossesing us of our culture and wrecking our civilization.
When glorious Greece rose against the Turks, it was because the Greeks refused to abjure their nationality and reject the invitation to become modern day Turks.They refused to exchange Hellenic civilization for Turkic barbarism .Against turkish racism Greeks said no. It is sheer racism to extinguish the life of nations, be it through cruel wars, unfettered immigration, or replacing native populations with alogenous elements.
If we are going to take part in a march against racism it will not be to display hatred towards other societies but to express the unremitting love and desire for our own people to continue to exist, and to be capable of providing a future to our yet to be born generations in the same way as our forefathers did for us.

After reading all the comments, I submit the following:

1) Funny that you do not consider Greece when talking about the "freeway for smugglers of cigarettes, drugs, weapons and prostitution". Greece, like it or not is just as much a part of the problem. I can go to the "Laiki" (street market), and can obtain all the above with little to no problem. It is so easy to blame Albania, the UN, and the US for all the problems in the Greece, yet the Greek Government turns it's head to the abuses and lets the Newspapers and Television try to rally the people to a frenzy!

2) Kosovo is far from a powder-keg. I have walked the streets in Kosovo and Sarajevo during and after the Balkans war! The Balkans has always been plagued by the lack of tolerance for ethnic/political background. The sad thing is history repeats itself! If you look at the Balkans history, the common answer is not tolerance, but genocide! Croatian, Serbian, Albanian and Muslim should not be a factor, nor should being any of the above be a license to kill the other! And none of the groups are INNOCENT! The Balkans have relied on payback vice cooperation! Nothing sticks in my mind more than walking through the Olympic Ice rink in Sarajevo, and seeing the facility used as a morgue! Thousands of bodies being preserved because it's impossible to bury them. I have since returned to Sarajevo (Summer 2005) to see a complete rebuilding. The streets were chaotic, not from the bullets and bombs, but of the children playing in the streets. Yes, the UN/US still have a presence there, but the peace is real! And I went to Thank God at a Church and at a Mosque. (I was welcomed in both!) I have since raised a glass with numerous residents from all walks of life. They are just like you and me, a simple human being, a citizen of the world!

3) I have not been to Methojia, so I cannot comment on this. However, I think it highly unlikely that it is crawling with Tanks and barbwire! Check with the UN website, if it "has tanks everywhere", they must have the maintenance facility there, because UN presence is VERY SMALL!!!!

4) The UN has strayed from it's pure intentions, as seen with the Iraqi "oil for food" scandal and numerous other allegations. However, people find it a lot less repulsive than a US Global Police Force. Only us, the caring "Citizens of the World" can speak out with our votes to change this organization! What a wonderful world this would be if everyone would embrace diversity instead of Hate! Free the UN from Politics and give it back to the people!

Eff, you bring up some good points and I will attempt to address them. In your first paragraph, the gist of the matter is whether immigration can be tolerated to some degree and that we, as decent and enlightened people, should allow "good quality" immigrants into our countries. To answer this, I have to say that my views have shifted over the last few years. Years ago, I did not even think about immigration, nor care to what extent it was occurring. More recently, as you rightfully state I was not wholly against immigration when done appropriately and monitored diligently. However over the last year or two, this situation we find ourselves in needs a complete moratorium on immigration. COMPLETE. I do not want ANY distant immigration into western countries for any reason, really. Not only that, as we have seen in a multitude of places across Europe, many immigrants need to be sent packing back to their homelands. There is already talk of this by the "experts". Thank God they are right "on top" the situation. So, currently I am against any immigration of any non-racially similar peoples into Europe.

With that, should we allow "good immigrants" into Europe and the west to "help". That is the question, isn't it. Cognitive elitism is what you are trying to get at. While there may be some who take on the culture of the west and shed their old culture, most do not. Most think exactly like this gentleman does...

Today’s Letter: A Reader in India Says the West Is Dead
From: Adnan Khan: [e-mail him]
Your concern for your white brothers and sisters seems to be warranted.

First, the defeated and desperate Islamic peoples are bleeding your resources in a seemingly endless war of terror, and guerilla wars your army cannot win.

Second, the amount of scientists and engineers from China and

India is so crushing and dominating it seems that in fifty years you will not be able to withstand it. It’s like ten Japans into one.

Third, the Soviet Union as bad as it was, was a white power that still propagated the illusion of white supremacy. Now that it has fallen, the world will witness something it hasn’t in three centuries.

The undisputed superpower of the earth will be China. With China’s plan to have the ten greatest universities on earth and its blistering 10% economic growth, it can achieve this.

Behind China will be India. What the world will witness is a non-white superpower. If India is second, the whities won’t even be on the map.

And consider that the third place USA will be, by 2050, more than half Latino and black.

In the 2050 US, Asian Indians and Chinese will dominate your upper echelons financially and academically, and blacks would dominate sport and entertainment. Also Jewish people would continue their dominance.

