• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White Supremacy, are you kidding?

crebigsol

Active member
Joined
Jul 17, 2010
Messages
486
Reaction score
34
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I happen to notice a title in the sub-forum: "White Supremacy: A growing power?" White supremacy? What a joke! Black supremacy has been flooding over the brim in America while the whites as a race is dying, but whites are still accused of exercising supremacy. Brains from all races are so corrupted in this country, no wonder this country has lost so much power to the Socialist China so rapidly. Sure, any dying person can stuff his brain with pride. It is said that Queen Louie XVI of France still felt her being superior while being forced to step on the guillotine platform. I really fail to see how supremacy works for a person who must die at another person's will. Blacks have been defined as a superior race by nature and by law in this country, who has supremacy? let's see some facts:
1. They have expelled all competitors of other races in all athletic competition where physical power is a dominating factor. No affirmative action is allowed or even proposed for any other race in this field.
2. In all competitions where brain power is the major element, affirmative action must be there for them to reap benefit. The affirmative action can be so abusive that vacancy must be reserved for them regardless how many qualified whites must be barred.
3. They can openly spread hatred against white, shout to kill white crackers in church, on streets, on TV, wave base ball bat at the voting station, declaring that this country will be dominated by blacks. So far, no law can touch them. Can the whites do the same thing to the blacks? Try it, white baby. The black supremacy will have law to smash any white doing things even close at no time. Why must Michael Williams be expelled from Tea Party? Because the Balck supremacy makes the whites' knees buckle.
4. The blacks can have NAACP, what do the whites have? Or what can they have?
5. Over all the whites are the major contributors of high tax, but the blacks are the major recipients of welfare checks that are derived on the tax. This phenomenon is forbidden by law to appear as statist quote in government documents. The overall effect of such paying and receiving is that the whites are forced to pay someone to push the whites to extinction.
The list can go on.
Skinheads? Why can't people see it as a resultant product of oppression asserted by black supremacy? Whites as a race have been either cornered or committing suicide. If this country continues to blindly appease one race while purposely oppresses the other race, racial war bound to explode someday. It is dangerous. White supremacy is a term that is either a blabbing by the whites during their dream or a created reason for further persecution pushed forward by the Black supremacy. Remember the famous accusation "AIDS is invented by whites to kill blacks"? Dreadful!
 

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,165
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
I happen to notice a title in the sub-forum: "White Supremacy: A growing power?" White supremacy? What a joke! Black supremacy has been flooding over the brim in America while the whites as a race is dying, but whites are still accused of exercising supremacy. Brains from all races are so corrupted in this country, no wonder this country has lost so much power to the Socialist China so rapidly. Sure, any dying person can stuff his brain with pride. It is said that Queen Louie XVI of France still felt her being superior while being forced to step on the guillotine platform. I really fail to see how supremacy works for a person who must die at another person's will. Blacks have been defined as a superior race by nature and by law in this country, who has supremacy? let's see some facts:
1. They have expelled all competitors of other races in all athletic competition where physical power is a dominating factor. No affirmative action is allowed or even proposed for any other race in this field.
2. In all competitions where brain power is the major element, affirmative action must be there for them to reap benefit. The affirmative action can be so abusive that vacancy must be reserved for them regardless how many qualified whites must be barred.
3. They can openly spread hatred against white, shout to kill white crackers in church, on streets, on TV, wave base ball bat at the voting station, declaring that this country will be dominated by blacks. So far, no law can touch them. Can the whites do the same thing to the blacks? Try it, white baby. The black supremacy will have law to smash any white doing things even close at no time. Why must Michael Williams be expelled from Tea Party? Because the Balck supremacy makes the whites' knees buckle.
4. The blacks can have NAACP, what do the whites have? Or what can they have?
5. Over all the whites are the major contributors of high tax, but the blacks are the major recipients of welfare checks that are derived on the tax. This phenomenon is forbidden by law to appear as statist quote in government documents. The overall effect of such paying and receiving is that the whites are forced to pay someone to push the whites to extinction.
The list can go on.
Skinheads? Why can't people see it as a resultant product of oppression asserted by black supremacy? Whites as a race have been either cornered or committing suicide. If this country continues to blindly appease one race while purposely oppresses the other race, racial war bound to explode someday. It is dangerous. White supremacy is a term that is either a blabbing by the whites during their dream or a created reason for further persecution pushed forward by the Black supremacy. Remember the famous accusation "AIDS is invented by whites to kill blacks"? Dreadful!
oh boy. either supremacy mind set sucks.
 

crebigsol

Active member
Joined
Jul 17, 2010
Messages
486
Reaction score
34
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
oh boy. either supremacy mind set sucks.
Absolutely correct. The problem is that white supremacy must face law consequence in this country but black supremacy receives full protection or even encouragement from law.
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Absolutely correct. The problem is that white supremacy must face law consequence in this country but black supremacy receives full protection or even encouragement from law.
Yes, Im sure the Black Panthers would TOTALLY agree with that.

I happen to notice a title in the sub-forum: "White Supremacy: A growing power?" White supremacy? What a joke! Black supremacy has been flooding over the brim in America while the whites as a race is dying, but whites are still accused of exercising supremacy.
Considering whites make up about 30% of the world population and about 70% of the US population, I dont really see a basis for that claim.

Brains from all races are so corrupted in this country, no wonder this country has lost so much power to the Socialist China so rapidly. Sure, any dying person can stuff his brain with pride. It is said that Queen Louie XVI of France still felt her being superior while being forced to step on the guillotine platform. I really fail to see how supremacy works for a person who must die at another person's will. Blacks have been defined as a superior race by nature and by law in this country, who has supremacy?
Ummm...I think you mean King Louis XVI or his wife, Marie Antionete. You seem to have melded the two together.

I'm really not getting the point of this section.

1. They have expelled all competitors of other races in all athletic competition where physical power is a dominating factor. No affirmative action is allowed or even proposed for any other race in this field.
Who cares? Would you rather sports teams be democratic where everybody gets to play, or a meritocracy where the best get to play regardless of race?

2. In all competitions where brain power is the major element, affirmative action must be there for them to reap benefit. The affirmative action can be so abusive that vacancy must be reserved for them regardless how many qualified whites must be barred.
Im guessing the point you're trying to make is that blacks are dumber than whites...which doesnt make much sense considering we have no effective way of measuring intelligence and comparisons we can make are skewed because of socioeconomic factors.

3. They can openly spread hatred against white, shout to kill white crackers in church, on streets, on TV, wave base ball bat at the voting station, declaring that this country will be dominated by blacks. So far, no law can touch them. Can the whites do the same thing to the blacks? Try it, white baby. The black supremacy will have law to smash any white doing things even close at no time. Why must Michael Williams be expelled from Tea Party? Because the Balck supremacy makes the whites' knees buckle.
Michael Williams is also a world class moron, I think that has more to do with the teabaggers telling him to pack his **** than race does. Yeah there are racist blacks, so what? There are racists of every color and it's just as stupid regardless whose mouth its coming out of and reasonable people understand this. No white supremacist speech prosecution will stand up in court, that whole first amendment thing kinda gets in the way.

