A non Racist White is an Oxymoron

Some random whore on why whites are being racist by not being racist.
http://www.assatashakur.org/forum/breaking-down-understanding-our-enemies/12116-white-anti-racist-oxymoron-open-letter-white-anti-racists.html
Discuss.

>>40's powers of observation are feeble indeed, or else he's some high school boy who's never been to college.

Still waiting for you to explain the fall of Rome to me, incidentally.  "Twat" indeed.

If multiculturalism destroys societies, I think all the whites should move back to their homeland in Europe.

Black guy steals your bike, gets blamed for it by white guys

Mexican steals your wallet, gets blamed for it by white guys

Asian steals your dog, gets blamed for it by white guys

Indian steals your weed, gets blamed for it by white guys

White guy steals indians lands and countries, steals blacks to farm it for them, steals asians to build their transportation, then steals mexicans to clean their houses, and expects to be thanked for it.

Everyone loves white people!

>>42
Nah.  We took North America and Australia from the tiny number of inbred Stone Age cannibal monkeys squatting on them, we did it by right of superior force which we would not have had if we and our societies were not objectively superior, and we like them just fine, thank you.  Outsiders who cannot play nicely with others are cordially invited to go back to whatever Third World cesspit they crawled out of.

Also, stop trying to change the subject.  You were going to explain the fall of Rome to us all, weren't you?  We're all still waiting.

>>42
That was over 100 years ago, all the whites who stole land are dead. Stop thinking in terms of collectives, it's retarded and hypocritical.

>>42 : Perhaps I misunderstood your post.

Did you mean : Thieves can be any colour but non-white thieves mostly steal useless shit like bikes, dogs and weed whereas white thieves steal important shit like continents?

Please explain.

I agree, I'm white and racist. Niggers are racist too, yellows too, reds too, fuck even dogs are racist, mine tend to pee on all the arabs it crosses pass with and shit on all niggers.

So when a white liberal listens to the Jews, hates themselves, and fights for the cause of niggers it's still "not good enough" for them. Interesting.

>>46-47
Tsk.

>>48
un-tsk
>>46-47 provide insights into the causes of racism, namely marxist rabble rousers. Obviously the solution is to crush socialism and all hope of the underclasses ever having any power.

>>49
Marxist
socialism

The politicians in Washington including Obama are products of finance capital, Wall Street and corporate lackeys. How the fuck are they Marxists and promoting socialism? If anything what's going on is soft fascism and merging of state and corporate power.

>>50
By redistributing wealth, of course.  They use the power of the state (taxation) to expropriate the property (money) of productive citizens (working-class whites), and redistribute it (print welfare checks for spics, niggers, and pensioned-off useless eaters) to reward them for shuffling into the voting booth every two years and pressing the big shiny button with the big shiny "D" on it).

This is how American politics has worked since the Communist Jew, Franklin Delano Rosenfelt, seized power in 1933.

Is that clear enough for you, or shall I have to put on a skit with big fuzzy puppets?

>>51
Looking past the ridiculousness and loony conspiracy tinfoil hat, far right-wing propaganda twattle which comprises 85% of your post, welfare systems and social safety nets =/= socialist government. The US has had (albeit not always at the Federal level) some form of welfare. In fact, it even predates the United States when the colonies adopted the British Poor Laws that they themselves date back to 16^th century England, and even as far back as the time of King Edward III and the first labor laws in the 14^th century.

While nowhere near ever as expansive as today's welfare programs, if going strictly by your reasoning, that means that for nearly the past 800 years, England and its now former colonies including what is now the United States, have had "communistic" and "socialistic" policies intent upon "redistribution of wealth"! Instead of government departments and welfare recipients today, it was medieval feudal lords and serfs back then. So in reality, nothing much has changed there, has it?

Lemme guess, you're going to say "But the JOOS! They lobbied for the King and Parliament to pass those welfare and labor laws!" Sorry, due to the Edict of Expulsion in 1290 all Jews were banished from England until 1656. Oops! Can't blame them now, can we?

Now to expose the final hole in your logic, out of the total number of welfare recipients in 2006, whites made up 39%, blacks, 38% and Hispanics, 17%. Since that data was from over four years ago, and the current number of welfare recipients is currently up to 42 million, I would gather that all three racial groups have increased, and I'll bet you that whites still make up the majority of the three.

You've dung in your own grave, and you have no one to blame but yourself.

Is that clear enough for you, or shall I have to put on a skit with big fuzzy puppets?

>>52
Whites = 80%+ of the population, less than 40% of the welfare parasites.

Niggers = 10% of the population, 40% of the welfare parasites.

