We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children.
2007-02-01 15:34:12 · 35 answers · asked by answer man 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
We must secure the future for our White children and to do anything less is a betrayal of the generations to come.
It is not racist, and I find the word 'racist' almost meaningless, as it is purely used to stifle any debate on matters of immigration or having any pride in our inheritance.
It is surely normal, healthy, and our very survival depends on it.
We would protect our immediate family and to extend that further to embrace other White children is beneficial for our survival.
Other races seem to be allowed to celebrate and defend themselves and it is only amongst white people that we are supposed to feel guilty and to have no pride in our ancestry or country.
Sadly so many British white people loathe their own culture and heritage.. It is driven by the media and our politically correct government of the moment.
2007-02-02 10:55:00 · answer #1 · answered by trollbag 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Of course not, there was nothing hateful in that statement towards any other race.
Why is it so wrong to want to protect your own race and culture? Caring for your future (meaning the children) does not equal hate.
2007-02-02 11:10:36 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
By itself and taken out of context, no, but of course anyone who bothered to research where this quote comes from would find a David Lane. Mr. Lane is in jail for murdering a Jewish radio talk show host and has several interesting ideas (women shouldn't be allowed to vote, men should be able to marry more than one woman, etc). In addition, he is a Neo-Nazi cult member.
2007-02-03 11:10:16 · answer #3 · answered by amon.goeth 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No it isn't. I never knew any wish to secure the existence of a particular group and a future for their descendants to have an implied "and screw all the rest of yall by default."
2007-02-02 12:11:35 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
'course it is - why would you single out securing a future for white kids only? and who are our people?
The more important thing by far seems to be that the ideas of western culture - freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, civil rights, restrictions on govt power (remember those days?) - must be promoted and protected. If 99% of the world were brown, it wouldn't hurt 'our' security as long as the western values are embraced.
2007-02-01 15:39:39 · answer #5 · answered by cassandra 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
no why wouldn't we want to secure the existence and future of white children
it doesn't say don't do that for any other race
2007-02-01 15:43:42 · answer #6 · answered by LaDawn 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes it can be proposed as a racist statement if even the intent was not to. Others may view it as bias because it specificly says white children and not "all children" as it should.
2007-02-01 15:45:53 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Possibly
2007-02-01 15:37:04 · answer #8 · answered by bisquedog 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No it is not a racist statement!! because if a blck person was to say "we need to ensure the future of black children and better our race" nobody would think its racust and they say it all the time! You should blaime Aberham Lincoln for not being able to express what you really want to say!!
2007-02-01 15:54:22 · answer #9 · answered by Enrique L 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
yes because it brought Race up .
Why not say it this way :
We must secure the existence of our people and a future for children.
2007-02-01 15:42:15 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