PDA

View Full Version : Interracial relationships



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Supreme American
03-10-2012, 11:54 PM
about interracial laws would you push it on other countries except your own as well? i mean an white and a black person marrying somewhere in singapore? you know not all cultures share your values.

Unless you have a global entity like the UN I think this is an irrelevant question. We're worried about our countries and what goes on within them, not elsewhere. They can establish their own standards, and I don't care what they are.

Megan
03-10-2012, 11:57 PM
Are white inter-ethnic marriages such as German with Scottish okay? :/ What about Japanese and Korean?

The Lawspeaker
03-11-2012, 12:00 AM
What about Japanese and Korean?
An Asian affair.

Insuperable
03-11-2012, 12:23 AM
If you ask me I would ban interracial marriages and interethnic marriages:)

Lumi
03-11-2012, 12:38 AM
If you ask me I would ban interracial marriages and interethnic marriages:)

What do you mean by "interethnic"?

Electronic God-Man
03-11-2012, 12:40 AM
You're the one that has been asserting that is a problem that needs solving, I have not. There in fact is no "solution" to this other than expelling migrants.


Oh OK. No problem then. What is there to discuss then? Everything's dandy.


As I said, outlawing interracial marriage is another topic.

I'm saying that outlawing interracial marriage is impossible, undesirable and solves nothing.



Would be, have been. This seems to only be an issue for you.


No, it's a problem for you, too. You had initially tried to claim that a ban on interracial marriage would be there to the benefit of Blacks as well. But that's clearly not the case. It's one sided.



No, they were to help enforce the cultural norms. Something wrong with that?

Yes, there is. There are billions of things that can be considered cultural norms, but the vast majority of them are not things punishable by law if you go against them.

Insuperable
03-11-2012, 12:50 AM
What do you mean by "interethnic"?

I mean that I am against marriage between various ethnic groups like between Croats and Russians, French and Italians, Croats and Germans, Russians and Italians...............................

some people confuse nationality and ethnicity, maybe I do too

Lumi
03-11-2012, 01:13 AM
I mean that I am against marriage between various ethnic groups like between Croats and Russians, French and Italians, Croats and Germans, Russians and Italians...............................

some people confuse nationality and ethnicity, maybe I do too

Would you ban marriage between, say, Scots and Finns?

The Lawspeaker
03-11-2012, 01:15 AM
Would you ban marriage between, say, Scots and Finns?
Luckily for you he wouldn't make laws about Scotland or Finland.

zack
03-11-2012, 01:21 AM
This talk of interethnic marriage bans remind me of a conversation i had with my stepfather a few days ago. On the way home i made a comment about getting married to a French woman. He said that it would be 'mixing' for me to do so!

I of course said that a french person is still white and he looked at me and said it was still mixing.

This belief seems to be widespread in the backwoods of the USA in the deep south.

The Lawspeaker
03-11-2012, 01:27 AM
This belief seems to be widespread in the backwoods of the USA in the deep south.
Here too. If I would marry German or English I would be marrying a foreigner.

Supreme American
03-11-2012, 01:29 AM
No, it's a problem for you, too. You had initially tried to claim that a ban on interracial marriage would be there to the benefit of Blacks as well. But that's clearly not the case. It's one sided.

It's not one-sided at all, and I explained that. You're running off the premise that blacks define themselves along the same lines we do, which is not the case.



Yes, there is. There are billions of things that can be considered cultural norms, but the vast majority of them are not things punishable by law if you go against them.

Not really, actually.

StonyArabia
03-11-2012, 01:45 AM
North Africans are an example of population that mixed with Sub Saharan Africans a lot

Berbers seem to be paternally African anyways

Insuperable
03-11-2012, 01:47 AM
Would you ban marriage between, say, Scots and Finns?

Why do you ask?
I do not care that much as I care between Croats and someone else
Its not on me to ban that marriage although I do not prefer marriages between nations

Electronic God-Man
03-11-2012, 03:55 AM
It's not one-sided at all, and I explained that. You're running off the premise that blacks define themselves along the same lines we do, which is not the case.

Then explain to me how it helps Blacks just as much as Whites.


Not really, actually.

:confused: Do you have any idea what a social or cultural norm is?

It's a cultural norm to wipe my ass after I take a shit, it's a cultural norm to face the door in an elevator, it's a cultural norm to say "please" and "thank you", it's a cultural norm to say "bless you" when a person sneezes, it's a cultural norm to shake hands when you meet someone and look them in the eye, it's a cultural norm not to cheat on my wife (it's legal in many states), it's a cultural norm not to swear at my grandparents, etc...