All white and non-white kids will wake up every day in a world where no white country is even close to power. Their psyche will be tremendously affected.

The boost to the Asians will be enormous and the morale of the whites will shrink to non-existence.

The old whites will sit on the fence and say, “I remember when whites ruled,” and the Chinese and Indian men will laugh and ask, “When was this?”

Well don’t worry. You had your time. I am I writing this from my mansion in India.

I got a job from some American who was incredibly ignorant and miserably inadequate at accounting.

I have no respect for Americans anymore. What was once a great culture built on learning and decency has nothing but a bunch of ignorant immoral morons. Such is your fate.

Maybe your grandson can apply for immigration to China one day...or maybe the Chinese will remember how you guys let us in.

Peace.


The letter can be found at VDare

It summarizes that people think, behave, and act along ethnic and racial lines. They behave in ways that help preserve and promote their ethnic genetic interests. A term coined by Frank Salter. At least everyone except whites do. Having one distant immigrant is no problem. Having 30-50% of the population, NO MATTER HOW GOOD, is a huge problem. One can also delve into race replacement at this point since mass immigration, regardless if they are all good does not warrant us to be stupid about allowing immigrants in that are distant, period. Race replacement is a legitimate issue when you have the current milieu of low native fertility, high immigrant fertility, a high welfare state that penalizes the natives and promotes fertility amongst the immigrants. This compounded with MORE immigration is ethnic suicide.

Now, you state...

What I have been saying is that there are limits to what homogeny, instilled or natural hatred, or preference not defined as hatred, can justify, and that it goes too far when it unduly limits the freedom of others.

This is true and this is not what I am promoting. I want our people to have the same freedoms as the rest of the globe. However what the left FAILS to identify or even acknowledge is that MY freedoms as a citizen of whatever western nation are being limited by the very nature of this new ideology. I in no way ever advocated race replacement and mass immigration. I in no way ever gave the nod to have the western world become the western world bazaar. I know the left is good at crying for the plight of the third world under the guise of humanitarianism, yet with the same breath strip me of my rights to NOT wanting this. Which IS my absolute right. I would guess MOST or the west thinks along my way of thinking. So instead of forcing people to accept race replacers into the west, how about the left simply going to these foreign places and trying to help as much as they can? That would seem to solve many problems. We can have our homogenous countries and the left can be amongst the third world as they are ever crying for. Isn't that a joke to even think that. The left doesn't live amongst the third worlders IN THEIR OWN countries as is. They reside in their all white, all liberal enclaves while they praise themselves on how "liberal and tolerant" they are. LOL Believe me, this I know to be true because I have had the unfortunate displeasure of dealing with these pompous, ignorant hypocrites.

Now, on to the second part of your post. I ignored nothing. I stated straight out that "racism", but more accurately prejudice and discrimination, are inborn. The war issue was a tangent. We do not need war to discriminate like versus unlike. War only accentuates these differences and worsens them. Everyday life has these little internal discriminations on a nearly constant basis. Did some lynchings occur due to simple hate? Jesus Christ, of course and I am not absolving the entire thing on the basis of inborn discriminatory patterns. That is another aspect of human nature, murderous mentality and evil that has been around from time immemorial. Though trying to fuse the two is wrong and inaccurate. It is also mendacious if done purposefully. I fail to see the relevance of this, to be honest. The fact that people discriminate nearly constantly and is inborn, is true. The fact that this discrimination worsens during war, is true. The fact that lynchings occurred, some wrongly and others justly, is true. We can argue about due process and all, and I do agree with you that in a civilized society, it is one of the musts. Though this is but another example of judging the past with the lens of the present. It is analogous to admonishing people who had slaves 300 years ago because we do not tolerate it now. Well, back THEN it was NORMAL, no matter how disdainful it appears now.

As to your "internal and declared war" in the US. Those stats I posted indicate to ME, there is a war going on. The media vilifying whites, especially white males, as the cause of all their troubles, to ME indicates that there is a war going on. The Marxist univesities promoting white hatred as the examples of Ignatiev and Sontag indicate that Sotiris posted, to ME indicate there is a war going on. One has to be delusional in not seeing this. Really. Numbers do not lie, and the numbers indicate that once chaos ensues, whites who are ignorant of these facts will be in deep shit. The bloodlust that is evident in many non-whites, especially during times of chaos such as Katrina, is extremely worrisome. You can ignore it if you want, however it makes it no less real. As a matter of fact, once western economic situations worsen, expect to see lots of Katrina, London, and Paris scenarios with lots of white victimization. I have only posted the tip of the iceberg in relation to these things. The reality of the situation is quite dire. People, again a natural defense mechanism, would rather ignore it because confronting it is too unpleasant presently.

Armitage, good post.

I don't believe most first generation immigrants can shed their culture, nor do I believe it is necessarily incumbent upon them to do so, unless it conflicts with the standards of their host nations.

