The white pride folks seem to forget that white Europeans were killing white Europeans for thousands of years. It is always something to hate, something different. Language, religion, race, ethnicity, etc. If white Europeans had lived peacefully and in harmony for thousands of years, not fighting amongst themselves...they might have a case that a pure white society was the solution...but the white pride folks conveniently forget their own European history of bloody, poverty filled, feudal system driven, wars and invasions, etc. and want to live in a fantasy that if America were only white all the wars, poverty, conflicts, famine, etc. would vanish. The white pride folks even have the illusion that Jesus Christ was white with blue eyes... <img src=http://meandrichard.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/058powell_228x289.jpg> When in reality a semitic Jew named Jesus looked more like this: <img src=http://new.rejesus.co.uk/images/area_uploads/faces/faces_bbc.jpg> <img src=http://husseini.org/JesusDoor.jpg>
Hm, so saying that Northern Europeans are the most bloodthirsty group of people ever known is not racist. But if you cite the unmatched crime rates of sub saharan Africans in their various communities around the world, that is racist? So an unflattering observation of group behavior is not racist, so long as it's about white people. Interesting (double) standard. Would this statement be very "useful" to any white people trying to identify rhetoric used by people who are racist against whites? Would it fit into a "pattern of identification" in language and terminology?
Many black people also believe that Jesus was black, and create depictions of him as a black man. Your point? Many of them also make the assertion that Shakespeare, Beethoven, Mozart, and Julius Caesar were also black men, and actually believe it, and that this is not public knowledge because of a sweeping white supremacist conspiracy. Your point?
My point is that the native people in Jesus time were closer to black than white European. Jesus was a Jew (Semite). It is possible that others in Europe were black, but not too many historians would agree. As far as a black Caesar, here is close as you will likely get: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Caesar_(film) Most historians agree that Jesus was a Semitic Jew. Semitic Jews don't have fair skin and blue eyes, except in extremely rare occasions. Most of the white pride folks think Christ was a Christian...he wasn't, he was a Jew. My point is that white pride is full of mythology. The most ridiculous of course, is that most of the white priders would be very poor without a shot at wealth as white people in the first couple hundred years of American history. Again, more mythology. The white priders are typically lower middle class, to lower class, and in the first couple of hundred years their life would have been not so hot in that social strata. The vast majority of white Europeans were also quite poor and powerless. So any idea of Utopian society of whites only is based on mythology, not any fact.
"If I actually thought like some of these people on this board, I could easily make the case that Northern Europeans are the most blood thirsty group of people the planet has ever seen. They are warmongers, and not one war or conflict against non-whites has never been of a defensive nature. But this trait has been brought out so often by members of their own tribe that I began to look into to the true nature of geo-politics. And in my early twenties, any innate racism that I had was crushed upon the stone of logic. It is not Northern Europeans at all per se. It is a small and focused oligarchy and plutocracy of humans, and they care not what your shade is, only what your net worth and ability to influence is." Either you cannot read, or you are being willfully obtuse. For your sake I will prefer to believe the latter.
I have learned that religion and politics are edifices for people to attempt to navigate life by. But first I had to separate religion from spirituality, and to do this, I practiced for awhile in all the major religions and mingled with the flock. I have also learned that really true freedom means absolute accountability, and most people cannot handle that. If they are not first, or where they want to be in life, then it must be whitey, the darkies, the joos, the wetbacks, the government, women, men, the NWO, liberals, etc. Very very few people can get up in the morning and say they are going to play the cards dealt that day, and how those cards are played is their decision alone. 777, the megatroll on ET, is hated because he will not allow posters to sit comfortably within the edifices they create. He is always shaking the tree. What is fun about shaking the tree is that many people are like chameleons and they will morph into their true nature if pushed hard enuf. William Rennick, thank you for being the candid racist that you are, it is refreshing, and saves time. Mav74, if you have an agenda, state it. In a republic, it is about stating your agenda and then moving towards solutions, is it not?
This is a thought process which is dominated by liberals. I dont think i can ever recall meeting a true conservative/libertarian, or succesfull trader/free market capitalist who blamed anyone but themselves for their outcome. Personal responsibility is a trait which belongs almost 100% to the right wing. There are very few liberals who will simply accept the fact that where a person ends up is a direct result of that persons actions. The left wing thought process is based on assumptions that it is never actually the individuals fault. It is always the fault of the system, or prejudice, or income inequality.. etc... etc.... it can never simply be a persons stupidity that got them where they are.
But not only that person's actions, which is why this uncompromising continuing attack on liberal social and economic policies is unwarranted. For example, if I said that taxes are unbearable! that they are impovershing us! and that this is the government's fault! because of the taxation system, ie. a structural factor, which it enforces, you'd readily agree. So why is it impossible to accept that other structural forces of society, such as a secret hatred, or fear, and/or a mere devaluation norm, could similarly disadvantage, even ruin (for the former), the same group's odds of success? A playing field is not a fair analogy, not for our society, where all players can be imagined beginning the game on a level with all other players. Golf is probably a better analogy, since we clearly have groups who, in general, get to drive from the ladies' tee, and other groups who, in general, don't get to. This difference is becoming entrenched, too, because the guys driving from the ladies tee are also the guys who make the rules of the game. Edit: Henry Thoreau, one of America's most fervent individualists, was also an active abolitionist. How does that figure?
Wow. The guy who uses the n-word, links to stormfront, says some black men "don't act black enough", and calls asians "monkeys" also now links to David Duke videos. What a surprise.