The nasty face of racism...

Nodin

profitius wrote: »

I'm saying you avoided the question I asked.

Is that clear enough? Shall I retype it a few more times to let it sink in?

I answered your question here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75911192&postcount=979
here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75916998&postcount=985
and here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75921108&postcount=987

This post sees you accepting my answer and admitting you only asked in order to hear a certain reply
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75921628&postcount=988

Now you're getting stroppy because your barely concealed racism is being questioned, so you've forgotten all that.

profitius

Nodin wrote: »

I answered your question here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75911192&postcount=979
here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75916998&postcount=985
and here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75921108&postcount=987

This post sees you accepting my answer and admitting you only asked in order to hear a certain reply
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75921628&postcount=988

Now you're getting stroppy because your barely concealed racism is being questioned, so you've forgotten all that.

A politicians answer. You didn't make half the fuss over the Black racist as you did over the White racist even though the Black guy wanted to kill White people. I knew you didn't think he was worse and thats why I asked you the question in the first place. So you're the racist one here if anybody is because its clouding your judgement it seems.

I'm not getting stroppy either btw.

Nodin

profitius wrote: »

A politicians answer. You didn't make half the fuss over the Black racist as you did over the White racist .

Where did I 'make a fuss over the White racist'? If you'd be as good......

Nodin

profitius wrote: »

. So you're the racist one here if anybody is because its clouding your judgement it seems.

.

I don't believe that any 'race' is superior or inferior to another.

Whats your view on that?

Johro

Wtf is this? He said they are both gob****es. How is that saying one is better/worse than the other?
You seem to be arguing for the sake of argument, or trying to score a point where there aren't any to make. Ffs grow up.

profitius

Nodin wrote: »

Where did I 'make a fuss over the White racist'? If you'd be as good......

The whole thread.

I think it demonstrates perfectly peoples views on things. Some people believe only White people can be racist. I don't know why maybe it has something to do with an inferiority or superiority complex but its there.

Compare the reaction and the number of replies the White Woman got compared to the more serious language of the Black man. I asked which was worse and got a few sarcastic replies saying isn't it obvious etc but if you look at the reaction and non reaction to both of them you'd be forgiven for thinking the White woman was far worse.

Doesn't make sense does it! It does if you include political correctness and the pc brigade who target White people. Of course you'd know none of those would you, Nodin?

profitius

Johro wrote: »

Wtf is this? He said they are both gob****es. How is that saying one is better/worse than the other?
You seem to be arguing for the sake of argument, or trying to score a point where there aren't any to make. Ffs grow up.

Maybe its just me but I'd prefer to be told I'm not liked than somebody saying they'd like to kill me. Strange logic you have there!

Nodin

profitius wrote: »

The whole thread.

Where? Specific posts please. There are search functions that make it rather easy to do.

profitius wrote: »

Some people believe only White people can be racist

Thats nothing to do with me however. Take it up with the specific poster.

Earlier you stated

profitius wrote: »

So you're the racist one here if anybody is because its clouding your judgement it seems.

To which I replied - I don't believe that any 'race' is superior or inferior to another.

Whats your view on that?

Johro

profitius wrote: »

Maybe its just me but I'd prefer to be told I'm not liked than somebody saying they'd like to kill me. Strange logic you have there!

My logic is just that they are both racist. You want me to say the black guy's worse because he said he wanted to kill whites. It's a pretty nasty thing to say, sure, but no less racist than the woman on the tube. The point is that racism is racism, we don't deal in degrees of racism.
People aren't 'a bit' racist, or more racist than another person. You either are or you're not.
It's like saying we're all equal, but some are more equal than others.
The black guy went further in his racist rant than the white woman, I'll give ya that, but one's as bad as the other.

profitius

Nodin wrote: »

Where? Specific posts please. There are search functions that make it rather easy to do.

Thats nothing to do with me however. Take it up with the specific poster.

Earlier you stated

To which I replied - I don't believe that any 'race' is superior or inferior to another.

Whats your view on that?