Also, I don't believe in the incontestability of the need for immigrant labor based solely on the native people's supposed laziness. I believe that to argue the necessity of immigrant workers, and thus to implicity excuse an influx of immigration, both legal and illegal, obligates the person making that argument to prove alternatives are not only inviable, but that businesses associated with the immigrant labor would unabsorbably harm the economy if they failed.

Acting in one's interest need not necessarily mean mistreating people. Part of the problem with your example is that most of it doesn't necessarily equate to inarguable racism, but more to being reactionary and promoting caution. I don't know that any nation must be permitted to allow someone in. But once in, I do know that the important things are the treatment that person receives, especially if he's here legally, and how he behaves.

Now to the letter: Honestly, the issues it brings up are too varied and beyond my scope of knowledge to comment on specifically, but I can't say I have great fear of them from a cultural stand point, however much is true. In large part because I don't see an inherent right to be the dominant race, nor do I automatically associated certain philosophical tenets as being exclusively white or black, etc. It might be that a predominantly black, hispanic, or what have you, culture affords me a better life, or at least is less disagreeable than I might suppose it would be.

Although my leanings are now more liberal than conservative, I do originate from, in a basic sense, conservatism, so I understand to an extent your frustrations. As for the supposed hypocrisy of the left, I think it exists as a result of conflicting positions: One cannot at the same time denounce meddling in one country on the basis of the adverse effect that might have on its people while advocating for the restriction of said people's ability to become refugees in the very nation he said should not interfere with those prospective refugees' home nation. While it might not be the case that interference would have made things better, the non involvement cannot be said to ensure the happiness of the people and make them largely uninterested in seeking aylum. An argument that might be made to excuse that risk is that consequences which arise from the free exercise of the rights of a nation's people are automatically acceptable. Of course that will be felt as being unfair, whether or not a valid argument.

My point on the lynching example was that all the war examples gave what could be considered as rational causes and explanations for the continuation of racist behavior or simple fearful reactions, whatever their intent. Even if racism is natural, we must still fight against it. As I said earlier, race preservation is not automatically racist, it is a matter of how one goes about trying to not lose his race and culture. Moreover, in a war context there clearly exists a threat under which one must respond, perhaps even in excess by the standards of some. There, if racism occurs, the atmosphere might make peoples involvement in it understandable. But when it clearly occurs in an atmosphere where no unmistakable war exists, it is not understandable. I therefor contend my point to still remain as relevant and valid.

You speak largely of an ideological war, while there might be evidence to support this, I again point out that the reasons for the collective violence of some blacks, et al, violence which is not wholy concentrated against whites, so far as I know, are varied and not by virtue of the existence of people such as Susan Sontag part of an organised effort to overthrow anyone. At minimum, it would be coincidental if the effects of a successful war occured, with white man toppled. And even if blacks are shown to be more prone to violence, and the reasons for that are another matter, it would not validate the existence of a knowing war on their part to defeat whites.

Ethno is quite right. There is an on going cultural war. Those who refuse to see it that way do so out of pathetic ignorance or due to attitudes of self disrespect.

An interesting book written by the Mulatto Franz Fanon provides light in an otherwise dark and sombre chamber.

The book , "the wretched of the earth" is a an educational and didactic read.

In it Fannon's battle cry illustrates how deep,how impassable is the cleavage between East and West, North and South, despite Commissions of Racial equality and United Nations edicts. What Fannon is saying is that Greco-Roman civilization is nothing more than the thinnest laminate for those who don't inherit it by birthright. European languages, religions, customs are all just a varnish, a stain over tropical hardwood that can be sanded off easily and discarded the moment the "Europeanized" thirld and fourth Worlders no longer need it.
The African or Chinaman cannot understand us, nor we him. We cannot comprehend the syncretism of voodooism. Caribbeans find our "northern Christ" frigid and distant. The significance of Confucius is lost on us. In return. the Chinese cannot savvy our Humes,Kants and Nietzches. We are equally bewildered by the veiled and mysterious women of Bengal. Bengalis think our women are sluts.

And so it goes. The different races of mankind simply cannot understand one another, a tolerable state of affairs, so long as we are not forced to live together. When we are and when our governments lose their centripetal force by sins of omission or commission, then the inherent misunderstanding inevitably leads to tragedy. No amount of education will provide a happy ending.

Fannon sets out the boundary lines clearly and uncompromisingly. He makes us wonder if we really have anything, except bipedalism, in common with the rest of the world. Only fossilized Marxists and educationally correct academics, fired by that old religio-secular zeal, are stupid enough to try and rub out cultural and racial differences.

Ordinary folk are warned off or should be warned off by their instincts and the memory of a thousand encounters characterized by suspicion of blankness.

There can be few things more genuinely "wretched" than the man who hates his own blood.

Eff,

Let me see if I can address your points.

I don't believe most first generation immigrants can shed their culture

True.

nor do I believe it is necessarily incumbent upon them to do so, unless it conflicts with the standards of their host nations.