It would probably be great if everyone abided by these cultural norms, but I'm certainly not proposing laws to enforce them.


I'll say it again. Any law prohibiting interracial marriage would need overwhelming public support. If overwhelming public opinion was against interracial marriage there would be little reason to make a law against it anyway. It's not comparable to something like murder or theft, and any laws prohibiting it couldn't be truly enforced (no legal marriage, but there would still be mixed race children born).

Racial Observer 1814
03-11-2012, 04:13 AM
[QUOTE=Jon Snow;765241]I have revised my position.


And was it broadcast on FOX or CNN? :rolleyes:


[QUOTE]You clearly possess the borderline retarded IQ of an average Negro, so go forth and mix with my blessings. Just try not to reproduce with anyone of any race, okay? :thumb001:


Whatever, as long as you keep your nose out of my business and simply go back to pining over White women who don't want you. :thumb001:

Mortimer
03-11-2012, 04:19 AM
Unless you have a global entity like the UN I think this is an irrelevant question. We're worried about our countries and what goes on within them, not elsewhere. They can establish their own standards, and I don't care what they are.

i see. thats good. but today we got countries who push their values onto other countries (democracy,feminism,gay rights, ) and in the past they did too but other values (british brought ban on gay love to india for example, interracial laws, christianity etc.).

Supreme American
03-11-2012, 04:20 AM
Or maybe white women are sometimes so demanding that men just stop bothering and go for other races and see that they sometimes have lower standards. Let me give you a small insight in Asian cultures. What is the role of the man there ?

That's right: he is the breadwinner. So a nerd has a perfect chance of getting a girl there. Why ? Because he has brains in his head and can hold a job. When it comes to low-end white men: some may still have a job and be providers and women that belong to non-feminist cultures will quickly find them as potential mates.

Unfortunately paragraph 1 is basically a ream of stereotypical claims from guys who jump ship. I've never seen a mudshark of either gender admit they may have any fault in their issues with the opposite sex of their own race. They always point the finger and externalize blame.

Now why would Orientals go for "nerd" white guys if they viewed their own men as desirable? This is where I mention the self-loathing part and the white supremacist attitude among them. They are status-oriented much like blacks are and see whites atop the racial ladder and want the status that goes along with white skin. Some so much so they're willing to date a 400 lb blob instead of an average or even successful Oriental man.

Both of the above are not healthy attitudes and it is a shame that liberals are trying to normalize such relations.

The Lawspeaker
03-11-2012, 04:21 AM
Unfortunately paragraph 1 is basically a ream of stereotypical claims from guys who jump ship. I've never seen a mudshark of either gender admit they may have any fault in their issues with the opposite sex of their own race. They always point the finger and externalize blame.

Now why would Orientals go for "nerd" white guys if they viewed their own men as desirable? This is where I mention the self-loathing part and the white supremacist attitude among them. They are status-oriented much like blacks are and see whites atop the racial ladder and want the status that goes along with white skin. Some so much so they're willing to date a 400 lb blob instead of an average or even successful Oriental man.

Both of the above are not healthy attitudes and it is a shame that liberals are trying to normalize such relations.
Maybe anyone that doesn't share your rather ridiculous viewpoints is a liberal.

GeistFaust
03-11-2012, 04:37 AM
I've seen it on occasion. One disheveled white guy who looked like he just woke up from a bad hangover with a mestiza who was very clean, and another white guy whose hair was so screwed up he looked like he had a grand mal seizure overnight and forgot to comb out with a panface.

I think it speaks volumes, though. As I said before, non-whites who date whites have lower standards of the kinds of people they're willing to date. You wouldn't see a clean-cut white woman with either of those men. You'd either see an equally trashy white woman or a clean non-white. They're about on par, apparently.



Non-Whites generally have lower standards about who they intermix with, but that does not mean they strive for higher standards. A lot of these black guys who walk around with that big gold chain and silver teeth think they are the real deal. In their mind they perceive themselves as the high standard, and are looking for some high class white-woman to get together with, but they usually have to settle for some low class slutty white-woman with no self-respect for herself.


Its relatively rare to see respectable women getting together with black men, and the over sexualization of women these days have made them much more vulnerable targets to a black man's way of seducing women. The superficial materialism and consumerism of the day has attracted women to more unnatural modes of perceiving and shaping their own beauty.