I don't believe any race is superior than another. I can see that every race is different and unique with their own characteristics (Blacks are fastest etc) but I certainly wouldn't say one is better than another overall.

Nodin

profitius wrote: »

I don't believe any race is superior than another. I can see that every race is different and unique with their own characteristics (Blacks are fastest etc) but I certainly wouldn't say one is better than another overall.

The usual equivocation then.

Do you believe that 'black' people are as intelligent, or have the same intellectual potential, as 'white' people?

Do you believe, btw, that Jews enjoy some advantage over the rest of us?

profitius

Johro wrote: »

My logic is just that they are both racist. You want me to say the black guy's worse because he said he wanted to kill whites. It's a pretty nasty thing to say, sure, but no less racist than the woman on the tube. The point is that racism is racism, we don't deal in degrees of racism.
People aren't 'a bit' racist, or more racist than another person. You either are or you're not.
It's like saying we're all equal, but some are more equal than others.
The black guy went further in his racist rant than the white woman, I'll give ya that, but one's as bad as the other.

Thats a contradictory sentence.

Nodin wrote: »

The usual equivocation then.

Do you believe that 'black' people are as intelligent, or have the same intellectual potential, as 'white' people?

Now Nodin, you know thats a taboo subject that isn't allowed to be discussed.

Nodin wrote:

Do you believe, btw, that Jews enjoy some advantage over the rest of us?

They have an obvious advantage over Palestinians alright. I think we can all acknowledge that.

old hippy

profitius wrote: »

I don't believe any race is superior than another. I can see that every race is different and unique with their own characteristics (Blacks are fastest etc) but I certainly wouldn't say one is better than another overall.

Can anyone see the contradiction here?

Seachmall

old hippy wrote: »

Can anyone see the contradiction here?

Saying there are biological differences between the races isn't racist...?

old hippy

Seachmall wrote: »

Saying there are biological differences between the races isn't racist...?

It's saying that there's no such thing as a superior race and then says that blacks are good at running. That old stereotype :rolleyes:

profitius

old hippy wrote: »

It's saying that there's no such thing as a superior race and then says that blacks are good at running. That old stereotype :rolleyes:

What am I supposed to do, deny reality? Everybody knows there are differences otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Seachmall

old hippy wrote: »

It's saying that there's no such thing as a superior race and then says that blacks are good at running. That old stereotype :rolleyes:

Black people are supposed to have a higher number of fast-twitch muscles (muscles that contract fast). That could enable them to run faster.

I don't know how true that is but either way he's not assigning superiority and thus it's not racist and thus there's no hint of irony.

Nodin

profitius wrote: »

Now Nodin, you know thats a taboo subject that isn't allowed to be discussed. .

Be a bit more clear please. Are you saying "yes", "no" or what.

profitius wrote: »

They have an obvious advantage over Palestinians alright. I think we can all acknowledge that.

Well - according to you, mind - they run the media, and oliver J Flanagan was right to object to them arriving here in case they took over. This would sort of hint at a natural advantage they have over the rest of us. What do you reckon?

Nodin

Seachmall wrote: »

..............

I don't know how true that is but either way he's not assigning superiority and thus it's not racist and thus there's no hint of irony.

It's a matter of context.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67846120&postcount=35

Ush1

Seachmall wrote: »

Black people are supposed to have a higher number of fast-twitch muscles (muscles that contract fast). That could enable them to run faster.

I don't know how true that is but either way he's not assigning superiority and thus it's not racist and thus there's no hint of irony.

This is some what of a generalistion. One of biggest reasons the best runners in the world are African or Carribean is because there is huge cultures of running in these countries. Like GAA or soccer is here, running is to them and there is alot more of them.

Seachmall

Ush1 wrote: »

This is some what of a generalistion. One of biggest reasons the best runners in the world are African or Carribean is because there is huge cultures of running in these countries. Like GAA or soccer is here, running is to them and there is alot more of them.

I'm sure there are many factors that influence it but I wouldn't be surprised if race was a factor, even a small one.

Different races have slight differences, some of those differences are bound to be advantageous in particular sports or activities.

