What most of you are doing is confirming my thesis. My thesis was centered on the dominant rule of people placing self-interest above all else. Thus, when self interest conflicts with truth, the truth is then circumvented or denied in order to rationalize beliefs, behavior and activity that are most in your interest.
If I asked most of you if the practice of white unity in America a common thing most of you all would mostly deny it. You see yourselves as individuals. However, it is no accident that most of your opinions are in concert of thought against mine. You pose a unified front against my thesis, while obfuscating and filibustering the fact that it is based upon the dominant truth, if not the absolute truth. Oh of course you will deny this, but you will always fail to prevent evidence of what is the dominant or absolute truth, if what I speak is not.
The fact that most of you huddle up together on forums where everyone thinks alike is evidence of your collusion of interest, which reduces the value of truth when it does not coincide with those interests. You cannot see the light, due to the fact that the light upon you is to your disinterest like light is to the disinterest of vampires. The truth is the light and thus people who lurk in the darkness of ignorance, willfully, are vampire like in their motives, which is evil. Your nocturnal propensities are to your self interest and thus people with flame that carries light will always be attacked, because it threatens your world of darkness.
Noah, I'm opposed to the opinions of most of the people on this site. Including you.
Noah, lighten up, almost all of the post on this thread are tongue in cheek and are just as silly as a lot of your posts.
The enemy of your enemies thus becomes your friends. You might not agree with these people on many issues, but you coalesce in unity when the subject is black and white. This is effectually what is happening, as the dominant rule of behavior on this and most forums dominated by whites.
I do not think that the issue of poverty and unequal distribution of wealth in regards to race or any other dichotomy is a tongue and cheek subject. It might be entertaining to you, but it is not to me.
I was just wondering Noah, do you have satellite Internet access?
cjhsa...I was just wondering if you live in a house or apartment?
I was wondering if i might sell you a vowell? You clearly need one.
You all can use every clever (at least in intention) or humorous response that you want, but only the credulous will be distracted by its intentions. The fact remains that the dominant rule of white people is that you unify to protect “white interest” and status, much of which is connected to the subjugation, extermination and exploitation of non-white peoples and keeping them at a competitive disadvantage.
A house... Don't forget to feed the big cats.
Set, just pronounce it "sah".
Wow Noah. You must be very brilliant, to point out a huge race war on a frickin' INTERNET message board, where you can't see most of the people's faces.
Noah The African- The thing is, that many, many black people who use their energies productively, HAVE made it in the US, despite any perceived limitations. If people spent their time focusing on what to do to make their lives better, instead of bitching and griping, there would be a lot more happy and successful people, black, white or any other color.
The decline of assimilation[/u]
By:Jeff Jacoby
January 13, 2004
The confusions and uncertainties of President Bush's immigration plan were nicely captured in the New York Times's descriptions of it. On Wednesday, a front-page Times headline announced: "Plan Effectively Offers Amnesty -- Fight Is Seen in Congress." On Thursday, the paper's lead editorial emphasized that "the president's guidelines clearly do not constitute a sweeping amnesty. . . . It is a long way from that."
Obviously, Bush's proposal raises more questions than it answers. It would temporarily legalize the status of millions of illegal but employed immigrants by making them eligible for renewable three-year work permits. How often could those permits be renewed? What would happen when they expired? No one seems to know.
The president says that under his plan, illegal immigrants would be allowed to apply for permanent legal residence -- a green card -- and eventual citizenship "in the normal way." On the other hand, he also says they will be given no advantage over would-be immigrants who haven't broken the law. Considering how long the wait for a green card can be, doesn't that mean that illegals signing up for the new program would have no realistic hope of qualifying for permanent residence? And that being the case, won't many of them slip back into illegality after their temporary permit expires? Or simply avoid the program -- and the danger of entanglement with immigration officials -- altogether?
Give the president credit for addressing an issue that most politicians have refused to touch -- how to handle the 10 million or so illegal immigrants living in the United States, most of them fearful of being deported and therefore easy to exploit. Credit him, too, with acknowledging that homeland security is badly compromised when hundreds of thousands of people enter the country illegally each year. He is still a long way from showing that he has come up with a proposal that can actually solve both of those problems.