4. The blacks can have NAACP, what do the whites have? Or what can they have?
Why do whites need anything like the NAACP?

5. Over all the whites are the major contributors of high tax, but the blacks are the major recipients of welfare checks that are derived on the tax. This phenomenon is forbidden by law to appear as statist quote in government documents.
Proof?

Skinheads? Why can't people see it as a resultant product of oppression asserted by black supremacy?
Because the vast majority of the time, skinheads are a product of youthful rashness and blind anger foisted on them by parents, friends, and family. One telling feature is the vast majority of skinheads you see are young people and the old skinheads are not exactly open minded or intelligent people who are very prone to self-examination.

If this country continues to blindly appease one race while purposely oppresses the other race, racial war bound to explode someday. It is dangerous.
I'd be impressed if that kind of language hadn't been used since before recorded history. We survived a much more racially charged era than this one without Helter Skelter, I think we'll be fine in the decades to come. We've generally outgrown the overt racist crap.
 
Last edited:

Your Star

Rage More!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,246
Reaction score
19,931
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
1. They have expelled all competitors of other races in all athletic competition where physical power is a dominating factor. No affirmative action is allowed or even proposed for any other race in this field.
Explain hockey :2razz:
 

crebigsol

Active member
Joined
Jul 17, 2010
Messages
486
Reaction score
34
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Considering whites make up about 30% of the world population and about 70% of the US population, I dont really see a basis for that claim.
How much longer can the white retain that? Many European countries already have had more than half of the new born babies non white; in USA, it is predicted that by 2050, less than half the population is white. I don't give a damn about this phenomenon if all non white people treat white people fairly. However, it is not what I see. Can you give me one example that some whites yell on the street to kill blacks?

Ummm...I think you mean King Louis XVI or his wife, Marie Antionete. You seem to have melded the two together. I'm really not getting the point of this section.
Weren't both sent to the guillotine? If not, history has lied to me. The point is that, if the white still feel they have supremacy, it is sure sad that this race is dying, a mathematical asymptote of zero is more and more obvious. Indeed, you already show some trace of such supremacy if you are a white by saying (because of the current high population of white)"I dont really see a basis for that claim".

Who cares? Would you rather sports teams be democratic where everybody gets to play, or a meritocracy where the best get to play regardless of race?
Noble! I just don't understand why you refuse to apply the same noble thought in fields where mental power is a dominating factor.

Im guessing the point you're trying to make is that blacks are dumber than whites...which doesnt make much sense considering we have no effective way of measuring intelligence and comparisons we can make are skewed because of socioeconomic factors.
Wow, this is a big accusation. I did not say "blacks are dumber than whites", you just imagine I say that, but indeed, ironically, the introduction of affirmative action based on race fully indicates the need of compensation on mental power. Try to tell a Chinese, a Korean, a Japanes, an Indian they need that to compete with the white. I know of a high school, with 69 point as full mark for entrance examination, an eastern Asian needs 63 point to enter, 58 for whites, and 52 for blacks and Hispanic. Don't tell me to understand this from the view of historical reason, the historical result will reject the historical reason.

Yeah there are racist blacks, so what? .
Again, noble! but try to say "Yeah there are racist whites, so what?"

There are racists of every color and it's just as stupid regardless whose mouth its coming out of and reasonable people understand this. No white supremacist speech prosecution will stand up in court, that whole first amendment thing kinda gets in the way.
Court processing takes too long. Wouldn't it be far more effective to punish a racist white by dismissing him from his job (and on the other hand, escorting an obvious racist Hispanic to be a judge in the supreme court, or let a black AD to press a white not to pursuit a case concerning Black Panther)? Talk about the first amendment, it has provided all the socialist soil in this country. This subject is too big, I will not continue it over here.

Why do whites need anything like the NAACP?.
Why not? Does it mean that you will dismiss it in case it appears and if you have the power?

My point has been that no government document is allowed. I believe it is better for you to proof that it is allowed. However, I do have kind of proof. Few years back, some newspaper made a survey showing which city is the safest and most unsafe. It happened that the most few unsafe city had high percentage of black population. Protest from black community overwhelmed, saying this news paper being racially oriented, hurting the black community.

Because the vast majority of the time, skinheads are a product of youthful rashness and blind anger foisted on them by parents, friends, and family. One telling feature is the vast majority of skinheads you see are young people and the old skinheads are not exactly open minded or intelligent people who are very prone to self-examination.
I am not supporting skiniheads, but I do ask people to understand why they show up, just like I understand why NAACP showed up in the last century.

I'd be impressed if that kind of language hadn't been used since before recorded history. We survived a much more racially charged era than this one without Helter Skelter, I think we'll be fine in the decades to come. We've generally outgrown the overt racist crap
If the following two claims, or preaches, in the black community cannot alarm people, the only thing they deserve someday is the scorching of racial war: 1. "AIDS is invented by the whites to kill the blacks"; 2. "Some whites say 'do not hold me responsible to what my ancestors did' but you (whites) are the beneficiary"
I do not mean to punish the people who say all these, but we must ideologically disarm all these sayings as soon as possible. If the blacks do not hesitate to launch war against their own people like what happen in Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Sudan, what will hold them back from launching war against the white when conditions mature? Sure, "I think we'll be fine in the decades to come," but what happen when the racial balance further tips the other way? "We've generally outgrown the overt racist crap". Nope, that is what you think you have, that is not what in many blacks' mind. During the Civil War, so many whites sacrificed their live for the liberation of black slaves; have you heard of one grateful word from the black community to the whites? Instead, a reparation movement is pushed forward in full scale, racial hatred expressed from that community is kept escalated. All this only means that somebody is preparing! Fruit takes time to bear, sow the seed first.
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
How much longer can the white retain that? Many European countries already have had more than half of the new born babies non white; in USA, it is predicted that by 2050, less than half the population is white. I don't give a damn about this phenomenon if all non white people treat white people fairly. However, it is not what I see. Can you give me one example that some whites yell on the street to kill blacks?
Im utterly confused as to what your quasi-racist point is here.

Weren't both sent to the guillotine? If not, history has lied to me. The point is that, if the white still feel they have supremacy, it is sure sad that this race is dying, a mathematical asymptote of zero is more and more obvious. Indeed, you already show some trace of such supremacy if you are a white by saying (because of the current high population of white)"I dont really see a basis for that claim".
Im sorry but that's an utterly pointless conclusion.

