Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

I'm not a racist, but I am...

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-06 1:18

This forum is full of it, but it's all true. The facts are there. Maybe there is a little hyperbole, sure black people can become doctors, fly planes etc... I'm a reasonable human being, I was raised in a liberal environment. I have bullied before, but never been racist and I see bigotry as immature, however I can't escape the fact that they are indeed very unusual looking.

http://unicast.org/forums/forum.php?forum_id=1

"golly, niggers are hideous with their buck teeth, black skin and brillo heads. Egads."

Just do a google search for skull shapes of different races and albino black people... CAucasian and mongoloid skulls are about the same and both these races have obviously exceeded negrito races in culture and civilisation. Even the obscure native americans constructed early civilisations. Their hunter gatherers tribes only existed due to their isolation, deprived of the circumstnaces that allow for agrarian civilisation. Given another 1000 years after the SPanish arrived, and the Gulf of Mexico would be like the Mediteranean circa 1000 B.C..

Though I can't say the same for black civilisations, they were not isolated, theywere exposed to the Egyptians, who were arabic, im not one of these nuts who thinks they are white. I really am not a racist or even a far right conservative...

I can't contain what i think anymore and I shouldn't be afraid of expressing my thoughts. They do look so animal like, it is as if they are a relic from evolution before human civilisation. In fact that's what they are, the only tribal systems outside of sub-saharran africa left by around 1300 were in areas which didn't have much food. Yet in the rich jungles of africa they still lived in the stone age, never utilising the wide range of plants there.

I think the out of africa theory is correct and that blacks haven't evolved much whilst caucasians and mongoloids have had to deal with the ice age.

How should I approach these facts rationally? Liberals say I should just ignore them, conservatives say I should become a whtie supremacist nut. Surely there is another way? Surely there is a way to get society to accept these facts without sinking into depths of paranoia and stupidity.

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-23 0:55

>>520


Are you a jungle bunny?

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-23 3:13 (sage)

Nothing is concrete and whites themselves...have done more copying and stealing than originating.

This is news? Since when?

No, really, what kind of uneducated fool are you? Don't you know history?

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-23 4:54

>>522

My point exactly. "History" is subjective to and written by those who percieve themselves as "winning" history. Remember when you thought whites were a different race? Remember when you found out all humans came from Africa? Remember when you discovered that the Mali and the Mayans had methods for mapping the stars (before whites)? This is all I'm pointing out.

The sad thing is that if alot of you white people did as much fact checking about the ideas of other cultures and races as you did whites (which is surface fact checking). You'd find out all sorts of neat things. You just don't even bother to look anymore and you do so at your own peril.

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-23 8:12 (sage)

You just don't even bother to look anymore and you do so at your own peril.

You are an idiot.

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-23 8:58

>>524

And this is based on what?

Your ignorance?

Is there anything more perilous than ignorance?

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-23 17:47 (sage)

Your ignorance?

Coming from someone with a base understanding of history and sociology, colour me unimpressed. It seems you lack eyes and ears too.

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-23 18:22

Actually, my understanding of history and sociology dwarfs yours and that what emables me to make the statements I make. Why don't you certify your comments? Oh, wait. I know why. It's because you have nothing to say and love to hear yourself speak.

Come back here when you take some college courses.

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-23 21:12

An educated person realizes that no major civilizations evolved in a vacuum (although the ones in South America were their own microcosm). They borrowed heavily from each other. This isn't news, except to someone who has never opened a book.

Superiority? Which major civilization didn't believe it was the best/most enlightened/etc? Everybody looked down on everyone else. They still do.

Slavery? Most major civilizations have had slaves at some point. The rest usually had some dreadfully poor class that served in their stead.

Nobody looks at anything anymore? Look at the food you eat, he music you listen to, the methods of production that made them, the languages being taught in schools, the international scientific articles, ad nauseum. It isn't just the crackers, it's everyone.

In short, you're a loon barking at a strawman.

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-23 21:12 (sage)

Fuck, and sage.

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-23 22:26 (sage)

>>528

In short, we actually agree, you're just an argumentive fagbitch.

Make it saged.

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-24 12:40

It's not as easy to lock onto faggotry when anti-chan goes anon

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-24 23:03

>>531
So I wasn't the only one who thought that, huh?

