[gyjsdtuwr]

there is no force involved. You don't have to sell your home to someone you don't want. please show me a law in any Western nation that demands that you must sell property to a specific race of people.

I can wait.

Im talking about the opposite: be able to sell to one specific ethnic group or race. Or even buy a house and have the security that undesirable people will move to the same neighborhood.
The law (specially in the USA) dont let the Real Estate Agents give the security to the buyers that the neighborhood will not be flooded by undesirables (blacks, persons in parole, child molesters,etc).

---------- Post added 2010-10-14 at 22:29 ----------

1.-Of course trades must be regulated by the law. "Free world"? Regulations prevent injustice and frauds. Imagine the disaster it would be if trades weren't regulated.

I disagree with you, but that is another topic so i wont go off topic.

2.-You aren't forced to rent/sell a house to a black guy if you don't want to.

The Fair Housing Act (Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968) introduced meaningful federal enforcement mechanisms. It outlawed:

• Refusal to sell or rent a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion or national origin.
• Discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in the terms, conditions or privilege of the sale or rental of a dwelling.
• Advertising the sale or rental of a dwelling indicating preference of discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin.
• Coercing, threatening, intimidating, or interfering with a person's enjoyment or exercise of housing rights based on discriminatory reasons or retaliating against a person or organization that aids or encourages the exercise or enjoyment of fair housing rights.

[hotelhyatt]

That's not exactly true, although generally true.

In London probably half of blacks marry out (and we are not even talking about dating).

Look at these stats from the British government:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1090

Black carribean
male - 29%
female - 20%

Black African
male - 18%
female - 15%

Other Black
male - 48%
female - 34%

That's quite high, I imagine in London it is higher, this is national for England and Wales only.

Inter-ethnic Marriage

2% of marriages are inter-ethnic Still very low figure

[LICraig]

In my opinion people segregate with people with similar social status. For example, I'm quite convinced that in most cases upper-middle class white English man will choose to interact with his "class-friend" who is black than interaction with Joe who is small-time drug dealer.

There is no such thing that whites don't segregate with blacks at all just because of skin color. They choose to don't do it just because of social status, and improving their conditions of living.

If you wan't to segregate you will segregate, but how will you avoid different races? You'll live in better neighbourhoods, streets etc. But what will happen if different races will reach at least your economical level? You'll move out to slums, just to live with your fellow man? If you'll do that than it means this became racial or you're an idiot and probably it's both.

To sum it up, I believe that most people believe in conformism. They'll do whatever it takes to put themselves in good and safe enviroment. In this case, segregation is not a racial thing but economical, and this for now takes it to the racial level for obvious reasons, most minorities, immigrants are quite poor.

---------- Post added 2010-10-14 at 23:10 ----------

Im talking about the opposite: be able to sell to one specific ethnic group or race. Or even buy a house and have the security that undesirable people will move to the same neighborhood.
The law (specially in the USA) dont let the Real Estate Agents give the security to the buyers that the neighborhood will not be flooded by undesirables (blacks, persons in parole, child molesters,etc).

---------- Post added 2010-10-14 at 22:29 ----------


I disagree with you, but that is another topic so i wont go off topic.

It's a private matter, how the system will check you if you'll sell houses just to whites?
It's a dead law.

[puzobok]

Still very low figure

Obviously 2% of marriages are interracial because there are actually so few minorities in the UK.

Look at the total black population for example. It is not even 5%.

[Gudronich]

It's a private matter, how the system will check you if you'll sell houses just to whites?
It's a dead law.

Well i am not an expert on Common Law but the law exist and it should be abolish. In the practice some real estate agents use "methods" to screen the future clients not only by race also by religion, etc. Think of the situation if an passionate atheist moves to a neighborhood in Salt Lake City where all the people is Mormon. A trial for discrimination can cost thousand of dollars to the real state agents and they can get their license revoked.

The worse thing is you cant ask for a guarantee that the neighborhood will keep the same,
i.e.: You buy a house with all your savings and you chose a secure neighborhood only habited by polish people, you can not ask for guarantee that the place will stay the same (im talking about private neighborhood or suburbs), most real estate agents and investor have not problem with having an all Christian, an all White or an all Jewish Neighborhood but they cant even talk about that because the law. The worse thing even criminal can move to the same street.
In extreme cases all the Neighbor collect money and buy the inhabited houses, when "some people" move to a place the price of the houses drop.