Basic genetics dictates that we'll all be a basic shade of brown in the centuries to come. Why is this a problem?

Noble! I just don't understand why you refuse to apply the same noble thought in fields where mental power is a dominating factor.
Because "mental power" is next to impossible to quantify or qualify, being an entirely subjective idea.


Wow, this is a big accusation. I did not say "blacks are dumber than whites", you just imagine I say that
I dont know how what you said could have been taken any other way. Your entire rant has been quasi-racist in nature so I'm not real inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt.

but indeed, ironically, the introduction of affirmative action based on race fully indicates the need of compensation on mental power.
Care to venture a guess at this disparity that you are seeing?

Try to tell a Chinese, a Korean, a Japanes, an Indian they need that to compete with the white. I know of a high school, with 69 point as full mark for entrance examination, an eastern Asian needs 63 point to enter, 58 for whites, and 52 for blacks and Hispanic. Don't tell me to understand this from the view of historical reason, the historical result will reject the historical reason.
First off, that makes no sense.

Second, most standardized tests are weighted racially to account for socioeconomic factors. I dont necessarily agree with it, but thats whats done.

Again, noble! but try to say "Yeah there are racist whites, so what?"
Yeah there are racist whites, so what? Did you expect some sort of moral outrage? Racists are stupid bastards regardless of skin color and I'll say that to the face of any racist you'd care to stick in front of me.

Court processing takes too long. Wouldn't it be far more effective to punish a racist white by dismissing him from his job (and on the other hand, escorting an obvious racist Hispanic to be a judge in the supreme court, or let a black AD to press a white not to pursuit a case concerning Black Panther)? Talk about the first amendment, it has provided all the socialist soil in this country. This subject is too big, I will not continue it over here.
Feel free to start up a new thread regarding the subject and invite me :) I'd LOVE to see your justification for this one

Why not? Does it mean that you will dismiss it in case it appears and if you have the power?
Im just not clear why whites NEED this kind of organization. Frankly I think the NAACP has outlived it's usefulness and a white NAACP (NAWP? NACP?) would be just as pointless.

My point has been that no government document is allowed. I believe it is better for you to proof that it is allowed.
Well, in this case since it's a rule, that rule should be written down somewhere.

However, I do have kind of proof. Few years back, some newspaper made a survey showing which city is the safest and most unsafe. It happened that the most few unsafe city had high percentage of black population. Protest from black community overwhelmed, saying this news paper being racially oriented, hurting the black community.
Ok, and this is proof how?

I am not supporting skiniheads, but I do ask people to understand why they show up, just like I understand why NAACP showed up in the last century.
You dont support them, you just want us to be understanding towards them....but...not to black racists....does this ride have an exit line?

If the following two claims, or preaches, in the black community cannot alarm people, the only thing they deserve someday is the scorching of racial war: 1. "AIDS is invented by the whites to kill the blacks"; 2. "Some whites say 'do not hold me responsible to what my ancestors did' but you (whites) are the beneficiary"
I do not mean to punish the people who say all these, but we must ideologically disarm all these sayings as soon as possible. If the blacks do not hesitate to launch war against their own people like what happen in Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Sudan, what will hold them back from launching war against the white when conditions mature?
Ummm...you...do know that Sierra Leone, Rwanda, and Sudan have a majority black population...right? It's not about black people fighting black people, there is civil unrest so naturally the violence is more focused on black people because the populations are a majority black.

That's like people who get all tripped out over the Civil War having killed more than half a million Americans. Americans were the only ones INVOLVED in the war, so naturally the AMERICAN casualties are going to be higher.

This entire thing sounds like quasi-racist ranting and I'm having a really hard time taking it seriously.

Sure, "I think we'll be fine in the decades to come," but what happen when the racial balance further tips the other way? "We've generally outgrown the overt racist crap". Nope, that is what you think you have, that is not what in many blacks' mind. During the Civil War, so many whites sacrificed their live for the liberation of black slaves; have you heard of one grateful word from the black community to the whites? Instead, a reparation movement is pushed forward in full scale, racial hatred expressed from that community is kept escalated. All this only means that somebody is preparing! Fruit takes time to bear, sow the seed first.
Christ on crutches, pay attention in history. The Civil War was not fought to liberate blacks. The North treated blacks like crap, just slightly LESS like crap than the north. Race was the banner issue but it was not high on the list of reasons for the Civil War.

Go back to Stormfront.
 

crebigsol

Active member
Joined
Jul 17, 2010
Messages
486
Reaction score
34
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Im utterly confused as to what your quasi-racist point is here.

Im sorry but that's an utterly pointless conclusion.

Basic genetics dictates that we'll all be a basic shade of brown in the centuries to come. Why is this a problem?
Oh_______yeah, there are big problems.
1. Can anyone guarantee the procedure of browning be peaceful? It is more likely to end up very violently, and it has been so pronouncedly indicated by the claims I quoted to you from the black community in previous messages, and will not repeat here.
2. How brown is the brown? light brown, dark brown? Why the browning must be realized at the expense of whites' disappearance? You said the whites has 30% of the overall population. At the end of the browning, there are people to identify themselves as black, but no white. It is still not the problem; the problem is: what is so wrong for whites' continuing existence and what is so right for the blacks to dominate the world? So far, history can only render me facts to predict that if European descendants dominate the world, the world ends up with European landscape, if black dominate the world, the world ends up with African landscape. So far, I have only seen people risking their life to join the European style of society, not the African society at all.
3. Terror balance without actual happening of terror is always the better political choice between political groups. When population balance is one-sided, only a fool from the weaker side can depend himself on delusion of mercy from the other group.


Because "mental power" is next to impossible to quantify or qualify, being an entirely subjective idea.
Then why do you need the affirmative action based on race for some particular race to take advantage?.

Care to venture a guess at this disparity that you are seeing?
Care to remove the affirmative action based on race and once and for all?

First off, that makes no sense.
Second, most standardized tests are weighted racially to account for socioeconomic factors. I dont necessarily agree with it, but thats whats done.
Enough excuse has been given to losers in competition in nowadays society. If you want to motivate a loser to become a winner, stop this kind of strategy. From long run, you just put a beggar to stay as a beggar forever. I am short, I am kind of destined to be a loser in basket ball game. Instead of trying to figure out a better way to improve myself in skill, I complaint the game has been devised to discriminated a shorty. Is the game unfair to me or am I unfair to the game?


Yeah there are racist whites, so what?
Punish them. So far, the punishment is only one way and one sided.

Racists are stupid bastards regardless of skin color and I'll say that to the face of any racist you'd care to stick in front of me.
On this declaration, you and I are in the same boat. However, there are so many people, under the cloak of anti-racism, actually practicing racism. Just like you, you try to silent my "racist" tone, but also try so obvious to tell me to take it for grant for the black to scope all the social advantages.; In particular, telling me to ignore their violent demanding.