In theory, true. In practice a miserable failure. An ethny NEEDS to assimilate into a new society in order for that society to benefit in toto from the new immigrants. Immigrants need to be, as an example, American first and if they want to maintain a certain part of their Greek heritage at home or around their church etc, then they can as long as they KNOW, they are American first. This works best with cultures within the same region due to the commonality effect. This also works best in countries that have been "immigrant" nations to begin with. An American is an amalgamation of people of European decent for most of its history up until 1965. The black slaves were present yet separate, for better or worse.


Your 2nd paragraph:

I can go along with some of it. The issue of needing immigrants for work, if proven that they are necessary, is a gray area, in my mind. We've seen the effects of this policy. I would rather reconfigure this and try to find alternatives. Guest workers is a viable alternative, yet they need to be guest workers and not people who stay, especially if distant.

Your 3rd paragraph:

Acting in one's interest need not necessarily mean mistreating people.

True, though you are aware that there may be instances that interests do conflict, which I do put forth are inevitable as SOME point in the hypothetical future.

Part of the problem with your example is that most of it doesn't necessarily equate to inarguable racism, but more to being reactionary and promoting caution.

I'm assuming here you are referring to the inborn trait of discrimination. I agree with your point above, yet as has been stated, racism is a relatively "new" term that is meant more for PC than reality. The trait of caution and discrimination, for sure is inborn. Racism, by definition to harm on the basis of race is not. Yet racism is used in a myriad of ways usually as a form of thought or speech suppression.

I don't know that any nation must be permitted to allow someone in. But once in, I do know that the important things are the treatment that person receives, especially if he's here legally, and how he behaves.

I disagree here. A nation, especially an ancient homeland, has the obligation for its people first and foremost. NOT for its new visitors that may have attained appropriate documentation due to lackadaisical policies during periods of leftist largesse. I direct you to examples of China and Japan. People may have lived there all their lives, however they will never be Chinese or Japanese, nor will they have the same birthrights.

Your 4th paragraph:

In large part because I don't see an inherent right to be the dominant race, nor do I automatically associated certain philosophical tenets as being exclusively white or black, etc. It might be that a predominantly black, hispanic, or what have you, culture affords me a better life, or at least is less disagreeable than I might suppose it would be.

One is or is not dominant. There is no "right" to it. Western man has been either alone or in conjuction with one or two others, dominant. This is fact. I, for one, do not argue FOR dominance but merely for segregation and allowing homogeneity and natural selection to take place. I AM confident that if allowed to continue unimpeded and untinkered, western man will flourish. It is ONLY WITH Marxist tinkering that western man faltered. By the assault on religion, identity, group identity, ethnic pride has the assualt taken hold and we are seeing the failings presently. It is with this ideology and its subsequent assaults that western man has taken on ideals that are genocidal. We DO NOT see this in our Indian friend. Nor do we see it in any other race except whites.

The second part of your italicized point is completely inaccurate and/or ideology wishing to be fact. We have a plethora of examples around the globe that shows a predominate black nation is NOT where one wants to neither be nor raise any children. Same goes for a predominant "hispanic" nation, which is actually a bit of a misnomer. Most of the hispanic peoples that you probably refer to are mestizo. A native American indian ancestry with some sort of European admixture.

Your 5th paragraph:

As for the supposed hypocrisy of the left, I think it exists as a result of conflicting positions: One cannot at the same time denounce meddling in one country on the basis of the adverse effect that might have on its people while advocating for the restriction of said people's ability to become refugees in the very nation he said should not interfere with those prospective refugees' home nation.

I am sorry to hear you have wandered from conservative beliefs into the realm of liberalism. The usual progression is the other way around as one gets older, though you may return to those conservative beliefs around your 4th decade or so. Your above point is not conservatism but more an American belief that we NEED to meddle because we know what is right. That belief is primarily the liberal ideal. Liberals love to meddle in everyone’s business because they just know what is the right thing, apparently. In actuality, NOT. You may be trying to paint conservatives as the monstrosity that has become a “Neo-Con”, which in essence is a social liberal who is hawkish on foreign policy and is not shy of using the military. They are NOT conservatives. Believe it or not, I am more a moderate in many of my beliefs, yet the one thing that I am a stringent conservative is racialism and ethnicity. That is where I am to the right. Most other things, I am quite moderate in my everyday life. With that said, conservative is a more viable alternative to liberalism because of the untenable and self-destructive nature of liberalism.

I am in favour of letting countries with their respective people live out their lives in the ways they deem fit. Obviously NOT at the expense of expansionism or violence towards others, but if they want to do whatever they want without it affecting the rest of the planet, especially us, then so be it. I do not favour this “they hate our freedom” bullshit line that Bushie gives to the populace in order to push his agenda.

Your 6th paragraph:

Even if racism is natural, we must still fight against it. As I said earlier, race preservation is not automatically racist, it is a matter of how one goes about trying to not lose his race and culture…….. But when it clearly occurs in an atmosphere where no unmistakable war exists, it is not understandable. I therefor contend my point to still remain as relevant and valid.