What feudal lords did with money that was by law their own, of their own free will, has less than nothing to do with governmental policies in a republic, in which the State has no funds of its own and cannot spend one cent without sticking a gun in some White man's face and stealing it from him.

And no, "dung in your own grave" isn't very clear.  Would you like to try that again in some language other than gibberish?  If English is not your first language I can still try to communicate with you.  Ponemayetyu po-russki, yob tvayu maat?  ¿Hablas espanol, puto?  Onihongo wakarimasu-ka, baka?

Aren't you the one who was going to explain the fall of Rome to us about thirty posts back?  We're still waiting.

it is hard to take anyone seriously who uses 'niggers' as a descriptor. have you not the intelligence to construct a valid argument?

>>54
Using the word nigger doesn't invalidate the argument, I am a racist, my argument is valid, I am logical and right, everything you have ever believed, your most heartfelt beliefs, are all total bullshit. Deal with it.

I AM RIGHT. I AM A GOD. DO NOT QUESTION THE RACE GOD, PITIFUL MORTAL.

>>52 just isn't very good at this.  He clearly isn't comfortable with honest debate, yet he wants to get the last word.

Let's wait and see if he sages when he replies again, and then strictly coincidentally a few dozen 5+-year-old troll/spam threads get mysteriously bumped, burying this thread so that I have to dig for it again.  It's just adorable, the way that keeps happening to this thread.  I'm sure it's strictly a coincidence.

>>52, does your mommy know you're using her computer?  Maybe you should just sit down and shut up when grown-ups are talking.

>>53
Whites = 80%+ of the population, less than 40% of the welfare parasites.
Niggers[sic] = 10% of the population, 40% of the welfare parasites.

Irrelevant.
What feudal lords did with money that was by law their own, of their own free will
Bullshit.
has less than nothing to do with governmental policies in a republic, in which the State has no funds of its own and cannot spend one cent without sticking a gun in some White man's face and stealing it from him.
EVERYONE has a gun pointed to them by the IRS come tax time, it ain't just poor old Neo-Nazis.
And no, "dung in your own grave" isn't very clear.  Would you like to try that again in some language other than gibberish?  If English is not your first language I can still try to communicate with you.  Ponemayetyu po-russki, yob tvayu maat?  ¿Hablas espanol, puto?  Onihongo wakarimasu-ka, baka?
Cute. This shows your argument is weak when you take one little typo, and run off with it into some pointless banter using it as a cheap shot at criticism. Sorry, but nobody is buying.
Aren't you the one who was going to explain the fall of Rome to us about thirty posts back?  We're still waiting.
That's a different poster. My first post in this thread is >>52.
>>57 just isn't very good at this.  He clearly isn't comfortable with an actual, rational person, yet he wants to get the last word.
Let's wait and see if he sages when he replies again, and then strictly coincidentally a few dozen 5+-year-old troll/spam threads get mysteriously bumped, burying this thread so that I have to dig for it again.  It's just adorable, the way that keeps happening to this thread.  I'm sure it's strictly a coincidence.
Sure, believe what you may. However, if you lurk around world4ch long enough, you'll realize that automated spam being posted in 3-5 year old threads is a common symptom. Also, your understanding of the sage function implies an immature imageboard-esque worldview of how it's used. I could be wrong about that though.
so that I have to dig for it again.
Ohh, poor baby. I'm just weeping from the empathy I have for you.
>>52, does your mommy know you're using her computer?  Maybe you should just sit down and shut up when grown-ups are talking.
grown-ups

"Grown-ups"? Your worldview is sculpted out of the mind of the average 13 year old boy. If you're a "grown-up" as you suggest, then this discrepancy implies a major developmental disability, though I wouldn't jump to conclusions as that would be quite judgmental on my part. Can't all be so quick to judge, right? Right? Riiiiight. Glad you understand.

>>52 sages again, I see.

Grown-ups are talking, kid.  Maybe you should go do your homework or something.

PROTIP:  yelling "BULLSHIT BULLSHIT" and then playing "LOL SAGE" games doesn't constitute debate.

Does your mommy know you're on 4chan with her computer?

>>59
HURRR I call >>52 a child and make that my argument.
Grow up, or head back to /b/.

>>51
Gee, that must be why Republicans will be the majority party in the House starting January 3^rd, correct? Right.

>>49,51
It's not socialism if the capitalist mode of production is still in place. And I don't see that being replaced anytime soon.

>58, how is that irrelevent? You just ignore something you can't debate right?

Let's get back to the point of this thread. An educator with a phd is claiming that even if I wasn't racist, in her view I'd have to be just that becuase of the way others view me. Hmmm... Makes no sence for me to be an anti then does it?