Feel free to start up a new thread regarding the subject and invite me :) I'd LOVE to see your justification for this one
As I said, this subject is too big to discuss here. I published a book of 275 pages, in which this topic is one of the big issue. But I am not to tell you what this book is lest you would say I try to promote my book here.

Im just not clear why whites NEED this kind of organization. Frankly I think the NAACP has outlived it's usefulness and a white NAACP (NAWP? NACP?) would be just as pointless.
In politics, organized or not, it makes a big difference. A swarm of army ants can defeat an elephant. Isn't it obvious that you are here wrist-slapping the NAACP but setting tone for disallowing the equivalent organization for the whites?

Well, in this case since it's a rule, that rule should be written down somewhere.
There are too many rules that are only indicative. The rule emphasizing this country to be a Christian country is also indicative by the most supreme law documents in this country. It is because of its indicative nature that enables so many liberals to think they have opportunity to remove the Christian nature of this country; they are pests of betrayal: enjoying the best grain of wood but gnawing it to crumble at the same time.


You dont support them, you just want us to be understanding towards them....but...not to black racists....does this ride have an exit line?
Don't some people ask for understanding to the blacks if they act in a certain way, in ways not that acceptable in the society?

Ummm...you...do know that Sierra Leone, Rwanda, and Sudan have a majority black population...right? It's not about black people fighting black people, there is civil unrest so naturally the violence is more focused on black people because the populations are a majority black.
It is so obvious black people fighting black people! Why there is civil unrest? Because there is fighting over interest. In such fighting, over there, a slogan "kill the blacks" is laughable. Over here, in the future when such fighting erupts, the slogan of the same nature, "kill the blacks" or "kill the whites" will become justifiable.

Christ on crutches, pay attention in history. The Civil War was not fought to liberate blacks. The North treated blacks like crap, just slightly LESS like crap than the north. Race was the banner issue but it was not high on the list of reasons for the Civil War.
This has been a typical way to refute the contribution of the white to the liberation of the black slaves. This is also typically showing how ungrateful the descendants of the slaves are to their liberators. OK, you can say that a cop's fundamental incentive to be a cop is not to fight crime but is to get a paycheck that is more handsome than from other jobs. However, the society does get benefit from his devotion. When a certain feat or merit needs to be appreciated because his involvement, should we say thanks to him for his unselfishness or tell him "Say thanks to the victim because he gave you the opportunity to have a check"?
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
1. Can anyone guarantee the procedure of browning be peaceful? It is more likely to end up very violently, and it has been so pronouncedly indicated by the claims I quoted to you from the black community in previous messages, and will not repeat here.
Human interaction is rarely peaceful, I dont see what this proves or what you propose to do about this "problem"?

2. How brown is the brown? light brown, dark brown? Why the browning must be realized at the expense of whites' disappearance? You said the whites has 30% of the overall population. At the end of the browning, there are people to identify themselves as black, but no white. It is still not the problem; the problem is: what is so wrong for whites' continuing existence and what is so right for the blacks to dominate the world? So far, history can only render me facts to predict that if European descendants dominate the world, the world ends up with European landscape, if black dominate the world, the world ends up with African landscape. So far, I have only seen people risking their life to join the European style of society, not the African society at all.
What is so necessary about "maintaining the white race"?

3. Terror balance without actual happening of terror is always the better political choice between political groups. When population balance is one-sided, only a fool from the weaker side can depend himself on delusion of mercy from the other group.
Again, this makes no sense at all.

Then why do you need the affirmative action based on race for some particular race to take advantage?
I never said you did.

Care to remove the affirmative action based on race and once and for all?
I've always supported a total repeal of the affirmative action policy as I think it's outlived it's usefulness

Enough excuse has been given to losers in competition in nowadays society. If you want to motivate a loser to become a winner, stop this kind of strategy. From long run, you just put a beggar to stay as a beggar forever. I am short, I am kind of destined to be a loser in basket ball game. Instead of trying to figure out a better way to improve myself in skill, I complaint the game has been devised to discriminated a shorty. Is the game unfair to me or am I unfair to the game?
Again you're being incredibly obtuse with your point. Height does not stop you from playing basketball.

Punish them. So far, the punishment is only one way and one sided.
Why?

On this declaration, you and I are in the same boat. However, there are so many people, under the cloak of anti-racism, actually practicing racism. Just like you, you try to silent my "racist" tone, but also try so obvious to tell me to take it for grant for the black to scope all the social advantages.; In particular, telling me to ignore their violent demanding.
No one is trying to silence you even though you are talking like a racist.

As I said, this subject is too big to discuss here. I published a book of 275 pages, in which this topic is one of the big issue. But I am not to tell you what this book is lest you would say I try to promote my book here.
There's no rules against mentioning the title of a work you've done, what's the book called?

In politics, organized or not, it makes a big difference. A swarm of army ants can defeat an elephant. Isn't it obvious that you are here wrist-slapping the NAACP but setting tone for disallowing the equivalent organization for the whites?
Are you on smack or just ignoring what I write? I've said I dont see a reason for the NAACP to exist anymore nor do I see a reason for a white equivalent organization.

There are too many rules that are only indicative. The rule emphasizing this country to be a Christian country is also indicative by the most supreme law documents in this country. It is because of its indicative nature that enables so many liberals to think they have opportunity to remove the Christian nature of this country; they are pests of betrayal: enjoying the best grain of wood but gnawing it to crumble at the same time.
Except this isnt a Christian country.

Don't some people ask for understanding to the blacks if they act in a certain way, in ways not that acceptable in the society?
No one that I'm aware of that is actually taken seriously.

It is so obvious black people fighting black people! Why there is civil unrest? Because there is fighting over interest. In such fighting, over there, a slogan "kill the blacks" is laughable. Over here, in the future when such fighting erupts, the slogan of the same nature, "kill the blacks" or "kill the whites" will become justifiable.
Is English your first language?

This has been a typical way to refute the contribution of the white to the liberation of the black slaves. This is also typically showing how ungrateful the descendants of the slaves are to their liberators. OK, you can say that a cop's fundamental incentive to be a cop is not to fight crime but is to get a paycheck that is more handsome than from other jobs. However, the society does get benefit from his devotion. When a certain feat or merit needs to be appreciated because his involvement, should we say thanks to him for his unselfishness or tell him "Say thanks to the victim because he gave you the opportunity to have a check"?
Ummm, that's basic history, kiddo. Freeing the blacks was a banner issue, not one of the core issues of the Civil War. Revisionist history does no one any good
 

crebigsol

Active member
Joined
Jul 17, 2010
Messages
486
Reaction score
34
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Human interaction is rarely peaceful, I dont see what this proves or what you propose to do about this "problem"?
Putting "Basic genetics dictates that we'll all be a basic shade of brown in the centuries to come" and "Human interaction is rarely peaceful" together, and if you ask me to see no problem on it, I cannot help but to judge that you are for forced browning. History has had too many incidents of this kind of human "browning". "Yellow peril" still left a big part of the Russian population to be called black Russians. According to your "no problem" view, none of them should be a concern. Why do you feel bothered that the North treated the blacks like crap? The only explanation is that a cut into white is not your concern, a cut into black is a big concern. With this kind of feeling, you say I have a racist view but you don't? In the current society, I only hear black yell to kill white crackers. I ask you to give me one example to show a white yelling killing the black on the street. So far, such example is still absent from you.