Again, you should not interchange “racism” with discrimination and prejudice. One is a new PC term and was meant originally as a “hate and wishing harm strictly due to race”. The other is not racism and is inborn. If the latter is what you meant, then I do NOT agree that we must “fight against it”. It is what makes us human. I am NOT advocating to kill all blacks because I do not like the color of their skin, which is pure racism as it is meant to be used. If I say that blacks have been shown to commit a preponderance of inter-racial crime where their victims are whites and one needs to practice caution in these circumstances. Then that is NOT racism and is discrimination using not only facts but what one is naturally born with, to be leery of “unlike” kinds. So no, your point is not relevant nor valid in the absence of war.

Your last paragraph:

The war is real. There is too much evidence out there to deny its existence. There is a full scale war against whites and men(primarily white men, though men in general). Sontag and Ignatiev simply add fuel to this fire and give a face to these created “victims”. Some liberals are so self-hating that to see the destruction of whites and white society cannot come soon enough to them. Most of these are situated in university professorships in the liberal arts. They are Marxists and I am not over-using this word. Courses taught such as Black pride and “white studies” exemplify their desires. One is to create Afrocentric and mostly false pride, while the other is a bashing of white students BECAUSE they are white and they are guilted into believing the ills of the world are due to their whiteness. Also, you should research the concepts of racial identity and tribalism. Just because you do not think, or have been told that it is nonexistent or unimportant, does not make it so. Tribalism is an absolute reality in ALL races except whites who strive for "individualism". That is all well and good, however tribalism of whites is not only frowned up but in most cases made illegal. The Hitler phenomenon. A group of racially conscious whites together will automatically spawn a Hitler is the leftist mantra. Therefore there is no white solidarity that is allowed. But do not be so naive to think that black solidarity and tribalism does not exist. Why then all the "brotha" and "cuz" talk? Are they all related or something?

In theory, true. In practice a miserable failure. An ethny NEEDS to assimilate into a new society in order for that society to benefit in toto from the new immigrants. Immigrants need to be, as an example, American first and if they want to maintain a certain part of their Greek heritage at home or around their church etc, then they can as long as they KNOW, they are American first. This works best with cultures within the same region due to the commonality effect. This also works best in countries that have been "immigrant" nations to begin with. An American is an amalgamation of people of European decent for most of its history up until 1965. The black slaves were present yet separate, for better or worse.

Re: You are correct. I should have said they should be allowed to maintain some of their culture. As for how much, I do not know, it depends on the person.
-----------------------

True, though you are aware that there may be instances that interests do conflict, which I do put forth are inevitable as SOME point in the hypothetical future.

Re: Yes, but one seeks peaceable means to resolve them. If that is not available, whether or not the action one side takes against another is racist is contextual, an observer's immediate reaction not withstanding.
-------------------

I'm assuming here you are referring to the inborn trait of discrimination. I agree with your point above, yet as has been stated, racism is a relatively "new" term that is meant more for PC than reality. The trait of caution and discrimination, for sure is inborn. Racism, by definition to harm on the basis of race is not. Yet racism is used in a myriad of ways usually as a form of thought or speech suppression.

RE: Unfortunately, the length of this and my failure to properly document the statements I have addressed causes me uncertainty on the matter. But I believe it is likely I was referring to use of the war context and how that might affect people therein.
------------------

I disagree here. A nation, especially an ancient homeland, has the obligation for its people first and foremost. NOT for its new visitors that may have attained appropriate documentation due to lackadaisical policies during periods of leftist largesse. I direct you to examples of China and Japan. People may have lived there all their lives, however they will never be Chinese or Japanese, nor will they have the same birthrights.

RE: I was solely referring to being in accordance with human rights, or at least basic civility. I meant only humane treatment. As for what rights of citizens should be extended to immigrant, lawful or not, I would have to consider that, and that is another issue, though related. And proper immigrant behavior would, among other things, first and foremost mean being in one's host country legally. I suspect that you might have heard Terry McCauliffe say something to the effect of improper border crossers have not broken the law. This was a few years ago. Such a statement, whether he said similarly or not is, of course, absurd.
------------------------

One is or is not dominant. There is no "right" to it. Western man has been either alone or in conjuction with one or two others, dominant. This is fact. I, for one, do not argue FOR dominance but merely for segregation and allowing homogeneity and natural selection to take place. I AM confident that if allowed to continue unimpeded and untinkered, western man will flourish. It is ONLY WITH Marxist tinkering that western man faltered. By the assault on religion, identity, group identity, ethnic pride has the assualt taken hold and we are seeing the failings presently. It is with this ideology and its subsequent assaults that western man has taken on ideals that are genocidal. We DO NOT see this in our Indian friend. Nor do we see it in any other race except whites.