This reflects a shift in white women's mind that seems to subconsciously open itself to getting in relationships with non-white people. Through the study of the trends, styles, and fashions of white-women you can see that they are more vulnerable and susceptible to marrying non-white men.


The irony is that even though white women have cheapened their fashion style, a lot of non-white women are trying to look more white in some way. The reduction of white women to a cheaper and more superficial level has led to their becoming a competition between white women and non-white women. I think this also turns off white men to some degree, which makes them more susceptible to marrying with non-whites.

rhiannon
03-11-2012, 08:04 AM
Besides being overly aggressive at times, Israel is generally doing nothing wrong. There is nothing wrong with asking people to relocate a few dozen miles so that others can have a sovereign, stable homeland. We should be doing it ourselves.

But those people were there first:(

My stance on the whole issue is a two-state solution as the most stable option for all. It might even soften some of the Arab world's hatred for the US.

rhiannon
03-11-2012, 08:21 AM
This is the crux of the issue, I guess.

95%+ of white women want an intelligent, handsome male who can make a good father and/or provider. Completely agree with this. My husband meets all of these criteria:)



Black males fulfill none of those criteria.Most don't. This is a sad truth. Some black males....like Obama himself (though he is biracial, for our purposes you can think of him as black as he is married to a black woman and he identifies more as black) also fit this criteria.

It would be nice to have a situation in which all men were more like my husband....or Obama:thumb001: Both are devoted, loving husbands whose actions tend to reflect a sincere investment in their family's best interests.

Michelle Obama and I are both lucky women;) I'd like to see this be the case for ALL women and children:)

rhiannon
03-11-2012, 09:08 AM
I think any non-white man who get's a white female pregnant should be forced to marry her as punishment. Teach them some morals and that they can't get away with the hump and dump bullcrap.

Those morals should apply across the board, quite frankly. We have shitloads of deadbeat dads here in the States....and they ain't all black, lol

Moonbird
03-11-2012, 02:50 PM
Its called atavism. Ever heard of Sandra Laing? Both her parents were White, but she was born with Negroid features. The reason is because her parents, 300 or so years back had a black ancestor - so those Negroid genes resurfaced.


In the part of Finland where I live you can, not often, but sometimes see children with almost Mongoloid traits being born to Nordid looking parents. This is said to be a legacy from when Russia occupied the country in the 18th century. Lots of women were then raped by Russian soldiers. Many of these Russian soldiers located to Finland were said to be of Siberian origins and their Eastern traits are suddenly popping up despite them being hidden for generations.

That's one reason why I'm against race mixing because just one mixing seems to be able to influence your family for generations to come. :(

Joe McCarthy
03-11-2012, 03:01 PM
Strange that on a forum like this we have a vote count that is as close as it is. It's a little disturbing that people are averse to hard choices even when faced with the possibility of enacting relatively moderate policies like this which existed for centuries and were only very recently overthrown.

The Lawspeaker
03-11-2012, 03:05 PM
Strange that on a forum like this we have a vote count that is as close as it is. It's a little disturbing that people are averse to hard choices even when faced with the possibility of enacting relatively moderate policies like this which existed for centuries and were only very recently overthrown.
That's maybe because a lot of Europeans are adverse of totalitarianism. You don't seem to understand the European politische Lage or the mindset. Those that were in favour would get some very funny looks here in Europe.

zack
03-11-2012, 03:09 PM
Has sandra laing even been proven?

As far as i know throwbacks with black genes don't really happen because black genes are dominant.

Once the White Phenotype sets and no further mixing occurs then i don't think there can be any throwbacks.

Someone much smarter than me should be able to answer this question,but i don't think even if it happens it is very common.

I just personally think sandra laing as the product of a white whore fucking a black man and hiding it in a south Africa who was very 'racist' at the time.

Libertas
03-11-2012, 03:11 PM
That's maybe because a lot of Europeans are adverse of totalitarianism. You don't seem to understand the European politische Lage or the mindset. Those that were in favour would get some very funny looks here in Europe.

Yes WW2 marked the beginning of the end for European civilisation in every way.

Bloodeagle
03-11-2012, 03:12 PM
Interracial relationships make me want to vomit. There is nothing uglier, IMHO!

Having said that, I feel there is already too much government intrusion upon personal issues. If a person finds another race attractive, then that is their business, no matter how offensive it might look to others.