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-25 0:38

>>532

i thought anti chan died on the way back to his home planet? why don't you respond with reason instead of character attacks? moot made this anon system so that stupid shit like this wouldn't come up in arguments did he not?

what exact did he say in >>523 that you can take certifiable exception to?

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-25 1:41

why don't you respond with reason instead of character attacks?

I'm not responding to any of his comments, since I agree with them. However, his comments smell like anti-chan. Since when is noting that a character attack?

You're a retard. <- THAT'S ad hominem

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-25 8:24

>>534
the whole point of the anon concept is like, who cares if it's anti-chan or not? why is his identity of any interest to you? why is that so consequencial? clearly, he wasn't addressing you in >>523. he was addressing other white supremists in general. 

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-25 8:31

>>535
So you assume I was the white supremacist?

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-25 10:12

why is his identity of any interest to you?

Why shouldn't it be?

And how exactly does the observation that some anonymous sounds like anti-chan mean that I care? It's an observation.

Name: anti-chan 2006-01-25 13:32

>>536
>>537

Oh fuck off, you little cry babies. Here I am, here's your social pariah- anti-chan! The bottomline is that when you argue someone's identity or someone's character: You are participating in a character attack. Stop playing innocent: You didn't point out it was me as a positivism. Everyone got that.

And I know you've got it rationalized in your pea-sized fuckbrains that nothing you do is wrong- because you are the honkey "lawds of the internets" and your penors are small so of course your brains must be BIIIIGGG.

Sorry to rain on your gay pride parade: But you're a bunch of kids. And if it's wrong for me to identify you idioic lot of culturally -handicapped jack offs by your childish character and base my arguments around that. (I'll freely admit that) Then it's wrong when you do the same thing to me. Understand?

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-25 13:47

>>537
Cut the bullshit. If you didn't care you wouldn't have brought it up.

Anyway: My comments were meant to be inflammatory. When I look at this thread it occurs to me that a majority of the white supremist I argued against for some reason thought they could ignore what we know about modern history. They tried to ignore what we know about intelligence and gentics. And that's why the argument drifted right off in the fucking abyss when I said: "It's never nurture or nature in an arguement about IQ/race".

I came armed with a shield made out of skin that flaked off the the God of absolute truth. In my right hand was a sword crafted from the strongest object in the universe: My penis. That shit was forged with lazers and nuclear energy.

You guys came in here with your high school diplomas, your virginity and your obsession with racial slurs. And the resaon I made the comments I did was because I made the distiction between white supremists and those who just wanted to debate properly.

Anyone on here that tries to lord the "many accomplishment of the whites" over you or your race is a white supremist.
Any one here that tries to make their race seem genetically superior when compared to *any* another race is a white supremist. Any one here that exhibits this inate fear of the extention of their so-called race is a white supremist.

And you know how I know this? Because if take the last paragraph and exchange white for black- you get a list of what a white supremist simply DOES NOT want to hear or accept. The idea that they didn't invent everything and they weren't the orginator of all these neat ideas they hold so dear.

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-25 16:15

>>539
Ad hominem, strawmen, propaganda, mentioning your penis... wow.  All the known argument failures pulled together in a neat package.

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-25 18:19

>>540

...

You're kidding right? What argument? Oh you mean the one that I ended about two weeks ago? There's no debate here: I'm just flat out shitting on you. If there was a debate to be had you would've replied with a little more than the play-by-play of your eviscerated self-esteem(s).

However, if you want to sit here and have another long drawn out debate about how you're a human toilet, then by all means I'll part my butt cheeks right now, pry open that porcelian seat you call mouth and serve you up your favorite: turds. Oh and I do hope you like Domino's Pizza...because that's what I had for lunch.

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-25 20:47

Wow, kinky.

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-25 20:49

>>541
Generally people who bring up others' self esteem out of the blue probably don't have much themselves.  It's called projection.

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-25 20:52

>>543
Not to mention the obvious homosexual crack that could be made, but I'm sure there's no need for psychoanalysis to point that out to you.

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-25 23:36

Every year Uncle Jake and Aunt Mary have a few spare niggers at the end of harvest. Of course they don’t want to feed the dirty black bastards all winter so they usually take ‘em out back and club ‘em. Then they put up about 300 quarts of pickled  nigger. Of course Jake and Mary never eat any of it. They feed it to the regular barn niggers throughout the winter months.

