What makes you racist is your willingness to disregard or "write off a group of people". What makes you racist is that you think "genetically inferior" is an excuse to lose all moral obligation and all sense of ethics in pursuit of a goal that- in the overall scheme of things- might amount to fuck all.
Listen, I know you're mad that "Nigger Tyrone" stole some of your shit, or fucked your wife/daughter/aunt/mom, or is taking money right out of your wallet. But if truly we lived in a fair society, then these things wouldn't trouble you. Are you telling me that if we eliminated all non-whites on the planet, you'd be living as a King?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
You'll never have enough wealth or power to remain unconcerned about "niggers". You'll NEVER be free of your economic disparity. Don't you get it, yet? You're making 60,000 a year and we still fucking own you.
There are those of us, from certain families, who can't wait until another racial genocide starts up. When Hitler did it, do you know how much we made? A Gigaton shitload.
Your racism is just as bad as some black kid that rather smoke or sale crack than pick up a book or learn a skill. You're both stupid and you're both placing yourselves under the control of our drugs.
All these "ISM"s (Racism, Conservatism, Liberalism, etc)?
They are drugs just as potential as heroin. We already know the truth. You are fodder. I hope you understand this.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-07 16:42
Hitler was a fucking saint, if not for him, you wouldn't be typing on that library computer right now
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-07 16:57
>>1
Start making some fucking sense, nigger. All I inferred from this nonsensical rant was "fuck yeah nigger power we own you". Is that your point?
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-07 18:13
>>1
>>All these "ISM"s (Racism, Conservatism, Liberalism, etc)?
the ism is a suffix of the english language its not like a collective group of ideas you fucking moron
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-07 18:52
you have a point, but youre making an ass out of yourself
I know that. My family made a lot of money off the genocide and when America started to interfere. WW2 really made some stride for us. We're even making money off of Darfur. Don't believe me? Dig deeper. By the way, this IS the library computer. But seeing as how this library is in my house, you'll excuse me if I continue to LOL.
You're boring. This culture is built on the "idea" of the "ism". My families mapped out the framework that controls intellectual thought. The reason your responded the way you did, is because you're another one of our victims.
>>5
All I heard was "You have a point". I could have just as easily said all of this nicely and been just as right.
Name:
Senor Sanchez III2007-11-07 22:02
>>1
I agree whole heartedly. I want my children to live in a world where men and women are judged not by their culture, race, reli-
oh wait a sec brb I have to bullwhip a disobedient nigger, he hesitated when orderred to lick my asshole clean after I took a shit on his face!
Name:
Senor Sanchez III2007-11-07 22:20
ok back where was I, oh yes,,,
gion, nation or gender but by their merits and the quality of their character. Where all are equal under god and the law.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-07 23:18
the OP thinks he's insightful and sophisticated but really he's just another hack writer who has no ability to express his terrible ideas.
Thing is, the DoJ publishes statistics regardless of what you say, and the statistics show a pattern. I know the same was true for the Irish and Chinese when they first came to America, but since the 100 years time they've civilized themselves and integrated.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-08 8:05
If we're all equal, niggers can gb2Africa and live equally.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-08 10:51
You know what I do when I see verbal exchange or physical confrontation where seven people are bullying one person? I join and help that one person because I have principles and ideals. Most people would probably join the seven because it's easier, they don't care for what's right. I believe in fairness, not bullying. In the outcome of it I probably would lose respect from those seven people and my reputation might get damaged. So what? You know what it's about for most people? Save yourself (or in this case reputation). Why risk it to defend someone who the multitude seems to dislike? I'll tell you why, because it's right.
What I have isn't an idea. It's truth. This isn't prose. It's fact. Families like mine are using you for profit and security. I just think it's hilarious that you people will basically go out of your way to believe anything but the truth.
You still don't get it. Blacks have had about 47 years of what you call "Civil Rights". There are wealthy black families out there, you just don't hear about them. You think Condi and Obama were grown in a factory somewhere?
Regardless, my point is that your racism and your interpretation of said statistics are manufactured ideas to keep you uncivilized and unintelligent poor folk under control. It's to keep you paying taxes you don't have to pay and to keep your feeding money to our bureaucratic money making machine.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-09 16:43
>>13
Jesus fucking Christ you are retarded. You are literaly unable to communicate any kind of rational thought process.
Also, Robert Richt, Bill Clintons, political appointee, in the 1990's, stated that;
"AMERICAN VOTERS HAVE NO SAY IN THE POLITICALS OF AMERICA ANY MORE".
fucking uneducated niggers. my neighborhood is full of them; sometimes when no one's looking I will kidnap kidnap one, chop it into pieces no larger than my fist, and stuff it down my "in-sink-erator".