Ush1

Seachmall wrote: »

I'm sure there are many factors that influence it but I wouldn't be surprised if race was a factor, even a small one.

Different races have slight differences, some of those differences are bound to be advantageous in particular sports or activities.

Perhaps but don't under estimate the numbers.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/World_Population_by_Continent_and_10_Most_Populated_Countries.png

Amber Lamps

In general African women have nicer asses than white women, in my opinion.

profitius

Nodin wrote: »

Be a bit more clear please. Are you saying "yes", "no" or what.

I'm saying speaking about it is not allowed. Don't shoot the messenger.

profitius

Ush1 wrote: »

This is some what of a generalistion. One of biggest reasons the best runners in the world are African or Carribean is because there is huge cultures of running in these countries. Like GAA or soccer is here, running is to them and there is alot more of them.

Its been scientifically proven.

Blatter

Amber Lamps

Blatter wrote: »

Fat racist woman tries my tram experience and gets pushed off!

Rosa Parks move over.

Nodin

profitius wrote: »

I'm saying speaking about it is not allowed. Don't shoot the messenger.

So the usual cop-out. No wonder the far right do so well in this country.

Care to answer those questions on the Jewish community or is that "not allowed" either?

Frank Bullitt

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/82101930/

Brilliant.

profitius

Nodin wrote: »

So the usual cop-out. No wonder the far right do so well in this country.

Care to answer those questions on the Jewish community or is that "not allowed" either?

Far right? Thats a good one. A circus is missing a clown I'd say.

Nodin

profitius wrote: »

Far right? Thats a good one. A circus is missing a clown I'd say.

It quite possibly is. Before you either go out and search for huim, or ring up and let them know you're ok, you might answer the questions put to you. Seeing as you're scared to answer the question re intelligence


According to you, Jews run the media, and Oliver J Flanagan was right to object to them arriving here in case they took over the country.

This would sort of hint at a natural advantage they have over the rest of us. What do you reckon?

Napper Hawkins

Amber Lamps wrote: »

In general African women have nicer asses than white women, in my opinion.

Cos of mo cushion fo da pushin?

profitius

Could you post a link to those threads please. I know you're taking things out of context as usual.

And I'm not going to answer the intelligence question. You asked me did I think one race was superior and you got a definite answer. Now you're trying other tricks which are not working.

Also, by bringing up the intelligence question you're shooting yourself in the foot because you're getting people to think about it and they might come to conclusions you don't like.

James Watson (who won the noble prize for discovering DNA) said that Blacks are less intelligent than Whites. So don't take my word for it. I'm wasting my time anyway since you're not in the business of listening.

Nodin

profitius wrote: »

Could you post a link to those threads please. I know you're taking things out of context as usual..

My pleasure
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70786448&postcount=39

You also try to justify anti-semitism in the same post. Classy.

profitius wrote: »

And I'm not going to answer the intelligence question. You asked me did I think one race was superior and you got a definite answer. Now you're trying other tricks which are not working.

Also, by bringing up the intelligence question you're shooting yourself in the foot because you're getting people to think about it and they might come to conclusions you don't like.

James Watson (who won the noble prize for discovering DNA) said that Blacks are less intelligent than Whites. So don't take my word for it. I'm wasting my time anyway since you're not in the business of listening.

Terrible not to have the nerve to come straight out with what you believe.

Do you agree with Watson?

(James Watson retracted those remarks btw.)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7165/full/449948a.html

Nodin

Napper Hawkins wrote: »

Cos of mo cushion fo da pushin?

They're apparently required to make the rockin world go round.

Napper Hawkins

Nodin wrote: »

They're apparently required to make the rockin world go round.

Excellent, I'll sleep well tonight!

KINGVictor

profitius wrote: »

Could you post a link to those threads please. I know you're taking things out of context as usual.

And I'm not going to answer the intelligence question. You asked me did I think one race was superior and you got a definite answer. Now you're trying other tricks which are not working.

Also, by bringing up the intelligence question you're shooting yourself in the foot because you're getting people to think about it and they might come to conclusions you don't like.