What is so necessary about "maintaining the white race"?
The other side of this question is What is so necessary to remove the white race?

Necessary or not, I insist to say that so far I only see people risk even life to join a society of European landscape and European style, but not joining the Africans'. So for our future, is it necessary to maintain a society and landscape of European style or African style?




I've always supported a total repeal of the affirmative action policy as I think it's outlived it's usefulness
If I have not been sensitive enough to notice your supporting of a total repeal, my apology here, please accept.


Again you're being incredibly obtuse with your point. Height does not stop you from playing basketball.
As much as difficulty of a certain examination should not be an excuse for someone to whine for affirmative action.

Haven't you ever seen some "white supremacist" getting punished? Unbelievable.

No one is trying to silence you even though you are talking like a racist.
Didn't you try to convince me to resign from my view? If I do resign, what is left for me? Silence.


There's no rules against mentioning the title of a work you've done, what's the book called?
If you do not feel I try to lie with boasting, please allow me to continue not to mention this book.

Are you on smack or just ignoring what I write? I've said I dont see a reason for the NAACP to exist anymore nor do I see a reason for a white equivalent organization.
I do see what you say, and I also see the result that you intend to get at with what you say: let the NAACP stay although it is outdated, but let nothing similar to NAACP be given to the white.


Except this isnt a Christian country.
You bet she is. For this I can open another topic to discuss with you.

No one that I'm aware of that is actually taken seriously.
I know. That is why this society has developed so many crises nowadays.



Is English your first language?
This question is asked as much skilful as insult. On the insulting part, though, I don't complaint, because the insult part is asked by me when I have to expose my poor English background. Indeed thank you for your having been tolerating in the debate. No, it is not my first language. In particular,possibly, I should have replaced the word justifiable with justice.

Ummm, that's basic history, kiddo. Freeing the blacks was a banner issue, not one of the core issues of the Civil War. Revisionist history does no one any good
My point has not been whether liberating the slaves a core issue of the Civil War, but that the slaves did procure a huge benefit that is realized by someone else spewing blood. A civilized person should show the minimum civilized attitude by saying thanks other than asking the descendants of the liberators to pay for what he suffered. "But you are the beneficiary...", such statement serves nothing but stands out as a prelude of future punishment when condition matures. It is an exact interpretation of the following statement: "Whites, what you possess today is a result of criminal actions, prepare to pay it back." As to banner issue or core issue, let's see such an scenario: I try to hire an engineer. My core issue is not to pay him but to solve my problem, but I do have a banner issue to show him: "join us and let us make a brighter world." At his accepting my employment, should he say thanks to my hiring or should he ask me to thank him for his service and his suffering? By the way, liberating the slaves may not be the core issue of the North, but protecting the slavery system is the core issue of the South. If you are so concerned about revisionist history, I guess you must have noticed our schools have been flooded with revisionist history.
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Putting "Basic genetics dictates that we'll all be a basic shade of brown in the centuries to come" and "Human interaction is rarely peaceful" together, and if you ask me to see no problem on it, I cannot help but to judge that you are for forced browning.
And I cant help but judge that you are huffing paint. How on EARTH can you take that out of what I said?

History has had too many incidents of this kind of human "browning". "Yellow peril" still left a big part of the Russian population to be called black Russians. According to your "no problem" view, none of them should be a concern.
Ok...

Why do you feel bothered that the North treated the blacks like crap? The only explanation is that a cut into white is not your concern, a cut into black is a big concern.
I dont feel bothered. I didnt do it nor do I have any control over events that have passed so I have no reason get bent out of shape about it. I wish it didnt happen from a human standpoint as I dont like to think that human beings would treat each other that way, but I wouldn't say I was bothered by it. I AM bothered by your revisionist history.

With this kind of feeling, you say I have a racist view but you don't? In the current society, I only hear black yell to kill white crackers. I ask you to give me one example to show a white yelling killing the black on the street. So far, such example is still absent from you.
Why does it matter? Freedom of speech dictates that you can say "I think we should kill white/black people" and shouldn't have to worry about the law coming down on you. That doesn't protect you from the disapproval of your fellow members of society, but it does mean you are legally protected.

If you want examples, go you YouTube and punch in "neo nazi rally" or something similar.

The other side of this question is What is so necessary to remove the white race?
Why are you so determined to dodge my questions?

Haven't you ever seen some "white supremacist" getting punished? Unbelievable.
You've got some seriously selective vision

Do you not see the antifa protests that show up at almost every klan or neo-nazi rally in the US? Our society largely does not accept white power sentiment.

Didn't you try to convince me to resign from my view? If I do resign, what is left for me? Silence.
I pointed out that your point of view is built on horribly flawed and convoluted logic. Do you think that my criticizing your point of view is my trying to shut you up?

If you do not feel I try to lie with boasting, please allow me to continue not to mention this book.
Dont bluff if you arent ready for it to be called.

I do see what you say, and I also see the result that you intend to get at with what you say: let the NAACP stay although it is outdated, but let nothing similar to NAACP be given to the white.
The NAACP is a private organization, there's no reason to tear it down. I dont feel it serves the purpose it once did and letting it die out may be the best option, but I dont see what having an equivalent organization for whites would solve.

You bet she is. For this I can open another topic to discuss with you.
Go ahead, shoot me the link when you get it.

I know. That is why this society has developed so many crises nowadays.
Because...we dont make excuses for bad behavior?

This question is asked as much skilful as insult. On the insulting part, though, I don't complaint, because the insult part is asked by me when I have to expose my poor English background. Indeed thank you for your having been tolerating in the debate. No, it is not my first language. In particular,possibly, I should have replaced the word justifiable with justice.
This isnt an insult, it's genuine confusion at a lot of your writing which is extremely difficult to follow.

If I had to guess. I would say that you are of Asian descent, possibly Chinese. Am I right?

