You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Garbage. The UK has had MUCH higher unemployment rates than this, and no one was tearing the nation apart, burning the cities down. In fact, they aren't very high above the UK's historical mean for unemployment. This has nothing to do with employment, and has everything to do with droves of 3rd worlders in the UK. Confucius say: "When you let hordes of 3rd worlders into your country, you will live in a 3rd world country".
In the next few decades, we'll look back in disbelief at the notion that "diversity" was heralded as some great strength, that there was an industry made around how to be "more diverse", and companies and governments were lining up to figure out how they could get on the band wagon.
In the next few decades, we'll look back in disbelief at the notion that "diversity" was heralded as some great strength, that there was an industry made around how to be "more diverse", and companies and governments were lining up to figure out how they could get on the band wagon.
Quote from Ricter:
That's what Power always says. How much trouble like this do we have when the economy is hopping and people are working?
Quote from Artful D0dger:
Garbage. The UK has had MUCH higher unemployment rates than this, and no one was tearing the nation apart, burning the cities down. In fact, they aren't very high above the UK's historical mean for unemployment. This has nothing to do with employment, and has everything to do with droves of 3rd worlders in the UK. Confucius say: "When you let hordes of 3rd worlders into your country, you will live in a 3rd world country".
In the next few decades, we'll look back in disbelief at the notion that "diversity" was heralded as some great strength, that there was an industry made around how to be "more diverse", and companies and governments were lining up to figure out how they could get on the band wagon.
What about light blacks, do they get along better with blacks, or with whites? And the dark whites?
Generally speaking, people of Sub Saharan African ethnic origins (what is often now called "black") tend to relate and identify most with other Sub Saharan Africans overall. A cursory glance at any large population which has significant numbers of them will verify this well known and easily observed fact.
People of European ancestry (what is currently most often called "white") also tend to relate and identify most with, and prefer the company most of other people of European ancestry, by and large.
Racial/Ethnic/Geographic origins, broad categories of genetic material, however you want to think of it, are far more detrimental to how people relate to each other than where one's skin tone falls within the spectrum of their specific racial group.
Despite your tantrums and protests, race/ethnicity/geographical origins are a biological reality. Race is far more than skin color. Many hispanics and east asians have basically identical skin tones, but dramatically different social outcomes. Africans raised in European homes, do not have the metrics of other European children. Central Americans raised in East Asian homes do not have outcomes of East Asian children.
You can whine, cry, and stomp your feet all you like, but race/ethnic origins/genetics (whatever term you'd like to use) are a biological reality, and a fundamental part of individual and group identity. Those are facts, and no amount of Marxist "white washing" will change them, as has been fully demonstrated by now in many different theaters.
Another fact is that the UK, and many other European nations have have unemployment rates far higher than the UK currently has without mobs of feral mongrels tearing the nation apart. However, what they did NOT have during those periods were large hordes of 3rd world peoples living in their nations.
Checkmate.
People of European ancestry (what is currently most often called "white") also tend to relate and identify most with, and prefer the company most of other people of European ancestry, by and large.
Racial/Ethnic/Geographic origins, broad categories of genetic material, however you want to think of it, are far more detrimental to how people relate to each other than where one's skin tone falls within the spectrum of their specific racial group.
Despite your tantrums and protests, race/ethnicity/geographical origins are a biological reality. Race is far more than skin color. Many hispanics and east asians have basically identical skin tones, but dramatically different social outcomes. Africans raised in European homes, do not have the metrics of other European children. Central Americans raised in East Asian homes do not have outcomes of East Asian children.
You can whine, cry, and stomp your feet all you like, but race/ethnic origins/genetics (whatever term you'd like to use) are a biological reality, and a fundamental part of individual and group identity. Those are facts, and no amount of Marxist "white washing" will change them, as has been fully demonstrated by now in many different theaters.
Another fact is that the UK, and many other European nations have have unemployment rates far higher than the UK currently has without mobs of feral mongrels tearing the nation apart. However, what they did NOT have during those periods were large hordes of 3rd world peoples living in their nations.
Checkmate.
Quote from Ricter:
What about light blacks, do they get along better with blacks, or with whites? And the dark whites?
Quote from Artful D0dger:
Generally speaking, people of Sub Saharan African ethnic origins (what is often now called "black") tend to relate and identify most with other Sub Saharan Africans overall. A cursory glance at any large population which has significant numbers of them will verify this well known and easily observed fact.
People of European ancestry (what is currently most often called "white") also tend to relate and identify most with, and prefer the company most of other people of European ancestry, by and large.
Racial/Ethnic/Geographic origins, broad categories of genetic material, however you want to think of it, are far more detrimental to how people relate to each other than where one's skin tone falls within the spectrum of their specific racial group.
Despite your tantrums and protests, race/ethnicity/geographical origins are a biological reality. Race is far more than skin color. Many hispanics and east asians have basically identical skin tones, but dramatically different social outcomes. Africans raised in European homes, do not have the metrics of other European children. Central Americans raised in East Asian homes do not have outcomes of East Asian children.
You can whine, cry, and stomp your feet all you like, but race/ethnic origins/genetics (whatever term you'd like to use) are a biological reality, and a fundamental part of individual and group identity. Those are facts, and no amount of Marxist "white washing" will change them, as has been fully demonstrated by now in many different theaters.
Another fact is that the UK, and many other European nations have have unemployment rates far higher than the UK currently has without mobs of feral mongrels tearing the nation apart. However, what they did NOT have during those periods were large hordes of 3rd world peoples living in their nations.
Checkmate.
Checkmate, lol, I already kicked you in the cunt days ago. You haven't replied to that yet.
Anyway, if all this is true, whey didn't your family kick you, the slow kid, out? Or... did they?