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-12 19:36
>>25
wait...... you're kidding right?
compared you and most of the fags on this board >>1's english is superior
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-13 0:25
>>26
"There are those of us, from certain families, who can't wait until another racial genocide starts up. When Hitler did it, do you know how much we made? A Gigaton shitload."
Shame he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about and comes up with crazy "omg evil kkkapitalist" bullshit.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-13 3:06
This is where America is going to be if we don't stand up for ourselves. Hell, it's happening now.
Here's the thing, though. I'm not lying. Whatever. Your disbelief plays into our hands. I'm just heckling you poor fucks at this point. See you in Dubai.
Oh wait. No.
Once the oil runs out you're fucked.
Saynora.
The world’s 190-plus states now co-exist with a larger number of powerful non-sovereign and at least partly (and often largely) independent actors, ranging from corporations to non-government organisations (NGOs), from terrorist groups to drug cartels, from regional and global institutions to banks and private equity funds. The sovereign state is influenced by them (for better and for worse) as much as it is able to influence them. The near monopoly of power once enjoyed by sovereign entities is being eroded.
As a result, new mechanisms are needed for regional and global governance that include actors other than states. This is not to argue that Microsoft, Amnesty International, or Goldman Sachs be given seats in the United Nations General Assembly, but it does mean including representatives of such organisations in regional and global deliberations when they have the capacity to affect whether and how regional and global challenges are met.
Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function.
This is already taking place in the trade realm. Governments agree to accept the rulings of the World Trade Organisation because on balance they benefit from an international trading order, even if a particular decision requires that they alter a practice that is their sovereign right to carry out.
Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change. Under one such arrangement, the Kyoto Protocol, which runs through 2012, signatories agree to cap specific emissions. What is needed now is a successor arrangement in which a larger number of governments, including the United States, China and India, accept emission limits or adopt common standards because they recognise that they would be worse off if no country did.
All of this suggests that sovereignty must be redefined if states are to cope with globalisation.
At its core, globalisation entails the increasing volume, velocity and importance of flows within and across borders of people, ideas, greenhouse gases, goods, dollars, drugs, viruses, emails, weapons, and a good deal else, challenging one of sovereignty’s fundamental principles: the ability to control what crosses borders in either direction. Sovereign states increasingly measure their vulnerability not to one another, but to forces beyond their control.
Globalisation thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary.
This was demonstrated by the American and world reaction to terrorism. Afghanistan’s Taliban government, which provided access and support to al-Qaeda, was removed from power. Similarly, America’s preventive war against an Iraq that ignored the UN and was thought to possess weapons of mass destruction showed that sovereignty no longer provides absolute protection. Imagine how the world would react if some government were known to be planning to use or transfer a nuclear device or had already done so. Many would argue correctly that sovereignty provides no protection for that state.
Necessity may also lead to reducing or even eliminating sovereignty when a government, whether from a lack of capacity or conscious policy, is unable to provide for the basic needs of its citizens. This reflects not simply scruples, but a view that state failure and genocide can lead to destabilising refugee flows and create openings for terrorists to take root.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-14 1:31
>>1
"is taking money right out of your wallet. But if truly we lived in a fair society, then these things wouldn't trouble you."
What the fuck is this supposed to mean? What's your point? Are you admitting we are not living in a fair society where blacks are regularly let off crimes simply by crying "RACIST"? Do you think it's fair to steal from the white man? Do you think every time a black person fucks with me I should be tolerant and do nothing?
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-14 10:46
THE NEGRO
Of all the mass imbecilities which have demoralised mankind, this of racial equality between all peoples, White, Black, Red and Yellow, is the most inane. Politically, it has already stirred up all the minor races into a state of belligerence and discontent which will impose minor wars on the dominant nations for years to come. But when it comes to racial integration between the White and Black races, sanity has descended to the looney bin of the impossible, because the intermixture of blood between those races must degrade the White race to the level of the Negro and cannot raise the Negro to the level of the White. Where today we see some evidence of the effect of education on the Negro it is the White blood in him that stirs some animation in his sluggish mental faculties, but the Negro pure, as he exists in Africa, cannot be educated even up to the standard of the lowest content of the White race. He may learn to parrot all the political and sociological clichés of today, but unless he is buttressed by the White race, and policed by it, he must relapse back to the jungle, which is his predestined habitat.