Same for School admissions.

[joanasevilyboaz]

I don't know if racial separation is the solution but at least there should abolish the anti-racism laws.
I mean i don't want to be forced by the law to hire a nigger only because he is a minority, racial discrimination to rent in a neighborhood should be allowed, im not racist but i dont like they physical aspect of the niggers (like all people i know) so i don't want to see my landscape contaminated, i like to have neighbors like me.
I will be practical and conservative (no political correct): look what is happening to the gypsies in Europe, the first time the came we dont care, now it is a problem. I dont want to generate the same problem for my grandchildren.

I'm sorry to be averse to your definition of what constitutes racism, but the term is defined as hatred or intolerance for another race (or other races) (i.e., discriminating on the basis of race―I mean you did say this should be allowed, or am I missing something? ).

In this case, you're so stringently intolerant of the physiological characteristics of negros, or "niggers" to quote you (so inauspiciously malignant are they to you), that you feel a certain sense of foreboding towards allowing them to interact/be allowed to reside in a pred white municipality; a people so virulent, they're capable of affecting the physical and social landscape by way of contaminating or plaguing the current outlook.

Yeah bro, you ain't racist. I only forgot it excluded racial discrimination, racial intolerance, and every other asinine remark you made in this thread. Silly me.

There is a difference Nazies promoted racial segregation and genocide, I only like to live with my people. The real fascist are the ones promoting racial inclusion or racial segregation. People should be allowed to chose what they want on every individual case.

Considering the below quote and (the more recent) above statement, you wouldn't be promoting freedom of choice, now would you? As you want security (before you move into a particular residence) that certain groups (based on the color of their skin) be denied the right to live within relative proximity of you. This would insinuate that there was promotion (to a degree) of racial segregation (at least in your particular neighborhood). While it wouldn't be widespread (i.e., countrywide) it would be happening within certain enclaves, much like it did in the old Jim Crow south―those states chose to take a separate but equal (really more like separate but not equal) stance (this wasn't a nationwide legality).

I love how you just keep contradicting yourself more and more.

Im talking about the opposite: be able to sell to one specific ethnic group or race. Or even buy a house and have the security that undesirable people will move to the same neighborhood.
The law (specially in the USA) dont let the Real Estate Agents give the security to the buyers that the neighborhood will not be flooded by undesirables (blacks, persons in parole, child molesters,etc).

Yes, because being black equates being an ex-con, parolee, pederast, rapist (i.e., criminal/undesirable). The whoa factor on stupidity just jumped up one full standard deviation.

Weren't you the dumbass that tried to accuse me of being racist?

[CesseOveldset]

Still very low figure

Considering the US is significantly more diverse than the UK and yet still only has an inter-racial marriage rate of about 2%, it's not that low at all.

Not to mention the 2% statistic is from the 2001 census, so it's quite likely pushing 3% now.

[TineSeign]

I'm sorry to be averse to your definition of what constitutes racism, but the term is defined as hatred or intolerance for another race (or other races) (i.e., discriminating on the basis of race―I mean you did say this should be allowed, or am I missing something? ).
In this case, you're so stringently intolerant of the physiological characteristics of negros, or "niggers" to quote you (so inauspiciously malignant are they to you), that you feel a certain sense of foreboding towards allowing them to interact/be allowed to reside in a pred white municipality; a people so virulent, they're capable of affecting the physical and social landscape by way of contaminating or plaguing the current outlook.
Yeah bro, you ain't racist. I only forgot it excluded racial discrimination, racial intolerance, and every other asinine remark you made in this thread. Silly me.
Considering the below quote and (the more recent) above statement, you wouldn't be promoting freedom of choice, now would you? As you want security (before you move into a particular residence) that certain groups (based on the color of their skin) be denied the right to live within relative proximity of you. This would insinuate that there was promotion (to a degree) of racial segregation (at least in your particular neighborhood). While it wouldn't be widespread (i.e., countrywide) it would be happening within certain enclaves, much like it did in the old Jim Crow south―those states chose to take a separate but equal (really more like separate but not equal) stance (this wasn't a nationwide legality).
I love how you just keep contradicting yourself more and more.
Yes, because being black equates being an ex-con, parolee, pederast, rapist (i.e., criminal/undesirable). The whoa factor on stupidity just jumped up one full standard deviation.
Weren't you the dumbass that tried to accuse me of being racist?

