|
|
Smash the Race Relations Act...
(Duncan@drmac.demon.co.uk)
Tue, 28 Jan 97 21:46:45 GMT
...before it smashes us.
In article <854394516.9426@dejanews.com> peter@psyche.demon.co.uk
writes:
> I see. So if a particular company decides that, for a particular job, it
> will only
> employ blond, young, men even though the job involves being an a darkroom
> all day, then this is perfectly acceptable?
Why is it unacceptable? life is all about "discrimination".
Negroes and Asians in Europe, Africa, Trinidad and Tobago etc. form
their own enclaves and minimise interactions with each other, but on arrival
here, use the cult of victimology to label Whites espousing "community values"
as guilty of "race hatred".
If the majority of Whites, as landlords or employers, want to
discriminate in favour of "White, working, with kids", then that is their
*RIGHT*. It is called *DEMOCRACY*. What is totally unacceptable is the
minority of career politicians dictating that such behaviour is wrong for
White majorities, but right for Brown minorities.
Any society that does *NOT* discriminate in favour of its own kind
perforce becomes dysfunctional. Just look at 30 years of "multiculturalism".
In fact, discrimination has been the spur to achievement for Quakers, Jews,
Armenians, Parsees, Chinese... everybody, seemingly, except Negroes.
> The fact that a red-headed,
> young man is actually the best man for the job in every single other respect
> is irrelevant? I suppose that you consider nepotism a perfectly sound ground
> for hiring people as well.
Nepotism in gubberment "jobs" is wrong because we *ALL* end up paying
for incompetence. The collapse of leftyism, everywhere, proves that. It is,
however, the basic *RIGHT* of any landlord, employer, benefactor, whatever, to
bear the cost of any committment to fellow Jews, Whites, poofs etc and the
success of this philosophy is measured in millennia.
Many of the West's problems today aren't the fault of discrimination,
but the lack of it, i.e. anything goes.
---
D. MacMillan
|