What to do about illegal immigration, how to control the borders, whether the number of lawful immigrants permitted each year should be raised or lowered, how to deal with refugees and asylum-seekers, whether preference should be given to immigrants who possess certain skills -- these are the questions around which public discussion of immigration in this country usually revolves. Almost never raised, at least not openly, is a subject that is ultimately more important than any of the others: What is the best way to turn immigrants into Americans?
The answer is assimilation -- or, as it used to be called in the United States 80 or 90 years ago, "Americanization." Assimilation is the key to preserving national unity and fostering common civic values in a nation that comprises hundreds of ethnic backgrounds and millions of foreign-born residents. It is the most effective mechanism for making real the motto *E Pluribus Unum* -- out of many, one. The world over, ethnic difference plays out as ethnic hatred and violence. Yet the people of the United States, the most ethnically diverse nation on earth, have been able to live together in relative harmony and tolerance. How? Through assimilation.
For generations, immigrants knew from the day they arrived that they were expected to become "good Americans." That meant learning English as quickly as possible and accepting it as the national tongue. It meant getting a job and being a productive member of society. It meant celebrating American democracy and sharing in American pride. It meant becoming a US citizen, and holding that citizenship in high esteem.
None of this implied that immigrants or their children had to erase every trace of their ancestral culture. Quite the contrary -- as the world's great international melting pot, America has been unusually willing to accommodate foreign customs, dishes, holidays, languages. "Assimilation does not require immigrants to surrender their ethnic heritage," Peter Salins wrote in Assimilation, American Style (1997), which argued convincingly that assimilation is critical to America's cohesion and vitality. "It is about people of different racial, religious, linguistic, or cultural backgrounds believing they are irrevocably part of the same national family."
But in recent decades, the assimilationist ethic has been badly undermined. The rise of corrosive "multiculturalism," the denigration of American history and values, the growth of the welfare state, the affirmative-action mindset that assigns preferences on the basis of race and ethnicity -- all of these have weakened the assimilationist creed. And they have done so just as the influx of immigrants has surged to levels not seen since early in the 20th century.
With the decline of assimilation has come an increase in ethnic militancy -- and a growing hostility to immigrants. Both were on display in the wake of President Bush's address: Hispanic activists condemned him for doing too little and anti-immigration groups blasted him for doing too much. As the immigration debate heats up, so will the acrimony and distrust that the decline of assimilation has engendered. That, more than any other, is the immigration issue we should be focused on.
Despite all that has been said, why do you all continue to ignore the fact that you coalesce in agreement, as the dominant rule, on issues of race? If there were not a “white interest” then all of you would not be in concert of agreement against my thesis and proposition.
Look at phoenix: Her statement implies that the reason that gaps exist between the races is due to a propensity in blacks, greater than in whites, to use their energy unproductively. Logically and deductively speaking, if there are economic gaps between blacks and whites (and there are big ones) one can only logically conclude, bases upon phoenixs logic, that these gaps are the product of blacks not using their energies productively AS WHITE USE THEIR ENERGIES. But why is this so, if it is so? Maybe blacks were denies something that prevented this or maybe it Is simply the nature of the Negro to be inferior.
If Phoenix had stated that the problems blacks face can be solved by focusing their energies productively she would indeed be arguing a position that implied inherent black inferiority.
I don't think she was saying that.
Now as to this new brainfart of yours I have to address this:
"If there were not a "white interest" then all of you would not be in concert of agreement against my thesis and proposition. "
You do not know if we are white or not.
See Slappy's very insightful whiff of your brainfart.
If your "thesis" were not so idiotic, there would be less agreement on its idiocy.
When black people disagreed with you you disparaged them, when white people disagree with you you take it as evidence of white discrimination....
What you fail to consider is the possibility that your screeds are simply idiotic. Much of your factual basis has been soundly debunked, your reaction is to simply ignore and restart the whining stereotyping about whites.
I think that as the US turns more brown through immigration and inter-racial mingling, the amount of any perceived predjudices will decline. For now, there is indeed a propensity of white people in the US, thus the idea of a majority.
I think with more inter-racial mingling there will be less inter-racial mingling.
That is because you are too ignorant to realize that bitching and griping lead to the end of slavery and Jim crow laws. Silence is consent... but your SELF INTEREST keeps you in the DARK to this LIGHT, just like a vampir.