Avoid another people based on racial or personal preferences in not the same than be a Nazi.

Weren't you the dumbass that tried to accuse me of being racist?

Oh, Do you remember that?
So you agree with me.

I love how you just keep contradicting yourself more and more. I dont see the contradiction.

[wp6Eg2Fm]

I believe most people would seperate of their own volition (self-segregation) given a small libertarian government as the terse maxim says : "Birds of a feather flock together" and I believe the odd bird or few odd birds that don't flock generally don't cause any problems. I don't want to force people to do anything(whether to seperate or mix). All we need is small libertarian government and most people would self segregate according to their race. To think otherwise is delusional moonbat liberal nonsense. Only a delusional moonbat liberal would deny such a virtual law of nature (birds of a feather flock together). The majority would decide ultimately by their feet rather than words (talk is cheap).

The west is pushing multiculturalism worldwide it is why I posted this thread. Japan and Korea are still majority natives probably thanks to China. There are some truly east asian multicultural nations: Singapore and Thailand. The former is prosperous, peaceful while the latter is frightfully corrupted in spirit and economy, so diversity it is not what every east asian should agree with like you say. The US global power will surely push multiculturalism to everywhere it reaches, there is a real danger of forced multiculturalism everywhere if the US gained monopoly over world affair. The forced multiculturalism probably will fail, the only solution is permanent racial separation once it does fail indeed, because the damage on native culture can not be remedied without enough time for themself, and separation will also prevent slavery which is an impediment for progress just what happens in India today, a cesspool equal to Africa.

---------- Post added 2010-10-15 at 01:26 ----------

I don't know if racial separation is the solution but at least there should abolish the anti-racism laws.
I mean i don't want to be forced by the law to hire a nigger only because he is a minority, racial discrimination to rent in a neighborhood should be allowed, im not racist but i dont like they physical aspect of the niggers (like all people i know) so i don't want to see my landscape contaminated, i like to have neighbors like me.
I will be practical and conservative (no political correct): look what is happening to the gypsies in Europe, the first time the came we dont care, now it is a problem. I dont want to generate the same problem for my grandchildren.

I understand that indo-europeans want some space to their own, there is nothing evil about seld-preservation, but remember that forced multiculturalism happens on both sides, western nations and their colonies. Racial separation decided by agreement on both side will benefit each other, and those who want to stay will also have to mind his own promises to observe the tradition and law of his adoptive culture: Race-mixing in this context is acceptible to me. But no come and go sexual dechauchery, and leaving unwanted filthy spawns.

[KlaraNovikoffa]

Avoid another people based on racial or personal preferences in not the same than be a Nazi...

Where did I accuse you of being a Nazi? I insinuated you were racist (something you tried to deny) and proved it paraphrasing the parameters by which a racist can be identified.

Oh, Do you remember that?...

Yeah I remember that, and I answered your question in full.

...So you agree with me.

Let me get this straight? You who wants there to be laws advocating for the right to discriminate based on the color of one's skin isn't a racist? But I am?

Where did you see me saying (anywhere in that thread) I didn't want Europeans anywhere near my children/family, because their physical appearance was an abhorrence and would be a condemnation on my community?

I said Afrikaners/Boers weren't indigenous to the African continent, which they're not. That doesn't make me racist.

So to answer your question, no not really.

...I dont see the contradiction.

I'm sure most everyone else has, you're just too dense to see past your own hypocrisy.

[TessUnsonia]

Let me get this straight? You who wants there to be laws advocating for the right to discriminate based on the color of one's skin isn't a racist? But I am?

No, I want to remove laws regarding housing and school admission exclusion and give more freedom to the people to chose what they want to do.
I'm not talking about segregate someone i am talking about my right to associate with the people i want to.