James Watson (who won the noble prize for discovering DNA) said that Blacks are less intelligent than Whites. So don't take my word for it. I'm wasting my time anyway since you're not in the business of listening.

Because James Watson said it does not make it true. He gave a personal opinion and the fact that he is Nobel prize winner does not necessarily make his assertion valid. What would be interesting is for you to provide an explanation on how you believe him based on the evidence he has provided to come to such a conclusion.

My opinion is that human beings regardless of race can be intelligent depending on a variety of factors.

What is your opinion?

conor.hogan.2

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/science/25cnd-watson.html

He apologized and stated there is no scientific basis to what he claimed.

profitius

Nodin wrote: »

My pleasure
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70786448&postcount=39

You also try to justify anti-semitism in the same post. Classy.

Fair play to you Nodin. You can see things nobodyelse can including myself!

Terrible not to have the nerve to come straight out with what you believe.

Do you agree with Watson?

(James Watson retracted those remarks btw.)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7165/full/449948a.html

Watsons career was ruined after his remarks.

Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners
Celebrated scientist attacked for race comments: "All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really"

One of the world's most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that "equal powers of reason" were shared across racial groups was a delusion.

James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in the unravelling of DNA who now runs one of America's leading scientific research institutions, drew widespread condemnation for comments he made ahead of his arrival in Britain today for a speaking tour at venues including the Science Museum in London.

The 79-year-old geneticist reopened the explosive debate about race and science in a newspaper interview in which he said Western policies towards African countries were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts when "testing" suggested the contrary. He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.

The newly formed Equality and Human Rights Commission, successor to the Commission for Racial Equality, said it was studying Dr Watson's remarks "in full". Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really". He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".

His views are also reflected in a book published next week, in which he writes: "There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."

The furore echoes the controversy created in the 1990s by The Bell Curve, a book co-authored by the American political scientist Charles Murray, which suggested differences in IQ were genetic and discussed the implications of a racial divide in intelligence. The work was heavily criticised across the world, in particular by leading scientists who described it as a work of "scientific racism".

Dr Watson arrives in Britain today for a speaking tour to publicise his latest book, Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science. Among his first engagements is a speech to an audience at the Science Museum organised by the Dana Centre, which held a discussion last night on the history of scientific racism.

Critics of Dr Watson said there should be a robust response to his views across the spheres of politics and science. Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: "It is sad to see a scientist of such achievement making such baseless, unscientific and extremely offensive comments. I am sure the scientific community will roundly reject what appear to be Dr Watson's personal prejudices.

"These comments serve as a reminder of the attitudes which can still exists at the highest professional levels."

The American scientist earned a place in the history of great scientific breakthroughs of the 20th century when he worked at the University of Cambridge in the 1950s and 1960s and formed part of the team which discovered the structure of DNA. He shared the 1962 Nobel Prize for medicine with his British colleague Francis Crick and New Zealand-born Maurice Wilkins.

But despite serving for 50 years as a director of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, considered a world leader in research into cancer and genetics, Dr Watson has frequently courted controversy with some of his views on politics, sexuality and race. The respected journal Science wrote in 1990: "To many in the scientific community, Watson has long been something of a wild man, and his colleagues tend to hold their collective breath whenever he veers from the script."

In 1997, he told a British newspaper that a woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be homosexual. He later insisted he was talking about a "hypothetical" choice which could never be applied. He has also suggested a link between skin colour and sex drive, positing the theory that black people have higher libidos, and argued in favour of genetic screening and engineering on the basis that "stupidity" could one day be cured. He has claimed that beauty could be genetically manufactured, saying: "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would great."

The Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory said yesterday that Dr Watson could not be contacted to comment on his remarks.

Steven Rose, a professor of biological sciences at the Open University and a founder member of the Society for Social Responsibility in Science, said: "This is Watson at his most scandalous. He has said similar things about women before but I have never heard him get into this racist terrain. If he knew the literature in the subject he would know he was out of his depth scientifically, quite apart from socially and politically."