My point has not been whether liberating the slaves a core issue of the Civil War, but that the slaves did procure a huge benefit that is realized by someone else spewing blood. A civilized person should show the minimum civilized attitude by saying thanks other than asking the descendants of the liberators to pay for what he suffered. "But you are the beneficiary...", such statement serves nothing but stands out as a prelude of future punishment when condition matures. It is an exact interpretation of the following statement: "Whites, what you possess today is a result of criminal actions, prepare to pay it back." As to banner issue or core issue, let's see such an scenario: I try to hire an engineer. My core issue is not to pay him but to solve my problem, but I do have a banner issue to show him: "join us and let us make a brighter world." At his accepting my employment, should he say thanks to my hiring or should he ask me to thank him for his service and his suffering? By the way, liberating the slaves may not be the core issue of the North, but protecting the slavery system is the core issue of the South. If you are so concerned about revisionist history, I guess you must have noticed our schools have been flooded with revisionist history.
Except that fails on several counts.

First, if we dont hold white people of the modern day responsible for what their ancestors did, so how can we reasonably expect blacks to be grateful to people who we agree share no responsibility?

Second, why should we expect a pat on the back for supposedly doing the moral thing? Correctness of action is a demand unto itself, you shouldn't look to be rewarded for something that you should be doing anyways.

Third, blacks helped build this country both pre and post slavery years. The black community has been an invaluable force in American life for almost all of it's history even though blacks were not originally here of their own free will. I'd say that's "thanks" enough.
 

crebigsol

Active member
Joined
Jul 17, 2010
Messages
486
Reaction score
34
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This is part one of the counter argument. Part two is in a separte submission. Otherwise it is too long and unable to be posted.
And I cant help but judge that you are huffing paint. How on EARTH can you take that out of what I said?
You can describe me in any way you want, such as huffing paint. It cannot help to explain what you say in any other way. To make your statement about human browning short, basically it can be condensed in this way: "Human browning is on the way, such "chemical" reaction in human beings cannot escape violent procedure (your word: rarely peaceful), 'why is this (human browning) a problem?'"
With the logic embedded in what you said being so openly exposed, you ask me "How on EARTH can you take that out of what I said"? Sir, they are not what I say you said, they are what you have said, black and white.


I dont feel bothered. I didnt do it nor do I have any control over events that have passed so I have no reason get bent out of shape about it. I wish it didnt happen from a human standpoint as I dont like to think that human beings would treat each other that way, but I wouldn't say I was bothered by it. I AM bothered by your revisionist history.
Why do you have to deny something that you have expressed so openly? Equivalently, in physics, you mix all colors in an optical spectrum, and then you tell people that the light you present to them is not white, but only the audience lie to you if they say it is white. Your feeling of bothersome about the treatment from white to black is overwhelming in your argument. I am not quoting them here. I do agree with you on one thing: "I dont like to think that human beings would treat each other that way" However, with your attitude that is so apparently favorable to blacks' one way demanding (because the same thing cannot be given to white), you are escorting the black to treat the white in the future in the way you do not agree. If you need to ignore or deny what you said, I do not understand why you take part in debate. Such as denying blacks killing blacks in the massacre of Rwanda, if you do not call it blacks killing blacks, will you call it gorillas killing gorillas, or white killing white? Nevertheless, if both the killers and the victims are put in America, they are called blacks.


Why does it matter? Freedom of speech dictates that you can say "I think we should kill white/black people" and shouldn't have to worry about the law coming down on you. That doesn't protect you from the disapproval of your fellow members of society, but it does mean you are legally protected.
Big logic and law consequence are involved here. In nowadays society, "Freedom of speech dictates that you can say "I think we should kill white people" and shouldn't have to worry about the law coming down on you." But, if you understand the freedom of speech in a away as being able to say 'I think we should kill black people', you should and must "worry about the law coming down on you." I assume you would agree the word "hate" would be less severe than "kill" toward a person. Some newspaper editor few years back put up an article with a title "that is why I hate the blacks". He is fired because of that. No law consequence? The newspaper company can and must fire him is because the law is on the company's side, on the blacks' side. If an ex-husband tells his ex-wife he will kill her, restraining order can be issued for the woman. If someone say openly in Internet he will kill the US president, he will be put in jail. So, why freedom of speech, if not taking side, would allow the open calling of killing to a race? It is not that it would allow, it is that applying law to every case is technically too difficult. Now, beyond technical difficulty, the law is even leaning on the blacks and indulging their wrong doing.

If you want examples, go you YouTube and punch in "neo nazi rally" or something similar.
It is so economical as far as your effort is concerned. I know racial slurring is overwhelming there, but no word is found openly as killing the black. Show me the example.

Why are you so determined to dodge my questions?
We are talking about giving equality to both races. So it is only fair to show both sides of the same coin. Otherwise I must ask you why the other side is so untouchable.



You've got some seriously selective vision
Don't you think it is more suitable to you?


Do you not see the antifa protests that show up at almost every klan or neo-nazi rally in the US? Our society largely does not accept white power sentiment.
Finally, you admit it, "Our society largely does not accept white power sentiment." Thank you, sir. However, this is your society, or the society you conceive as "our society". So, it is time to replace white power with black power, uh? Equality means no power based on race should be escorted by law. However, the society must need leaders. If a majority of the leaders happen to come from the whites, it is not necessary white power. If the Constitution has been played honestly, all leaders should be the able man/woman elected by the masses, not because of he/she is white. Unfortunately, someone wants to bypass the fairness and honesty. For example, in some fire department in some city, some blacks are promoted without passing the required examination, but some white are barred in spite of his passing point. What race power do you call that?
So, in order to struck down white power, you practice racial discrimination in another way to the open face of someone else, right? You call my logic convoluted, how about you are against you own logic?

I pointed out that your point of view is built on horribly flawed and convoluted logic. Do you think that my criticizing your point of view is my trying to shut you up?
There are only two consequences coming out from your opponent in any debate: continue to debate or shut up. Which way do you want to have?


Dont bluff if you arent ready for it to be called.
I don't see publishing a book is a big deal and can be used as a capital for bluffing purpose. The reason I mentioned my book is only to say that the subject is too involved to discuss here. However, to remove the feeling that you are talking to a person who bluffs, I have to tell you the following: The title of my book is Aqua Soil. It has four parts. The first part talks about human biological evolution. Too many evidence should have made us be aware of that our direct ancestors do not come down from any tree tops. They had more than hundred million years of history living in water. They just complete the habitat transition from water to land in these one or two or even three million years. Logic derived on this water living for our ancestors dictates that the entire human race is not descendants of someone coming out of Africa as what the mainstream evolutionists preach. Instead, even the ancestors of nowadays African people are immigrants to the African land more than a million years ago. The second part analyzes why white people as a race is dying. The third part analyzes why America seems following the ancient Rome's footstep toward her grave. These two parts together depicts a picture that worldwide Socialism is seemingly unavoidable unless something can be done and what can be done to prevent it. The fourth part has six pages of calculation to disprove Einstein's relativity in physics and also posts awards as high as $50,000 each for people to refute my calculation. I know my English is poor, so I did ask people to have it edited with better English. It may not be as good as it should, but I hope it should be presentable.
 

crebigsol

Active member
Joined
Jul 17, 2010
Messages
486
Reaction score
34
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This is part two of the debate message of 01:28 PM, July 21.
The NAACP is a private organization, there's no reason to tear it down. I dont feel it serves the purpose it once did and letting it die out may be the best option, but I dont see what having an equivalent organization for whites would solve.
I really don't know whether you don't see the difference or pretend not seeing the difference. Few messages back, I already told you that whether people are organized would make a big difference in political outcome. With NAACP, black people can smash whites one by one, who are not organized. If the whites have some equivalent organization, the blacks' scheme will face much more difficulties. Do not tell me smashing white and planting programs in blacks' favor are not the purpose of NAACP; otherwise, dismiss it if it serves no purpose. NAACP asserting strong influence in elections has been well known.