RE: That might be, but one must look at the causes of it. You favor segregation. I do not. And, even if I did, I do not think that would enable me to find comfort in the existence of unequal opportunities for those all ready present yet not of my race. The cause there being a widely, though not universally, shared moral principle and the need to follow it. Getting into the realm of "liberal guilt," as Western man expands he inevitably expands those in his way outward, but they push back, or return, at least some do. Neighbors, however they came about, tend to want like treatment whichever one of them is a part of the dominant society.
--------------------------------

The second part of your italicized point is completely inaccurate and/or ideology wishing to be fact. We have a plethora of examples around the globe that shows a predominate black nation is NOT where one wants to neither be nor raise any children. Same goes for a predominant "hispanic" nation, which is actually a bit of a misnomer. Most of the hispanic peoples that you probably refer to are mestizo. A native American indian ancestry with some sort of European admixture.

RE: It is neither accurate or inaccurate. It was a supposition based on ignorance as to what the results of a hypothetical reversal of dominant culture would be. If you want to cite precedences of black cultures in Africa, and where have you, fair enough, though I am not an expert one, let alone all of them, but they do not, to my mind, preclude the possibility that black cultures can rise in some places and not be particularly dangerous to my person or race. I cannot dismiss the effects of environment and historical matters, etc.
---------------------------


I am sorry to hear you have wandered from conservative beliefs into the realm of liberalism. The usual progression is the other way around as one gets older, though you may return to those conservative beliefs around your 4th decade or so. Your above point is not conservatism but more an American belief that we NEED to meddle because we know what is right. That belief is primarily the liberal ideal. Liberals love to meddle in everyone’s business because they just know what is the right thing, apparently. In actuality, NOT. You may be trying to paint conservatives as the monstrosity that has become a “Neo-Con”, which in essence is a social liberal who is hawkish on foreign policy and is not shy of using the military. They are NOT conservatives. Believe it or not, I am more a moderate in many of my beliefs, yet the one thing that I am a stringent conservative is racialism and ethnicity. That is where I am to the right. Most other things, I am quite moderate in my everyday life. With that said, conservative is a more viable alternative to liberalism because of the untenable and self-destructive nature of liberalism

RE: I was saying that liberals oppose such meddling in the name of democracy. Whether or not advocating for "meddling" makes one conservative, I do not know. My point was that some liberals and libertarians and isolationists contend against meddling, but not doing so might have consequences later.
---------

Again, you should not interchange “racism” with discrimination and prejudice. One is a new PC term and was meant originally as a “hate and wishing harm strictly due to race”. The other is not racism and is inborn. If the latter is what you meant, then I do NOT agree that we must “fight against it”. It is what makes us human. I am NOT advocating to kill all blacks because I do not like the color of their skin, which is pure racism as it is meant to be used. If I say that blacks have been shown to commit a preponderance of inter-racial crime where their victims are whites and one needs to practice caution in these circumstances. Then that is NOT racism and is discrimination using not only facts but what one is naturally born with, to be leery of “unlike” kinds. So no, your point is not relevant nor valid in the absence of war.

RE: The point was that hateful behavior exists outside of war and its influence. People understandaby react differently during war or in any moment of peril to themselves. Racism or discrimination, we must try not to cause undue damage. What constitutes war is debatable.
-------------------------------

Your last paragraph:

The war is real. There is too much evidence out there to deny its existence. There is a full scale war against whites and men(primarily white men, though men in general). Sontag and Ignatiev simply add fuel to this fire and give a face to these created “victims”. Some liberals are so self-hating that to see the destruction of whites and white society cannot come soon enough to them. Most of these are situated in university professorships in the liberal arts. They are Marxists and I am not over-using this word. Courses taught such as Black pride and “white studies” exemplify their desires. One is to create Afrocentric and mostly false pride, while the other is a bashing of white students BECAUSE they are white and they are guilted into believing the ills of the world are due to their whiteness. Also, you should research the concepts of racial identity and tribalism. Just because you do not think, or have been told that it is nonexistent or unimportant, does not make it so. Tribalism is an absolute reality in ALL races except whites who strive for "individualism". That is all well and good, however tribalism of whites is not only frowned up but in most cases made illegal. The Hitler phenomenon. A group of racially conscious whites together will automatically spawn a Hitler is the leftist mantra. Therefore there is no white solidarity that is allowed. But do not be so naive to think that black solidarity and tribalism does not exist. Why then all the "brotha" and "cuz" talk? Are they all related or something?

RE: It is possible that an ideological war exists, even one to wipe out a race. But the extent of it and how many are actual participants, is unknown. Yes, many blacks practice racial solidarity, but does that mean most of them fall in with "white haters," as it were? In any case, my point was about the legitimacy of the use of this so-called war in the context of trying to rationalize reactionary behavior. The possibility that some blacks might be conspiring against whites is not sufficient cause for alarm to the extent of reacting violently toward blacks. But if blacks came into a town and started targetting whites, killing masses of them, and they did this in multiple cities, or even pronouncements of the intent to do such as that, then there would be an atmosphere wherein measures some might, perhaps wrongly, construe as racist could arguably be justified, or understandable to some extent.