The Lawspeaker
03-11-2012, 03:12 PM
Yes WW2 marked the beginning of the end for European civilisation in every way.
No. That's your weird American idea. Europeans, in general, don't like totalitarianism. So: what is the danger ? Immigration. So that's what should be dealt with. So if America wants to go Nazi go ahead but it can go Nazi without us. Then we as free societies should arm ourselves to the teeth.

Mary
03-11-2012, 03:16 PM
No. That's your weird American idea. Europeans, in general, don't like totalitarianism. So: what is the danger ? Immigration. So that's what should be dealt with. So if America wants to go Nazi go ahead but it can go Nazi without us. Then we as free societies should arm ourselves to the teeth.

Europeans invented totalitarianism. America has aways been about personal freedom.

Look at some examples:

1st Amendment: Freedom of religion and right to free speech.
2nd Amendment: Right to keep and bear arms.

None of this exists in Europe even today. On the contrary you can go to prison for:

* Practicing your religion (France)
* Denying the holocau$t (Germany)
* Keeping weapons (UK)

The Lawspeaker
03-11-2012, 03:17 PM
Europeans invented totalitarianism. America has aways been about personal freedom.
You're not one of ours, gypsie troll. So don't even post here.

Lumi
03-11-2012, 03:17 PM
Why do you ask?
I do not care that much as I care between Croats and someone else
Its not on me to ban that marriage although I do not prefer marriages between nations

I ask because I'm from Scotland and I'm dating a guy who lives in Finland whom I intend to marry some day.

Incal
03-11-2012, 03:18 PM
Strange that on a forum like this we have a vote count that is as close as it is. It's a little disturbing that people are averse to hard choices even when faced with the possibility of enacting relatively moderate policies like this which existed for centuries and were only very recently overthrown.

LMAO Joe, this forum would be really boring without you.

Mary
03-11-2012, 03:20 PM
You're not one of ours, gypsie troll. So don't even post here.

Prove me wrong, gayboy.

The Lawspeaker
03-11-2012, 03:24 PM
On the contrary, you can go to prison for practicing your religion (France),
That's why France, despite of the separation between church and state is a mostly Catholic country. I wonder why the prisons aren't full of French then.


denying the holocau$t (Germany),
Yap.


and for keeping weapons (UK).
Err.. wrong. It is possible to own a weapon in the country (although restricted and it the laws are different per constituent country).

The Lawspeaker
03-11-2012, 03:25 PM
Prove me wrong, gayboy.
You come here with a burqa on. You post ridiculous threads and you want people to take you seriously. Haven't you got some whores to arrange for your "husband" like a good obedient Islamic wife ?

Supreme American
03-11-2012, 03:26 PM
In the part of Finland where I live you can, not often, but sometimes see children with almost Mongoloid traits being born to Nordid looking parents. This is said to be a legacy from when Russia occupied the country in the 18th century. Lots of women were then raped by Russian soldiers. Many of these Russian soldiers located to Finland were said to be of Siberian origins and their Eastern traits are suddenly popping up despite them being hidden for generations.

That's one reason why I'm against race mixing because just one mixing seems to be able to influence your family for generations to come. :(

I have a science professor who exhibits this. Apparently both of his parents are mostly white and part American Indian, both with jet black hair and dark eyes, yet he is a natural blonde with very light skin and light brown eyes. Turns out he has a great great grandfather who looks exactly like him.

Joe McCarthy
03-11-2012, 03:29 PM
That's maybe because a lot of Europeans are adverse of totalitarianism.

Again with this nonsense. If banning interracial marriage is 'totalitarian' so is banning gay marriage.

Of course, totalitarianism has a specific meaning that came into existence only in the twentieth century with the total surveillance state of fascism. In fact, Mussolini coined the word. An oppressive police state that governs all spheres of human activity is hardly comparable to denial of a marriage license, and it's typical of left-wing liars to associate any form of racialism, as you are doing, with jackbooted thugs.

The Lawspeaker
03-11-2012, 03:33 PM
Again with this nonsense. If banning interracial marriage is 'totalitarian' so is banning gay marriage.
To an extent, yes, that's indeed the legal issue. So it would have been easier if gay marriage was never legalised. But now that can't be revoked.