Go ahead, shoot me the link when you get it.
I will do it soon, and you are invited.

Because...we dont make excuses for bad behavior?
On the contrary, making too many excuses, but only in favor of the blacks.

This isnt an insult, it's genuine confusion at a lot of your writing which is extremely difficult to follow.
Sorry, I wish I could have done better, and I have tried.


First, if we dont hold white people of the modern day responsible for what their ancestors did, so how can we reasonably expect blacks to be grateful to people who we agree share no responsibility?
You are unbelievably one sided.
First, in modern civilization, a father's debt will not extend to his children. Yes, you can deduct the debt from the property that the children inherit, but you cannot deduct the debt from what the children make by themselves with their own effort.

Second, it seems you are advocating a culture of hatred memory while, I assume, you insist to punish hate crime. Just few months ago, two blacks fisted a Chinese old man to death in Oakland Calif. That is what the black called lynch if it happens from the white to black. It has been too many these kind of incidences, from blacks to Chines. However, in some assembly that shows support to the Chinese old man, the blacks tell people there not to look at the matter from the angle of race. They just ridicules themselves; and, in this case and other similar ones, how do you apply your principle that lurks in the statement "hold white people of the modern day responsible for what their ancestors did"?

Third, if you are so sensitive to revisionist history, you must know how many slaves owners are there out of the entire white population before the Civil War. My calculation is 1 to 150. You can show another figure if you think I am wrong. But either way, I can guarntee that the number of slave owners would be far less than non slave owners. If slave owners are criminal in modern civilization, why must be all whites be held accountable for a few criminal among them? If you insist to apply your "hold accountable" principle to the entire race, are you going to hold the entire black community accountable because of the high incarceration rate among the blacks? I bet the rate is far above 1 to 150. Oh, besides, there are black slave owners, too, during the same era, how would you hold them accountable?

Fourth. Holding accountable is the way to make people feel grateful. This is the first time I ever confront with such logic. If you call my logic convoluted, how do you term yours?
Second, why should we expect a pat on the back for supposedly doing the moral thing? Correctness of action is a demand unto itself, you shouldn't look to be rewarded for something that you should be doing anyways.
Wow, now I understand why bad things, bad behaviors, bad morals can be so prevail in the society: do not reward anything carrying good merit, because it is so morally natural that, according to your "noble" principle, you should not expect and therefore I do not award for any good deed from you. So, all the following things become natural and everybody should take it for grant:
To a Senator: do not expect us to pat your back for your good service. So why must we vote you the next term but not a drug dealer or tax evader?
To the surviving wife of a policeman: Don't expect we pat his back, he just do the right thing for the community. Your demanding caring from the city for his under age children violates "Correctness of action is a demand unto itself".
To an engineer who has invented something for the company: Do not expect we pat your back, you are no different from those who contribute no invention. According to the employment contract, your invention is the company's property. What is the big deal?
To a child who is the only one that has not been making the same error like the others: Don't expect any praise; everybody else has not been worse than you are.
What a great society under your "noble" principle: No good merit can be and should be differentiated from bad.

Third, blacks helped build this country both pre and post slavery years. The black community has been an invaluable force in American life for almost all of it's history even though blacks were not originally here of their own free will. I'd say that's "thanks" enough.
So, the expression of "thanks" is to contribute a high rate of incarceration in our society and launch reparation demanding? Basically the reparation demanding is aiming at, according MLK, repaying the time loss that the slaves suffered. Do you have a price list for the limbs, blood, live, broken families and all the time involved in military action that the white lost during their liberating the blacks? When your "thanks" is so enough, what makes your hatred being never enough? You feel so thirsty in the hatred that you even feel the need to invent reason to buttress the hatred.
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I have no interest in continuing a discussion with someone who is determined to see what they want to see and ignore everything else.

You are here with an axe to grind, not for a discussion and I have no interest in feeding a racist point of view
 

Groucho

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
933
Location
Pocono Mountains, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Hey, here's a brick wall you can bang your head against, which will accomplish the same thing as debating a racist.
 

JohnWOlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
3,594
Reaction score
1,257
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
just like a certain female poster on this forum, I refuse to believe you, or your claims are legitimate and that you believe them.

So what if blacks have little clubs? Ever heard of the Free masons? You say that white groups like the KKK and Neo-Nazis can't assemble but I've seen several protest with both when the SC capital building quit raising the confederate flag. What about Jews, or Chinese, or Spanish people I guess it sucks that they have their own little groups too?

80% of the United States is white and unless the blacks start running around raping white women I don't think you have to worry about the dominance of the white man to fade away anytime soon. Where do you hail from btw?
 

crebigsol

Active member
Joined
Jul 17, 2010
Messages
486
Reaction score
34
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
just like a certain female poster on this forum, I refuse to believe you, or your claims are legitimate and that you believe them.

So what if blacks have little clubs? Ever heard of the Free masons? You say that white groups like the KKK and Neo-Nazis can't assemble but I've seen several protest with both when the SC capital building quit raising the confederate flag. What about Jews, or Chinese, or Spanish people I guess it sucks that they have their own little groups too?

80% of the United States is white and unless the blacks start running around raping white women I don't think you have to worry about the dominance of the white man to fade away anytime soon. Where do you hail from btw?
Are you confident of what you said here?

Let's start with your 80% figure for whites in the US. It is in everyone's expectation that by the year of 2045, less than 50% of the US population are whites (Faster than Clinton's 2050). that is a 30% loss in 35 years. With less population base, the future loss of another 30% for white must be accelerated. Let's set it to 25 years. It means that in the year of 2075, no more than 20% of the population in the US are whites. Assuming also that the total population of US keeps 300 million all the time. The consequence is:

By the year of 2045, 90 million whites disappear in the land of the US. This is a result of massacre in any measure. The WWII "only" wiped out 45.6 million out of a population of 560 million in the Europe+Russia front. If this front started with a 300 million population to begin the war, the death would proportionally become 24.42 million, far less than 90 million.

