Lego, I read you loud and clear. But my question remains, are you a 'racist' or are you a 'culturist'/'ethnicist'? Does it really matter what the skin colour is of the people who threaten your way of life? Wouldn't you equally object if Russians or Rumanians or Chileans, who are all white, started streaming into Australia?

Hi Willem

I am a racist, in that I am certain that there is no equality in physical or mental attributes between races. And I am a racist, in that I see loyalty to my own race as a virtue not a social evil. I also think that cultures are not equal, and the most obvious observable connection to culture is the colour of a person's skin.

One only has to watch the Olympics to see that races are not equal. All ethnicities can run, but black African people dominate the long distance running events while white people dominate the swimming. National IQ testing in the USA has revealed that blacks generally have a mean IQ of 85, Hispanics 95, whites 103, and US Asians 106. That does not mean that there are no smart blacks or dumb Asians. It just means that the Bell curves for intelligence are different. The veracity of these figures is born out in university admissions. Those universities requiring high IQ scores for admittance are disproportionately inhabited by Asians with blacks represented very disproportionately low to their population proportions.

If this analysis is correct, then this provides a simple logical solution as to why black societies are universally dysfunctional, why blacks always form a large proportion of the disadvantaged class, and why blacks are disproportionately represented in serious criminal behaviour.

If a small white town had intergenerational welfare dependency, the children refused to go to school, they were academic failures at school, if the parents were drunk for three days every fortnight when the dole checks arrived, children as young as five were being screened for sexually transmitted diseases, and the women were being beaten to a pulp by their husbands quite regularly, we would have no trouble labelling the inhabitants of that town as dumb white trash.

But if the inhabitants are black, a different standard applies. We are not allowed to think that the reason for their dysfunction is low intelligence, that is "racism." Instead, we have to keep dreaming up reasons why the towns dysfunction is all the fault of white people.

I draw you attention to the Englishman watching an Islamic demonstration
in London, his cry from the heart;

I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK !

I understand how he feels. In the suburban centre near where I live it
is rapidly becoming Chinese. (At least that is better than Arabic).

I am sure we can accommodate Tasmania, we have in Sydney a whole
surplus suburb, complete with crooked rebirthing panel beaters, bikey
clubs, kerbab shops, scungy shopping centre, police station complete
with bullet holes, Mosques, prayer halls, terrorist bookshops etc and
a thriving drug business centre.

Willem "I can easily imagine that the Legos of this world would be equally indignant at the arrival of heaps of white Russians"

Heaps of any ethnic group other than the British ones we directly descend from could pose a destabilising threat.

Small numbers though, of *any* White people would be absorbed, in one or two generations, invisibly.

But even small numbers of African, Middle Eastern or Asian people will never "blend in", not in a 1000 generations.
There will always be a gap that cannot be crossed.

Demanding tolerance from Whites is not enough, the "gap" will always exist in their own minds. All they need do to remind them is look in a mirror.

Yet 3 out of 4 immigrants now come from these groups, groups destined to always be outsiders. A recipe for disaster.

All-inclusive immigration (like the globalist economy) is based on the extreme application of liberal principles.

Liberalism works only when there is a strong enough bond amongst a social group (tribe, nation, civilisation), a continuity or connectedness that can buffer the stresses of social or economic liberty.

That bond can be race, religion, culture, but there must be one.
With the decline of religion in the West, expect race to get more, not less, emphasis.

There is no continuity on a *global* scale, nothing to buffer the impact of global liberty.
Where the should be a bond, there is a void.
Being "human" isn't enough. That's meaningless.

Global liberalism must fail and the longer the fantasy goes on, the greater the eventual damage.

If anyone doubts that the divisions between peoples can be permanent
just look at the Middle East and no doubt other places and you can see
that a thousand years is nothing.

Why give yourself the bother of it all ?
Political correctness ?

Lego, you say 'the most obvious observable connection to culture is the colour of a person's skin.' I think you have proved my point, skin colour is incidental. The basis of the differences you observe between groups of people is 'ethnicity' or 'culture'. Just try switching out the race label from your argument. I think you would have a purer and more defensible argument. I don't agree with your reading of how people do and don't integrate, but I do respect a fundamentally sound argument.