Of course, totalitarianism has a specific meaning that came into existence only in the twentieth century with the total surveillance state of fascism. In fact, Mussolini coined the word. An oppressive police state that governs all spheres of human activity is hardly comparable to denial of a marriage license, and it's typical of left-wing liars to associate any form of racialism, as you are doing, with jackbooted thugs.
Jew McCarthy shows yet again how much he understands about political feelings here. ABSOLUTELY FUCK ALL. So maybe you should stick to American politics, you little Nazi boy. It's not the denial of a marriage ban: it is the very fact that government can reach behind the close doors of the sanctity of the home.

But then again.. you are from a country where people even regulated what position had to be used in bed. ;) For most Europeans governments ENDS in the street - a dead end. Man.. so you should be surprised how libertarian those feelings are.

purple
03-11-2012, 03:34 PM
Interracial marriage is there because of media, I guess, media propaganda.:thumb001:

Mary
03-11-2012, 03:34 PM
That's why France, despite of the separation between church and state is a mostly Catholic country. I wonder why the prisons aren't full of French then.

France made a law banning the face veil. That would never happen in an Anglo country. Especially not in the US.


Yap.

Totalitarianism.


Err.. wrong. It is possible to own a weapon in the country (although restricted and it the laws are different per constituent country).

You can, in practice, only own firearms that are relatively ineffective as weapons. That is a regulation intended to disarm the citizens in relation to the government.

zack
03-11-2012, 03:34 PM
I have a science professor who exhibits this. Apparently both of his parents are mostly white and part American Indian, both with jet black hair and dark eyes, yet he is a natural blonde with very light skin and light brown eyes. Turns out he has a great great grandfather who looks exactly like him.

Blonde genes are recessive. I would say 90% of all throwbacks are white recessive genes showing up.

Are American Indian traits recessive too?

The Lawspeaker
03-11-2012, 03:36 PM
France made a law banning the face veil. That would never happen in an Anglo country. Especially not in the US.
Ooh wait: so that's your problem. Not the idea that someone walks around with a cloak over it's head that can easily rob a bank - not with the fate of some Christian. You are a Muslim, it shows.





You can in practice only own firearms that are relatively ineffective as weapons.
But you can own firearms.

Mary
03-11-2012, 03:36 PM
You come here with a burqa on. You post ridiculous threads and you want people to take you seriously. Haven't you got some whores to arrange for your "husband" like a good obedient Islamic wife ?

That has nothing to do with the topic.

The Lawspeaker
03-11-2012, 03:38 PM
That has nothing to do with the topic.
It has everything to do with it because I say so. You just come here to troll and sow disorder. So you get the treatment you deserve.

Supreme American
03-11-2012, 03:39 PM
Non-Whites generally have lower standards about who they intermix with, but that does not mean they strive for higher standards.

They do in the sense that I believe that's why they single out whites for dating. I have noticed a constant pattern that if a non-white person dates outside their race, over 90% of the time it's with a white person. They are purposely shunning other non-whites. Why? The only rational reason I could think of to explain this is their desire for a higher class racial upgrade.



A lot of these black guys who walk around with that big gold chain and silver teeth think they are the real deal. In their mind they perceive themselves as the high standard, and are looking for some high class white-woman to get together with, but they usually have to settle for some low class slutty white-woman with no self-respect for herself.

That's because there are basically 3 types of white females who are willing to go for blacks:

1) Liberal moonbats who think we're "equals" and that they're "just like us" and have had any semblance of racial self-love sucked out of their skulls.
2) Fat cows.
3) Drug addicts/whores.



Its relatively rare to see respectable women getting together with black men

See group 1 above.



This reflects a shift in white women's mind that seems to subconsciously open itself to getting in relationships with non-white people. Through the study of the trends, styles, and fashions of white-women you can see that they are more vulnerable and susceptible to marrying non-white men.

I think this is from leftwing politicization of white women. I heard off and on growing up how we have more in common with blacks than with white men because white men oppress us all. For a short time in my youth, I believed that crap. I don't even want to think of how many young white women are out there similarly poisoned.

The left has made a point of attacking white male/female relations as a way of undermining our cohesion and destroying our community.



The irony is that even though white women have cheapened their fashion style, a lot of non-white women are trying to look more white in some way.

Yeah - Younger white women try to come off as 'hood and 'hood bitches try to come off as lighter-skinned at the least. I've seen a number of college-age white girls who live on tanning beds and pluck their eyebrows like some Mexican gangbanger. Then you have the black females straightening their hair out of a phobia of nappy hairs, then you have Mexican and Oriental females putting brown shit in their hair trying to come off as brunettes.