By the year of 2075, the whites in the US have no more than 60 million. This is a result of genocide, or racial extinction, in any measure.

By the year of 2075, you may still have a chance to be alive if you are still a young fellow in the twenties now. Is the racial extinction of white happening too soon or too slow to you?

Did you ever bother to figure out the true reason of Holocust for the Jews, and what factor faciliated its realization? Don't be either too sly or too stupid (depending on what race you belong to).
 
Last edited:

JohnWOlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
3,594
Reaction score
1,257
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Like I said, I refuse to believe you are legit. Also I get my figures from the US Census. Where do you get your figures from your Grand Wizard?
 

crebigsol

Active member
Joined
Jul 17, 2010
Messages
486
Reaction score
34
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Like I said, I refuse to believe you are legit. Also I get my figures from the US Census. Where do you get your figures from your Grand Wizard?
Didn't I said "Let's start with your 80% figure"? Now, show your calculation if you think your 80% is incorrect.
 

mikeey

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 3, 2005
Messages
776
Reaction score
93
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The Back people are just as good as the white,it is how u treat them,as
all the world can see,leave them alone and u might get some respect from them.


Abraham Lincoln.

mikeey
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I happen to notice a title in the sub-forum: "White Supremacy: A growing power?" White supremacy? What a joke! Black supremacy has been flooding over the brim in America while the whites as a race is dying, but whites are still accused of exercising supremacy. Brains from all races are so corrupted in this country, no wonder this country has lost so much power to the Socialist China so rapidly. Sure, any dying person can stuff his brain with pride. It is said that Queen Louie XVI of France still felt her being superior while being forced to step on the guillotine platform. I really fail to see how supremacy works for a person who must die at another person's will. Blacks have been defined as a superior race by nature and by law in this country, who has supremacy? let's see some facts:
1. They have expelled all competitors of other races in all athletic competition where physical power is a dominating factor. No affirmative action is allowed or even proposed for any other race in this field.
2. In all competitions where brain power is the major element, affirmative action must be there for them to reap benefit. The affirmative action can be so abusive that vacancy must be reserved for them regardless how many qualified whites must be barred.
3. They can openly spread hatred against white, shout to kill white crackers in church, on streets, on TV, wave base ball bat at the voting station, declaring that this country will be dominated by blacks. So far, no law can touch them. Can the whites do the same thing to the blacks? Try it, white baby. The black supremacy will have law to smash any white doing things even close at no time. Why must Michael Williams be expelled from Tea Party? Because the Balck supremacy makes the whites' knees buckle.
4. The blacks can have NAACP, what do the whites have? Or what can they have?
5. Over all the whites are the major contributors of high tax, but the blacks are the major recipients of welfare checks that are derived on the tax. This phenomenon is forbidden by law to appear as statist quote in government documents. The overall effect of such paying and receiving is that the whites are forced to pay someone to push the whites to extinction.
The list can go on.
Skinheads? Why can't people see it as a resultant product of oppression asserted by black supremacy? Whites as a race have been either cornered or committing suicide. If this country continues to blindly appease one race while purposely oppresses the other race, racial war bound to explode someday. It is dangerous. White supremacy is a term that is either a blabbing by the whites during their dream or a created reason for further persecution pushed forward by the Black supremacy. Remember the famous accusation "AIDS is invented by whites to kill blacks"? Dreadful!
Though I am absolutely not in favor of privileging one class over another, or infringing on the right of private citiens to refuse trade with others, I believe your argument is severly flawed for a number of reasons.

First of all, there is no such thing as a white race or a black race, and therefore our society as a whole should really move away from divisons based solely on skin pigment. Second of all, the "white race" or caucasion group have consistently maintained a popular majority over the rest of minorities, and have notoriously limited their freedoms through arbitrary and legal means. The various organizations and programs that are dedicated to recognizing the potential of these minorities were created as a direct result of the oppression of majority rule.

And finally, if you really want the white equivalent of NAACP, you've already got it. David Duke founded such an organization for the explicit concerns you gave in this thread, and if you so badly feel you must "fight for the rights of the white race" then you have the freedom to join such an organization. It's not a very credible organization and it shouldn't be. There's also the CMT channel, sitcoms like Friends, and various other entertainment programs that cater directly to that particular audience.
 

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
36,117
Reaction score
21,520
Location
Didjabringabeeralong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
Didn't I said "Let's start with your 80% figure"? Now, show your calculation if you think your 80% is incorrect.
The problem with your argument was you assumed the population level would remain static, which makes the rest of your point utter BS.
 

crebigsol

Active member
Joined
Jul 17, 2010
Messages
486
Reaction score
34
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Though I am absolutely not in favor of privileging one class over another, or infringing on the right of private citiens to refuse trade with others, I believe your argument is severly flawed for a number of reasons.

First of all, there is no such thing as a white race or a black race, and therefore our society as a whole should really move away from divisons based solely on skin pigment... .
People who pretend not to be a racist is, more often than not, actually a genuine racist, except that the modern type of racists, while wearing the cloak of non-racist, must practice racism against the whites.

OK, if “First of all, there is no such thing as a white race or a black race,” the government should have no base to enact the law of affirmative action. Are you for removal of the affirmative action? Let everybody earn what he/she deserves by his/her ability and capability! I am not jealous of Michael Jordon being a basketball celebrity; I certainly, however, feel uncomfortable when a black doctor approaches me next to my bed in a hospital with a suspicion that he may have only earned his qualification through the affirmative action. Of course, the same doctor will not impose this insecure feeling on me if affirmative action has not been there.

Second of all, by saying ‘the "white race" or Caucasian group have consistently maintained a popular majority over the rest of minorities, and have notoriously limited their freedoms through arbitrary and legal means,’ you have admitted the existence of race although you use the word group in place of race. Why contradict yourself? Don’t you distinguish one group from another group by certain physical characters? Don’t anthropologist do just that in using the term race?

And finally, by saying “if you really want the white equivalent of NAACP, you've already got it,” you have again emphasized the existence of races. The entire argument from you is intended to show you being not a racist, but you are, except the concept of racism in your mind is that intimidation from black against white is not racism, and only the other way is. Indeed, it has become so natural for the modern type of racists to ask people to take it for grant if a non-black expreiences a bad deed from a black.
 

crebigsol

Active member
Joined
Jul 17, 2010
Messages
486
Reaction score
34
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The problem with your argument was you assumed the population level would remain static, which makes the rest of your point utter BS.
BS always starts from those who have no sense of logic. I really don't know how a calculation of diminshing of a race will result in a conslucion of assuming "population level would remain static". OK, you must be concluding that the population level would not remain static, but then, show a calculation of variation of percentage of race in the varying populatioon level. Learn some math if you do not want to present BS.
 
Top Bottom