Anti-racism campaigners called for Dr Watson's remarks to be looked at in the context of racial hatred laws. A spokesman for the 1990 Trust, a black human rights group, said: "It is astonishing that a man of such distinction should make comments that seem to perpetuate racism in this way. It amounts to fuelling bigotry and we would like it to be looked at for grounds of legal complaint."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-at-dna-pioneers-theory-africans-are-less-intelligent-than-westerners-394898.html

You can see what Watson had to put up with just for having an opinion. All of a sudden he hated Black people. In other words he was bullied into retracting his statement.

There was also a book called 'IQ and wealth of nations' by Richard Lynn. He highlighted differences in racial intelligence.

Charles Murray is another author who hightlights the differences.

Nodin

profitius wrote: »

Fair play to you Nodin. You can see things nobodyelse can including myself!.

People are free to read the links I posted and make their own minds up.

profitius wrote: »

Watsons career was ruined after his remarks.

I asked if you agreed with his views.

You also seem to be dodging the questions regarding your views on the jews.

KINGVictor

profitius wrote: »

Fair play to you Nodin. You can see things nobodyelse can including myself!



Watsons career was ruined after his remarks.




You can see what Watson had to put up with just for having an opinion. All of a sudden he hated Black people. In other words he was bullied into retracting his statement.

There was also a book called 'IQ and wealth of nations' by Richard Lynn. He highlighted differences in racial intelligence.

Charles Murray is another author who hightlights the differences.

You still refuse to give your own opinion.

Again what is your opinion?

K-9

When somebody dodges a question soooooo much it does kind of lead to a conclusion from somebody just reading a thread.

profitius was making a big deal of people not answering a simple question earlier in this thread, now karma is coming back on him, or really, people are holding others to the same standards they expected previously.

On a side note, racists suffer from a basic lack of logic and reasoning skills, just my opinion though.

Johro

profitius wrote: »

Thats a contradictory sentence.

Oh crap. They are both racists, that is why one is as bad as the other.
Why can't you get it?

Ush1

profitius wrote: »

Its been scientifically proven.

Yes, but I'm saying it's not the only reason and thinking it is would be misguided.

Eramen

Ush1 wrote: »

This is some what of a generalistion. One of biggest reasons the best runners in the world are African or Carribean is because there is huge cultures of running in these countries. Like GAA or soccer is here, running is to them and there is alot more of them.

This is true about the running culture in these countries. But people of African descent DO have faster contracting muscles than other ethnics, whereas Europeans have had more low twitch muscle development than others. There is no 'generalisation', it's just biology as confirmed by scientific investigation.

Why do so many anti-racists seem to be anti-science as well? Oh yes, it's because science has made important findings regarding the biological nature of the assorted peoples of the earth, and anti-racists (who are politically selective in terms of race, which means they are RACIST) don't like this because is highlights that races, ethnic groupings etc are indeed extant and share important similarities and differences. I smell the fear of the anti-racist racists every-time I hear or see someone discussing the beauty of diversity in all its details, with a loving knowledge, displaying a keen understanding for their own culture and of others.

This pisses the anti-racist racist off, because they want to impose an all-encompassing, difference-crushing 'sameness' that destroys all special uniqueness that the peoples of the world have. And for reasons of social-economics, unwittingly helping the spread of high-finance globally and enabling it's nation-robbing via the replacing of various world cultures with a One World culture of economic-consumerism. How 'tolerant' of the anti-racist.. They look at culture, customs, language etc purely as a form of 'utility' and 'necessity' - a 'product' even, not in terms of an expression of the soul of a people, as the ancestral bond that links generations of kin-kind, as the inner and outer life of an individual family of persons who finds its international life as a nation among many nations.

Hypocrites the lot. And they suppose to lecture others on what they do not in any way understand.. Look at the usual suspects on this thread. Anti-racism is disgusting and it harbours the same tribal nature as racism. It's the same thing. Bah.

Eramen

K-9 wrote: »

When somebody dodges a question soooooo much it does kind of lead to a conclusion from somebody just reading a thread.

profitius was making a big deal of people not answering a simple question earlier in this thread, now karma is coming back on him, or really, people are holding others to the same standards they expected previously.