The lot of these females are seriously screwed up and have racially-related self-acceptance issues.

I also believe that people who date outside their race - especially serially - have racial issues as well, either in the form of racial self-acceptance problems or racial-sexual fetishism.

Mary
03-11-2012, 03:42 PM
Ooh wait: so that's your problem. Not the idea that someone walks around with a cloak over it's head that can easily rob a bank - not with the fate of some Christian. You are a Muslim, it shows.

Irrelevant. The point is that France bans the free practice of religion.


But you can own firearms.

No, not in practice.

You can have:

* Break action shotguns
* Bolt actions
* Semi-auto in 22lr

You cannot have:

* Pistols
* Full/semi-auto in other calibers
* Pump/semi shotguns

I think there is a license to get these, but it's not given out in practice.

If you look at the sum total of the legislation, it deprives the people from the right to keep and bear arms to defend themselves against the government. That is a clear example of totalitarianism.

So the question is not whether Europe will be totalitarian. The question is who will control the state.

Joe McCarthy
03-11-2012, 03:42 PM
LMAO Joe, this forum would be really boring without you.

The radical policy is to allow interracial unions, particularly black and white ones, and was seen as such in the US until the 60s and in South Africa until even later.

Mary
03-11-2012, 03:44 PM
It has everything to do with it because I say so. You just come here to troll and sow disorder. So you get the treatment you deserve.

I don't care what you say. You're losing against a woman.

The Lawspeaker
03-11-2012, 03:44 PM
Irrelevant. The point is that France bans the free practice of religion.
It's not a practice of religion. It is a danger to public safety and that's why it was banned. Muslim women can wear the headscarve without a problem and go to the mosque and do whatever their religion tells them to do. Muslims are so oppressed in France that they can even block entire streets for prayer.




No, not in practice.

You can have:

* Break action shotguns
* Bolt actions
* Semi-auto in 22lr

You cannot have:

* Pistols
* Full/semi-auto in other calibers
* Pump/semi shotguns

I think there is a license to get these, but it's not given out in practice.

If you look at the sum total of the legislation, it deprives the people from the right to keep and bear arms to defend themselves against the government.
Maybe the problem wouldn't have been there if it hadn't been for the shootings. Gun problem is a real problem in England (not bad eh: for a disarmed society).

But yes.. you can legally own guns. Deal with it.

Lumi
03-11-2012, 03:45 PM
I don't care what you say. You're losing against a woman.


Get lost, lady.

purple
03-11-2012, 03:45 PM
Can you take seriously a ''Slav'' girl, with Jihad on her avatar, living in Sweden:D Nice try.

derLowe
03-11-2012, 03:48 PM
Irrelevant. The point is that France bans the free practice of religion.



No, not in practice.

You can have:

* Break action shotguns
* Bolt actions
* Semi-auto in 22lr

You cannot have:

* Pistols
* Full/semi-auto in other calibers
* Pump/semi shotguns

I think there is a license to get these, but it's not given out in practice.

If you look at the sum total of the legislation, it deprives the people from the right to keep and bear arms to defend themselves against the government. That is a clear example of totalitarianism.

So the question is not whether Europe will be totalitarian. The question is who will control the state.

With a sem auto .22lr you can kill allot of people. That goes for bolt action rifles and brake action shot guns. Hell even with a black powder pistol you can kill plenty of people, if you use it right.

Supreme American
03-11-2012, 03:51 PM
But those people were there first:(

My stance on the whole issue is a two-state solution as the most stable option for all. It might even soften some of the Arab world's hatred for the US.

Considering Arabic didn't even exist as a language (let alone an ethnic group) when the Jews inhabited the area, I have a hard time believing that.

Frankly, Muslims have shown a long historical pattern of not only not giving a damn about what others think about them to the point of serially abusing other religions (by order of Allah, less) and have made it part of their religion to spit in the faces of others. The site of the Dome of the Rock is a perfect example. Muslims have a long tradition of placing mosques atop the holy sites of other religions. If you want peaceful relations with others, you don't go around doing that.

In short, Muslims are basically assholes.

Also, they hold the lands from Morocco to Indonesia so they don't need Israel or the Territories. They have more than enough living space. Arab Muslims are not native to North Africa yet they aren't going anywhere.

The Lawspeaker
03-11-2012, 03:51 PM
And there is also not one UK gun law as Northern Ireland has it's own rules.