Once a jew family moved to town. Mary took them a gift basket of nigger and told them it was pickled lamb. HaHa  Jake didn’t like it that Mary would associate with kikes but thought it was funny that they would be eating nigger with their matzah ball soup. HaHa

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-26 0:08

>>543
>>544

Same person.

It's not out-of-the-blue to point out your overly defensive and especially argumentive nature. This is merely but another strong indictor of the crippling insecurities that surely plague your faggotry riddled mind. You're like a 14-year old girl on her period. When you stand in front of a mirror and look into your eyes you can't help be see your inner queer crawling at the back of pupils begging: "Let me out! I'll suck alllllll the cocks."

You know you will. And it's alright man, when you glean a homosexual act from the very natural function of me delivering my feces into your mouth like my anus was a soft serve machine...you know that's your inner cock mongler begging to get out. So let him out: We won't make fun of you anymore than we already do.

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-26 3:19

>>546 is anti-chan.

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-26 3:59

>>547

lol so is >>539, mate. your point? from what i've seen you guys have been failing against anti-chan since this whole debate started and now that it's a mud-slinging contest you guys are failing double hard. you can't debate the issues, you can't even insult properly = fail.



Name: Anonymous 2006-01-26 6:30

>>548 is anti-chan.

Name: anti-chan 2006-01-26 6:40

>>549 is anti-chan

Name: anti-chan 2006-01-26 6:49 (sage)

>>548

That's because >>543, >>544 and >>549 are born losers. It's a genetic disposition due to the severe retardation of their inbred parents and then reinforced by their mothers' "pine sol in the apple juice." method of nurture.

She knew you were failures when she blood-queefed you into the palm of her hand at the dyke parade.

anti-chan = fuck and win.

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-26 9:18

>>528

i think you miss the point of what he's saying. maybe it's cos you're white? 

a majority of the people are not educated. and if they are, they can put 1+1 together but have a hard time admitting that it equals 2.

'everybody did it' doesn't excuse anything and it doesn't mean we should ignore your history. "white civilization" put their superority into practice against all races. if europe was like china or japan (isolationist) this conversation would not take place. it's not your fault. it's your religion and all relegions that stem from judeo-christian law (islam falls right in with these ideals) - one god (and everyone must believe and obey) have help perpetuated white culture through zealotry and fanatism. you are apart of that whether you like it or not, or believe it or not.

"It isn't just the crackers, it's everyone." - wrong. you still teach "its just the crackers" in your schools. you white wash every culture you touch. everything another culture does it misunderstood by you as inhumane or wrong and it's all based on ignorance- you need a reason to hate and a reason to convert everyone to your thought. tell me i'm lying if i am...

i guess you guys don't get it. people wouldn't trust the nazi's to write the history of the Jews. why people would trust racist whites  of the past and present with the history of blacks is beyond me. (maybe its because you're white?

THIS is what is wrong with your country. A Kingdom divided against itself cannot stand, and seeing as how it is built and sustained by white supremacy....it might fall for good reason, IF whites do not get their heads out of their asses and see the truth for what it really is.

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-26 12:13

BIX NOOD

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-26 22:37

BIX NOOD

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-26 22:46

>>554 is >>540

I'll keep this in mind the next time you cry about Ad hominem when you start failing in an argument you spent screaming "nigger, bix nood" in between non-points.

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-26 22:54 (sage)

'everybody did it' doesn't excuse anything

No, it doesn't. Congratulations.

"It isn't just the crackers, it's everyone."

How about you reread that last paragraph, >>552? It doesn't mean what you think it means.

"its just the crackers" in your schools.

What kind of school have you been going to?

Name: anti-chan 2006-01-27 7:28

I do realize I'm arguing against multiple people, right?  And that all my enemies are not one person, and that to make generalizations about them as if they were one person is fallacious at best. 

Name: anti-chan 2006-01-27 7:36

>>557
The whole point of the anonymous system is so that personas (therefore ad hominems) never come into play during a debate over ideals. If you want to be treated as an individual- then use a name.

You guys are all saying the same stupid shit with strong overtones of inherant faggotry- I don't have the energy nor the concern to dice you up into fruity little sub-groups.

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-27 7:37

>>557
is noob
fails for not reading 4chan FAQ

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-27 8:50

>>558
You dumb boy, you dumb.

Newer Posts