On a side note, racists suffer from a basic lack of logic and reasoning skills, just my opinion though.

And why are you leaving out the anti-racist racism who also lack basic logic and reasoning skills (as they adhere to an unreasonable,aggressive ideology)?

They identify humanity as the 'human race', identifying this as their 'in-group' versus the 'out-group' (who they term racists, nazis, anti-humanists/human rights, etc). It's the exact same petty tribal racism as the racist, it's one of in-group altruism and out-group agitation.

Anti-racism is just another form of racism.. a person with proper logic and reasoning skills understands this. Anti-racists don't have these skillz either to add to your post. Do you identify with any of these two groups?

old hippy

Eramen wrote: »

This is true about the running culture in these countries. But people of African descent DO have faster contracting muscles than other ethnics, whereas Europeans have had more low twitch muscle development than others. There is no 'generalisation', it's just biology as confirmed by scientific investigation.

Why do so many anti-racists seem to be anti-science as well? Oh yes, it's because science has made important findings regarding the biological nature of the assorted peoples of the earth, and anti-racists (who are politically selective in terms of race, which means they are RACIST) don't like this because is highlights that races, ethnic groupings etc are indeed extant and share important similarities and differences. I smell the fear of the anti-racist racists every-time I hear or see someone discussing the beauty of diversity in all its details, with a loving knowledge, displaying a keen understanding for their own culture and of others.

This pisses the anti-racist racist off, because they want to impose an all-encompassing, difference-crushing 'sameness' that destroys all special uniqueness that the peoples of the world have. And for reasons of social-economics, unwittingly helping the spread of high-finance globally and enabling it's nation-robbing via the replacing of various world cultures with a One World culture of economic-consumerism. How 'tolerant' of the anti-racist.. They look at culture, customs, language etc purely as a form of 'utility' and 'necessity' - a 'product' even, not in terms of an expression of the soul of a people, as the ancestral bond that links generations of kin-kind, as the inner and outer life of an individual family of persons who finds its international life as a nation among many nations.

Hypocrites the lot. And they suppose to lecture others on what they do not in any way understand.. Look at the usual suspects on this thread. Anti-racism is disgusting and it harbours the same tribal nature as racism. It's the same thing. Bah.

Listen fella, I'll make it short and sweet for you so we don't have to wade through your aimless pontifficating waffle.

We don't like racists & we don't like apologists for racism - the rest of your post is assumption after assumption.

Bah, indeed.

Eramen

old hippy wrote: »

Listen fella, I'll make it short and sweet for you so we don't have to wade through your aimless pontifficating waffle.

We don't like racists & we don't like apologists for racism - the rest of your post is assumption after assumption.

Bah, indeed.

By 'short and sweet' do you mean you're making an 'argument' through a non-argument because you've ' got nuthin' '.. Btw are you saying that I'm an 'apologist for racism' when I clearly write in my posts where I stand on such things?

Also, do you consider yourself to be an anti-racist? It's paradoxical if you are because that is political racism in itself, it doesn't take a genius to see it.

Eramen

old hippy wrote: »

Listen fella....

An 'ageist' remark perhaps?

old hippy

Eramen wrote: »

By 'short and sweet' do you mean you're making an 'argument' through a non-argument because you've ' got nuthin' '.. Btw are you saying that I'm an 'apologist for racism' when I clearly write in my posts where I stand on such things?

Also, do you consider yourself to be an anti-racist? It's paradoxical if you are because that is political racism in itself, it doesn't take a genius to see it.

You don't write on where you stand - you spew out your tired and overlong polemics on the evils of multicultural society and people who fight against racists.

I'm too long in the tooth & I've heard it all before. I welcome my brothers and sisters from all round the world & nobody is trying to wipe out anyone's culture or homogenise it.

I deal with racism on a regular basis and I don't need pseuds standing at the sidelines with nowt to contribute, except a vague whiff of superiority and hapless accusations.