Mary
03-11-2012, 03:52 PM
It's not a practice of religion. It is a danger to public safety and that's why it was banned. Muslim women can wear the headscarve without a problem and go to the mosque and do whatever their religion tells them to do. Muslims are so oppressed in France that they can even block entire streets for prayer.

Irrelevant. It's an established religious practice that was banned by the French state. Americans are protected from that by their constitution, Europeans are not. That's an example of how European societies are naturally totalitarian. It's only a question of who will be in charge.


Maybe the problem wouldn't have been there if it hadn't been for the shootings. Gun problem is a real problem in England (not bad eh: for a disarmed society).

But yes.. you can legally own guns. Deal with it.

Again irrelevant. The point of an armed population is to resist "European behavior" by the government.

No, if you are restricted to inefficient weapons, then it doesn't count.

The Lawspeaker
03-11-2012, 03:53 PM
Considering Arabic didn't even exist as a language (let alone an ethnic group) when the Jews inhabited the area, I have a hard time believing that.

Frankly, Muslims have shown a long historical pattern of not only not giving a damn about what others think about them to the point of serially abusing other religions (by order of Allah, less) and have made it part of their religion to spit in the faces of others. The site of the Dome of the Rock is a perfect example. Muslims have a long tradition of placing mosques atop the holy sites of other religions. If you want peaceful relations with others, you don't go around doing that.

In short, Muslims are basically assholes.

Also, they hold the lands from Morocco to Indonesia so they don't need Israel or the Territories. They have more than enough living space.

They make up a story "Muhammad went up to heaven here" while they actually think " this is where the Jewish temple stood and where Jesus threw the money changers out of the temple. Let's take this place because it is a Christian and Jewish holy site".

Mary
03-11-2012, 03:53 PM
And there is also not one UK gun law as Northern Ireland has it's own rules.

Northern Ireland is an exception.

Magyar the Conqueror
03-11-2012, 03:54 PM
I bet Mary the Troll is well fed, after all the feeding she was given....

Mary
03-11-2012, 03:54 PM
With a sem auto .22lr you can kill allot of people. That goes for bolt action rifles and brake action shot guns. Hell even with a black powder pistol you can kill plenty of people, if you use it right.

You can kill people with a rock too. But you can't take on the government, which is the whole point of the 2nd Amendment. Just because we're allowed to have rocks doesn't mean we own weapons.

The Lawspeaker
03-11-2012, 03:55 PM
Irrelevant. It's an established religious practice that was banned by the French state. Americans are protected from that by their constitution, Europeans are not. That's an example of how European societies are naturally totalitarian. It's only a question of who will be in charge.
The burqa is not Islamic but a tribal thing. So here we are: yet again you have been rebuked. Muslims can pray in the street, wear their head scarves, build their mosques without any problems.




Again irrelevant. The point of an armed population is to resist "European behavior" by the government.
You are an idiot.


No, if you are restricted to inefficient weapons, then it doesn't count.
You have just been told that they are not ineffective. You have been rebuked and you can fuck off.

The Lawspeaker
03-11-2012, 03:56 PM
You can kill people with a rock too. But you can't take on the government, which is the whole point of the 2nd Amendment. Just because we're allowed to have rocks doesn't mean we own weapons.
The only reason why I too would not support it right now is because of the immigrants. Once they are gone (and you are gone) we can have a 2nd Amendment. But then again: one can have weapons in most European countries.

From the top of my head: Norway, Belgium, France, Finland, Switzerland, Austria, Germany, Czech Republic, the ex-Yugoslav countries, Italy and most of Eastern Europe. Northern Ireland.

The Netherlands too (but you have to be member of a shooting club and without any kind of previous mental health or criminal record).

And guess what the European Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#European_Union) says about it:


The 1991 Council Directive 91/477/EEC started the process of creating a new common legal system for gun owners in the EU, and introduced the European Firearms Pass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Firearms_Pass) for owners carrying firearms from one member state to another. In late 2007 the European Parliament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament) and Council adopted a legislative report to tighten gun control laws and establish an extensive firearms database.<sup id="cite_ref-EU-JURIST_21-0" class="reference">[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#cite_note-EU-JURIST-21)</sup> Passed with overwhelming backing, the tough new gun control rules were "hoped to prevent Europe from becoming a gun-friendly culture like the United States," in the words of the International Herald Tribune.<sup id="cite_ref-EU_International_Herald_Tribune_22-0" class="reference">[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#cite_note-EU_International_Herald_Tribune-22)</sup> Certain countries such as the United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom) are unaffected as they maintain more stringent gun control laws than those effectively set as a minimum by the European Union.
In 2008 the resulting EU Directive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_%28European_Union%29) 2008/51/EC provided the current common basis for national laws affecting hunters, target shooters and collectors, and member states were to have complied with it by 28 July 2010.<sup id="cite_ref-23" class="reference">[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#cite_note-23)</sup>

Mary
03-11-2012, 03:59 PM
The burqa is not Islamic but a tribal thing. So here we are: yet again you have been rebuked. Muslims can pray in the street, wear their head scarves, build their mosques without any problems.

