Quote:


But kick out people who do not have local heritage is not racist? Or might not be? What is the difference? Why does one automatically invoke superiority, regardless of whether it actually invokes superiority?

Quote:


It waffles on about the method of identifying the group. There is nothing there that invokes superiority. The closest you came to an explanation is insisting that anyone who says "white" does not have the motive that they say they have. In other words, you reject reality and replace it with your own, in order to bend it to your definition of racism.

Saying you reject what people say as a reflection of what they think and project your own views on to them is not an explanation of why you do that. Would you mind if people did that for Muslims? After all, we know what Muslims really think - it's in the Koran and Hadiths. The rest is just taqiyya right?

freediver wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 7:56am:


You were the one rejecting reality by claiming 'non whites' and 'anyone who migrated to England after 1850' is "pretty much the same thing.

Thats the sort of crap a racist would say. The fact that not all or even most people satisfying this 'heritage criteria' are non-whites (Eastern Europeans, French, German, Scots, Irish) speaks volumes about a racist mindset to assume that they are. There is simply no logical reason to say a 'non-white' is somehow less legitimate in terms of English ancestral heritage than say a grandchild of Polish immigrants who arrived in the early 19th century. It is illogical and a statement of racial superiority.

freediver wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 10:12am:


Can't get an answer out of him, eh?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 20^th, 2017 at 8:22am:



You all claim to be the victims of the West, the Jews, the wrong kind of Muslims.

Muslims do not take responsibility for Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Gaza, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Malaysia, Indonesia; you do not take responsibility for your reputations in Western countries.

But all the troubles in those Muslim countries and your reputation in the West is entirely your doing.
As for ISIS, thy acts impeccably Koranically. They recite the Koran accurately, they follow Islamic precedent scrupulously.

freediver wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 10:12am:


No, I said it was racist. Dear oh dear FD...

freediver wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 10:12am:


You suggested that anyone who migrated to England after 1850 are all non-white. Which is rubbish, and what a racist would say. If nothing else I hope you now understand that its rubbish.

freediver wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 10:12am:


What a racist considers a 'legitimate' person under their twisted criteria is most certainly central to the definition of racism.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 5:56pm:



Ah. I think you're catching on.

Karnal wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 5:04pm:



I am asking you. You suggested we should all embrace oneness. Muslims embrace division. What to do?


How would YOU achieve your ideals in the face of 1400 years of Muslim resistance and outright hostility? Don't ask Gandalf, he is a Muslims.
he want you to submit to the division of humanity into Muslims and infidels. He cannot do otherwise, being a Koranic Muslim.