Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'm thinking of defending my family.


On reviewing the recent data, I've discovered that white people are violent.


I'm not saying anything against them, but I'm thinking we should put them out of the country. Some of them had brown hair, where do we put them? There was a blond one on the footage too, but they're the same.


Any thoughts on the ones with spots? I saw someone with acne in Spain. We should put them there.


There was one with a baseball hat. They wear those in America. They probably listen to music too. Neither music nor America are part of my culture. They should go home.


Does anyone have crime data on crimes committed by people who have either white skin, brown (or blond) hair, acne, listen to music or have American hats?


They all live together in things called families, DOWN THE ROAD FROM PEOPLE THEY WENT TO SCHOOL WITH.


I'm not saying anything against them though.


I just want to protect my family.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/7692-white-mischief/
Share on other sites

I imagine it happens wherever white people live close to each other.


They should set up a specialist police unit, called operation milky or some such, focused on white-on-white crime.


I wouldn't have said it was rampant or ubiquitous, it just happens where we allow them to get together in one place, banging and shouting like some kind of tribal dance, they're still living in the dark ages. If they don't know how to be civilized we should send them home.


Or take them off benefits until they've passed an exam.


;-)

macroban Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The correct word is pervasive.

>

> The simple solution is to ban football.



But these violent whites love their football - if we ban it in public, they'll take it to the streets, unregulated: jumpers for goalposts, even getting children playing... that way madness lies, madness I tells ya...

Well this type of thing does happen in Africa all the time for various reasons (not generally sport related though) and with brutal savagery. There?s no justification for it but the perpetrators are tribal, deeply superstitious and without the benefits of modern education, a formal justice system and all the other things that thousands of years of civilisation bring.


So why in Ingerland Ingerland Ingerland? Our England innit. Best Country in the world. We had an Empire. Civilised the world we did.


What?s your excuse?

What about Huguenot?s idea about the exam? I think Stella, Oasis, cocaine and football should be a right to all those living in this country but only if you?ve passed some sort of exam on the cultural significance of white trainers and polo shirts.


Is discrimination based on appearance and cultural activity still racist if you belong to the same race group?

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> the perpetrators are

> tribal, deeply superstitious and without the

> benefits of modern education, a formal justice

> system and all the other things that thousands of

> years of civilisation bring.


Football supporters are strongly tribal too - in a different way of course, but still in a way which brings out the same primitive instinct.


Yes we have a justice system, but I don't know what the punishment is for having a punch-up after the match. Probably isn't enough to deter these people. Perhaps they even see an arrest as "earning their stripes" or something.


I do take your point, but at the end of the day, we're all humans. Violence exists in every walk of life.

Ah yes, the 'beautiful game', can't say watching it make me want to rush into the streets and start smacking people about the head or throw bricks through windows, then again I'm not a fan of warm ale and don't speak the Queens English, must be cos I'm a dirty foreigner, innit.


Some people are just looking for excuses to have a rumble, I heard one fella on the radio today proudly proclaiming how he and his mates traveled down from Manchester for the sole reason they heard there would be trouble and wanted to be part of it. Knob heads.

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> True but I was probing at deeper questions.


Primal tribal behaviour - probably began as a useful survival instinct amongst the earliest Hominidae or, more likely, their Hominoidea ancestors - depends how deep you want to go?

Huguenot,


do you have anything better to do with your time than start threads that you know full well could descend (and I predict this one will) into a nasty and genuinely spiteful exchange, and that hurtful accusations of racsism will be bandied about in blind attempts at winning 'the arguement'.


I, personally see the thread for what it is. A slightly tongue in cheek yet stirring topic of debate. I'm not accusing you of anything but I'd like to ask that you think before posting what could turn into an upsetting experience that will further put off people from joining the forum and the discusions that take place.


I know you could call me a hypocrite, but I never get involved with threads that have the scent of race about them. Except this time.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Another recommendation for Maurice Hinds! He installed a new handbasin in my small bathroom, and did a lovely job.  I would absolutely recommend Maurice for plumbing work.  He is very helpful, friendly and did a tidy and efficient job, and his work is reasonably priced. 
    • Sure. He is ideological driven on many things. He was the person that defended the blanket CPZ policy because he believed that 'if you asked most people in southwark if all parking should be paid for, most would say yes'. A completely unfounded belief not backed by any evidence. In the real world, that policy caused significant local electoral damage for some councillors. I personally see his disillusion with the Labour Party as one of his idealism vs the reality of governance. He will probably be much happier with the Greens.
    • Arguably, as regards local needs for free(er) flowing traffic and some acknowledgement of expressed wishes he hasn't been. The 'active travel' and particularly the cycling lobby seems to have got far more of his attention than others. In that aspect, at least he would seem to be far more likely to be happy amongst the avowedly private-car hating Greens. A perfectly reasonable stance, of course, but one which certainly doesn't qualify as 'arguing for local needs'. He hasn't, equally, been very obviously supportive of those, his direct constituents I believe, who have been less than enthusiastic about Gala.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...