Thanks for posting the comments about Srebernica. I'm going to save these and pull them out the next time one of my Greek friends starts blabbering about how great the Serbs are.

next time an American starts "blabbering" I will pull out th numbers of innocent civilians the US has killed, which is what, about 1,000 times as many were killed by the serbs?

To anonymous (please use a name so I know whom I'm speaking to).

The innocents that the Serbs slaughtered ON PURPOSE is not the same thing as the innocents that Americans killed in Iraq BY ACCIDENT. If you don't know the difference, your Mom SHOULD NOT allow you to use the computer again until you do.

For an american to have the daring to accuse the Serbs of genocide it is the epitome of shizophrenic lunacy. There are plenty of those lobotimized Frankesteins around. The main thing to remember is not to cry for Bosnia. If it is unfair to label people for the acts of their ancestors, such as converting to Islam, it is also natural for patriotic Serbs to look upon these living reminders of past humiliation with hatred and scorn. As Serbs see it, Muslims should have packed up and left when their turkish masters departed. I am inclined to agree with the Serb's point of view. The West has faced many dangers through the centuries. There were times when it seemed it would end up as an Asian possesion. On several occasions the life of the West hung in the balance. The men of Lepanto; the Poles,Czechs and Hungarians who fought the Mongols; the Knights of Charles Martel, who turned back the Arabs in France; the Americans who fought the Barbary pirates... these heroic Westerners deserve our eternal gratitude. In the course of the endless wars against the Asian tide, some whites were found wanting. This is normal. There are physical- and mental- casualties in every war. Some men are braver and more honorable than others; some are cowards who value their skins above all else.
Bosnian muslims are the descendants of Serbs who turned their backs on their own people. It is a mark of shame for all whites that there are Europeans who embrace an Asian religion and pledge their allegiance to Muslims, black, brown or yellow, rather than to their fellow whites.
Yes, it is rough justice to judge a people on the deeds of their ancestors. Nature ,however, is a harsh mistress. The Bosnian Muslims, as a people, betrayed their race. There is little more to be said. We should leave the Bosnian Muslims to the protection of Allah. If they ever need outside help , let Allah provide it. These people ,who were once of Serbs bone and blood, are no more members of the same family. Any of them who so chooses can, by a simple act of faith, discard his sordid link to Asia. If they choose not to ,they must live with the consequences.
Their fate should serve as a useful reminder to other whites of the wages of betrayal.

Kalki...8,000 men and boys were slaughtered at Srebernica. They were not killed in battle. They were not mistakenly killed. History is absolutely NO justification for the murders of 8,000 men and boys.

Their fate should serve as a useful reminder to other whites of the wages of betrayal.

Please clarify this statement. If you are advocating mass murder, then your views are no longer welcome on this blog.

Kalki,

I don't know why an American accusing the Serbs of genocide would be daring. It's just the truth. If you don't like it, I'm sorry. There is much published (world-wide) proof on this, including the article that seawitch refers to. However, are you accusing the Americans of genocide? I don't believe the UN ever sanctioned the USA for this, if they did, correct me. In Iraq, the few collateral deaths (not thousands that some Al Qaeda propagandists would have you believe), pale by comparison to the thousands of murders (DAILY) committed by the insurgents in Iraq and under Sadaam's regime. I suppose you are OK with those deaths since I didn't hear you condemn those. That's the reason I don't take anti-Americans very serious. They are so quick to condemn accidental deaths that Americans ADMIT TO, while ignoring the many more slaughters of SADAAM and the insurgents. And please don't tell me how the USA controls the UN, because I will realize that once again, I'm dealing with a conspiracy theorist. You are just bias and not worth my time anymore. This is just an observation at this point, and you don't need to respond.

Not at all, no one is justifying the mass murder of defenceless civilians.Wherever it may happen. Genocide is what the Turks carried out on their subjects in the days of Ottoman slavery. It is wrong to smear Serbia, for Sebrenica and accuse them of committing genocide. The Bosniaks also perpetrated massive atrocities upon Serbs. Nothing is mentioned about this. It is not politically acceptable to do so now. The problem is that some individuals in their blatant hatred for the Serbs, Greeks and christians carry an obsession to malign the orthodox nations.
When someone speaks with hatred in his heart, rational discussion becomes a scarce gift and is replaced by insipid "one liners". I think Sotiris made it quiet clear in an earlier posting that war is the business of killing. There is no excuse for killing. but when it is let run amuck, the civilians will become the major targets.
The facile "one liner" that American bombers killed civilians in Irak by accident is a corruption of logic and reason.
30 thousand civilians have died in Iraq by the bombing. Iraq had no army, to speak of, no air defences, no air force. "Shock and awe" was the Americans battle of cry. Who were they shocking and awing? Civilians. But when the news print is manipulated to suit the interests of the powerful, falshoods will be the staple diet. Therefore we are dictated to consider the civilian dead as "collateral damage". Well if I were a two year old toddler I will certainly repeat that. When the Americans were bombing Serbia,an inexcusable war crime, the vicitms were civilians. The Serb ground forces remained in their hideouts and suffered no casualties. The civilian toll made the Serbs to accept disgraceful and humiliating terms of capitulation.
The propaganda of the winner must by necessity make the loser an object of hate and its demonic presence aimed to be destroyed and thus justify any of the atrocities of the victor.
Today in Irak the mayhem and slaughter continues thanks to American intervention and occupation. But no one is calling it genocide. Just "accidental killings".