There appears to be an illusion today that this age is the first one in which the Negro has come into contact with a White civilisation, and so had a chance to benefit by its cultural and sociological ordinances. This is not the case. Since the genesis of this present civilisation some six or seven thousand years ago, the Negro has had contact with many past episodes of civilisation, but always, as each subsided, he has relapsed back to the jungle. The other three races, White, Yellow and Red, have devised their own civilisations, and have maintained them through the ages, but it is only in quite recent years that the Negro has come into relations with them. As in the past, his status has been one of slavery, because he has never been able to compete culturally with their achievements in the arts and crafts and intellectual standards. Nor can he compete today with those same achievements, because he utterly lacks the creative faculty: he has no thumbs. The only thing he ever learned to do was to smelt iron ore and hammer out his spear heads. That weapon was essential to the preservation of his existence in his tribal wars, and his food derived from wild animals able to defend themselves with teeth and claws.
Save for the Chinese, and other Asiatic peoples, all other civilisations were generated on the shores of the Mediterranean and the Negro penetration of them was very slight, except, perhaps, with the Egyptians, who were themselves a dark coloured race, but with no relation to the Negroid peoples. Only the Moors and Arabs, because of their geographical contiguity with Africa, have kept up the slave trade with Negroes, but sexual union with them was strictly prohibited. Or impossible for that matter. By a very simple clinical ritual, the Negro became a harmless guard and menial to the Harem. It is only since the colonisation of Africa by the British, Dutch, French and Belgian peoples that the Negro has become a momentous world problem within the last two decades. The British, French and Belgian peoples solved it for themselves by handing their colonies over to the Negroes. The Dutch could not do that. They had been so long in South Africa that they had built up another white race there—the Boers. And there, the world may be assured, they will remain, and the Negro will not be permitted racial equality with them. What must happen shortly between those peoples is already predestined. The only other country on which the full weight of the Negro falls is America.
And the Politician’s solution to it of race integration is a desperation measure which never can succeed, as the politicians themselves know, but at present, they dare not do anything about it, for President Johnson won the presidential campaign by handing himself over to the largest section of the community to command the vote, just as Roosevelt did to capture the presidential chair. We know that section, which is the pestilential problem of all peoples who seek to keep a sane balance of rationality in the conduct of their political and sociological affairs. In Australia, we call them Wowsers—a stigma word which Mencken incorporated in his American Language, but as yet Americans have not adopted it. A stigma word has great power.
In America the Wowser is the self-elected Dogooder—the temperance crank, the Purity Leaguer, the anti-saloon leaguer, the Comstock bookshop smasher and picture slasher; in short, that chapel product of the cheap suburbs and the rural back blocks which seeks to impose its own horrible codes and doctrines on all that makes life tolerable for well constituted humanity. They are the people who imposed Prohibition on America and very nearly wrecked the country. In Russia, they were largely responsible for the Revolution by cutting off the people’s need for liquor during the 194 war. They are the Pacifists—the peace at any pricers, the appeasers at any threat of war which thereby makes it inevitable by inviting aggression from piratically inclined nations. They are today trying to cripple Johnson’s handling of the Viet Nam war: the finest piece of statecraft since the great days of England as a world power, when half a dozen words from Lord Salisbury was enough to send Russia scuttling back from the Oxus. It is a great pleasure to know that our men are fighting with the Yanks, and that more are being trained to follow, if needed.
It is the Wowser, then, to use one stigma term for a generic type common to America, England, and Australia, who is doing all the mischief today by inflating the Negro with a state of megalomania which convinces him that he is the victim of monstrous injustice by the white peoples, and all revenges on them are his by right of martyrdom. And that revenge he will take whenever he has power to do so.
We must concede him injustice so far in that the Whites have invaded his country and taken possession of large sections of it. In the past, they made a commodity of him in the slave market. Those same Whites have now handed back to him the sections of country they had occupied and have freed him from slavery. Justice can go no further than that.
But America, swung off a sane balance of rationality by the maudlin sentimentality of the Wowsers for the assumed sad lot of the Negroes, has allowed its politicians to establish them in equal civil and social rights with the Whites. They have ordained that the white children must consort intimately with the black offspring from infancy to adolescence, and that alone insures sexual intimacy between the two races. That American mothers—always so passionately possessive over their young—should have allowed them to do such a noxious thing is evidence that they are too dazed by the bulldozing tactics of the politicians to realise its inevitable consequences. It is assumed that education will dispose of the physiological compulsions inherent in all such propinquity of the human species.