The list of American atrocities, and their proxis are awaiting for an International tribunalto convene to pass judgement and condemnation.

Therefore becoming obsessed with the Serbs atrocities and not mention the Bosniaks crimes against the Serbs, is an exercise in banality.

I suggest that my post be read carefully. Nowhere I am endorsing or justifying objectionable actions.
I am placing the incidents in an analitically historical context, rather than be carried away by sentimental emotions and parrot the conventions of contemporary published opinons.
If I have been misinterpreted, then I will abide by SW wishes and refrain from posting since we can learn little or nothing without having the latitude for allowing an exchange of , controversial, but robust viewpoints.

Thank you,

Kalki, your comments are still anti-American as you did not even comment on the thousands of deaths that Sadaam and his regime committed, as well as the minions of Al Queda commit. I assume you approve of these deaths since you refuse to acknowledge them. Your true colors show in your rambling histrionic.

Kalki...I do not cower from a good debate. However, condoning genocide as an acceptable punishment for the wages of betrayal is reprehensible. I will not debate the "acceptability" of mass murder. And I did read your post carefully which is why I asked you to clarify your last statement. 8,000 men and boys were murdered because they were Muslims. This is a documented, indisputable fact...not a smear campaign against Serbia. Just as it is a fact that hundreds of thousands of Tutsis were murdered by Hutus.

I listed only 9 examples of atrocities committed over the last few hundred years. There are many more that I did not mention. It was intended as a representative sample, not a complete list of all massacres, genocides and murders during modern human history. This particular blog topic was to illustrate the extreme results of mankind's racism towards one another. Not a complete history of the events surrounding each atrocity. When there are 8,000 civilians with bullet holes in their heads, dumped into a pit, don't tell me they are casualties of war. They are murder victims.

For the same reason a past injustice is not admissable as just cause or self-defence in a court of law for the murder of someone today, nor should the murders of 8,000 muslim civilians be excused because of the sins committed by others.

And who gives a shit if Kalki's comments are "anti-American"? What constitutes as a definition for "anti-American"? Simply not AGREEING with all that America does? I'm American and I agree with Kalki's statements. Collateral damage is a nice, distant, soft sounding word that is meant to bring about as little discomfort to the aggressor as possible. And NO Scruffy, it is not a few and they do NOT admit to all of it. As a matter of fact, they do a very good job hiding as much of it as possible.

Would one of you two non-thinking, flag wavers tell me WHY we are in Iraq? Because they hate our freedom? War on Terror? Weapons of Mass Destruction? Oil? Get rid of Saddam? For all the poor people Saddam killed? LOL

Jesus! We are in an UNJUST and IMMORAL war against what was a sovereign nation that was less risk to the US than some of its friends LIKE the Saudis. WE are the aggressors and WE started the war, period. No amount of flag waving or excuse making will change that very unpleasant fact. Melanie go read and turn off your damn TV. Scruffy, I think you are exactly like one of the Greek immigrants of my parents generation where they left in the 50s and still remember it as 1950s Greece. You still have visions of America as 1980s. Ole Ronnie's days, eh?? LOL It is NO LONGER that way and stop flag waving so much without any merit.

SeaWitch,

You are against genocide, I see. Care to address the genocide that is occuring against the white population around the globe and in the western world???

From above: "The innocents that the Serbs slaughtered ON PURPOSE is not the same thing as the innocents that Americans killed in Iraq BY ACCIDENT."

The reference need not be Iraq, but could easily be the American Indians, the people killed in free fire zones, and the hundreds of thouands of civilans killed intentionally during World War Two, or any of dozens of examples, inclduing very recent ones.

It is certainly correct to cite ewh various mass murders on the main list, but to think the US hasn't conducted mass murder is wrong. Only Americans think that. Fortunately US historiography is slowly changing to acknowledge this.

This does not constitute anti-Americanism, but rather reality. It would be anti-Ameircan to suggest the US is any worse, when in fact, they simply are no better.

BTW, Scruffy American(?), Srebernica is not in Kosovo.

Ken, (or Kurt?), That's fine. I'm used to this nonsense by now. As an American, we are used to hearing this foolishness, and I just don't care to hear it anymore. Blah, blah, Blah, AMERICA is bad.. Ok, I heard you. I guess you never heard of the Ship of Hope, Peace Corps, State Dept Tours of American musicians, etc. All your types hear is Bombs, and negativity. Blah Blah Blah.

Post a Comment