Education! This age has become besotted over its assumed potentialities to perform a universal miracle, which is that text books alone can create a civilisation. It ignores the irrefutable evidence that only a civilised mind can be educated. Education is nothing more than a procedure for exercising intellectual faculties which are a content of the mind at birth. It has taken the white race six thousand years to develop those special faculties on which all civilisations have been built. The craftsman’s fingers, the musician’s ear, the artist’s hand and eye, the scientist’s investigation of all natural phenomena are inherited from progenitors who have left behind them the brain cells, and the muscular reflexes essential to all creative effort. And it is now assumed that education, in a generation or two, will allow the wretched Negro to develop those special faculties and so allow him to compete on equal terms with the White race as a civilised being. Imbecility can go no further than such a preposterous assumption.
Already the Negro mass is in a vicious state of resentment because it has not straightway been vested in all the rights and privileges of the Whites. The Los Angeles episode is a sufficient evidence of a universal state of mind among the Negroes. And that is only the beginning of the trouble. When he finds that the higher-class whites will not consort with him on equal terms, and that there is no place for him among the trained working class, no police force in the world will be adequate to control him.
Americans are not a docile people when politicians impose arbitrary interdictions on the free conduct of their civic rights and their private lives. The politicians’ failure to inflict Prohibition on the American people is evidence of what they must expect by this proposal to impose racial integration with the Negroes on them. It only required an adjustment of the legal code to dispose of Prohibition, but no such adjustment can solve the Negro problem for them. There is only one possible solution to that, but I am not going to take it on myself to suggest it. It must be already pregnant in the minds of all higher class American thinkers today.
My point is that life isn't fair for anyone and that a majority of the white people in this country not only think of America as a "white country", but they think that "white" should automatically mean more benefits than non-whites.
People like my family and I play both sides against each other.
We count on whites who think life is fair enough so that there should be no crime and no taking advantage of the system. We set up niggers and spic and jews as dummies and you focus all your hate and anger on them.
We also count on blacks who constantly think life isn't fair enough so that they should be able to commit as many crimes as they want and should take advantage of the system and make it work for them. If all these poor blacks woke and realized their potential to be wealthy, we'd be just as fucked.
While we do play for both teams, I'm sure you can understand how rich white people like myself agree with the mindset and ideals of a poor black person. But we want black people and the poor out there committing crimes because it takes the focus off of us.
As long as white people are more afraid of faggots, niggers and spics they are going to turn a blind eye to someone of their own race (like me) robbing them blind using the system they enable and create.
Did this help?
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-14 22:34
>>35
In fact it did help which is a rare occurance and I now understand your argument.. The thing is I don't believe you or your family are in a position to play entire demographic groups against each other. You're obviously some role playing conspiracy theorist, probably a socialist or just some general libfag who whines about capitalist boogeymen sitting in ivory towers wearing top hats.
I'm with Chris Rock on this. Everyone hates niggers, they are filthy idiotic little savages! The thing is not all black people are niggers, that said not all white people are "people" either.. Some whites are more fucktarded than the worst dumbass deluded nigroid you could ever hope to find! Granted people take advantage of those with a "EVERYTHING IS A OK!!!" attitude and those with a "I AIN'T DOIN SHIT" attitude, but it only takes an average judge of character to notice such people, there is no need to resort to racial stereotyping in this instance!
As for your conspiracy theory, you need to contemplate the "3 ways of getting things done", google it. Autonomy is often just as frequent as hierarchy, with heterarchy rarely existing outside bureaucracies or those with close emotional bonds. When you come across a curiosity in society and culture more than often there is no covert hierarchy at the top pulling the strings and the entire thing just formed naturally.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-15 1:18
>>36
What's being described isn't a conspiracy, for a conspiracy would require some form of secrecy. American Conservatives (our right wing is far to the right of any other industrialized country) convince poor, ignorant whites to vote against their own interests by bringing up bogeymen like niggers, spics, and faggots and by exploiting their stupid religions. Look at immigration. Illegal immigrants supply the labor force needed to keep the economy growing and commit less crimes than natural born citizens. Yet, apparently, they're destroying the country. Truman couldn't pass universal health insurance back in 1948 due to the campaigning of Blue Cross and the fear southern whites had of integrated hospitals. If you ignorant whites weren't so fucking stupid, maybe you would have pensions, powerful organized labor, and health insurance like we do in Europe. Maybe when the EU starts kicking ass and America drowns in its war debt you hicks will understand.
It's your choice whether or not you wish >>37's warning.
Just kidding. Choice is another one of our illusions. Obviously you're free to believe whatever and whoever you want. Your "belief" didn't stop us from forming the EU and it certainly won't stop our plans for the NAU. Our mission is distraction and discord. While you and >>37 quibble about my legitamacy, you'll be bleeding dollars and pounds.