It's an established religious practice. If you ban it, you're infringing on people's right to practice their religion as they see fit.


You are an idiot.

That is the point of the American 2nd Amendment.


You have just been told that they are not ineffective. You have been rebuked and you fuck off.

They are ineffective against government troops. The point is that the people should be armed at the same level as the government, so that the government cannot make laws that restrict their freedom of speech or their practice of religion, for example.

Lumi
03-11-2012, 04:01 PM
Civis, if you're on about countries in which you can own a gun, you missed out Sweden...

Supreme American
03-11-2012, 04:01 PM
Interracial marriage is there because of media, I guess, media propaganda.:thumb001:

It has certainly increased in general correlation with the media's endless attempts to normalize alternative lifestyles.

The Lawspeaker
03-11-2012, 04:02 PM
It's an established religious practice. If you ban it, you're infringing on people's right to practice their religion as they see fit.
It's not a religious practice.







They are ineffective against government troops. The point is that the people should be armed at the same level as the government, so that the government cannot make laws that restrict their freedom of speech or their practice of religion, for example.
So people should have nukes and tanks and all that. O.K.. you're complete ridiculous. Don't bother.

Magyar the Conqueror
03-11-2012, 04:03 PM
They are ineffective against government troops. The point is that the people should be armed at the same level as the government, so that the government cannot make laws that restrict their freedom of speech or their practice of religion, for example.

I can see the logic in this....

The Lawspeaker
03-11-2012, 04:03 PM
Civis, if you're on about countries in which you can own a gun, you missed out Sweden...
Sorry.. I forgot Sweden. I wouldn't be surprised if Luxembourg was included in that list.

Hmm British gun politics are very much unique in Europe.

derLowe
03-11-2012, 04:03 PM
You can kill people with a rock too. But you can't take on the government, which is the whole point of the 2nd Amendment. Just because we're allowed to have rocks doesn't mean we own weapons.

And what will you do against government tanks, buy a panzerfaust or RPG? What will you do when they send aircraft, buy a AA battery to take it out?

rhiannon
03-11-2012, 04:04 PM
Considering Arabic didn't even exist as a language (let alone an ethnic group) when the Jews inhabited the area, I have a hard time believing that.

Frankly, Muslims have shown a long historical pattern of not only not giving a damn about what others think about them to the point of serially abusing other religions (by order of Allah, less) and have made it part of their religion to spit in the faces of others. The site of the Dome of the Rock is a perfect example. Muslims have a long tradition of placing mosques atop the holy sites of other religions. If you want peaceful relations with others, you don't go around doing that.

In short, Muslims are basically assholes.

Also, they hold the lands from Morocco to Indonesia so they don't need Israel or the Territories. They have more than enough living space. Arab Muslims are not native to North Africa yet they aren't going anywhere.

I don't base my opinions on any religious doctrine about who that land should go to. Many pro-Israel supporters do.

While some Jews indeed inhabited the region prior to Israel's statehood, by far and large, the region was mostly made up of those who call themselves Palestinians....some of which were Christian and Jewish as well as Muslim.

I just don't agree with the notion of going into a land and booting the people living there....OUT. It's basically the same shit as what was done to the Indians here (the US).

Why the hell couldn't the people who were there have been left alone? I am not saying that the Jews had no right to make that their homeland....but I am of the frame of mind that you (general you) ought give a modicum level of respect and deference to the people that were already living there.

I cannot help but wonder if that had been the case that perhaps there'd be less fighting in the Middle East? That maybe there'd have been no impetus for the US to send Israel skads of money we could certainly use elsewhere?

:shrug:

Mary
03-11-2012, 04:04 PM
The only reason why I too would not support it right now is because of the immigrants. Once they are gone (and you are gone) we can have a 2nd Amendment. But then again: one can have weapons in most European countries.

From the top of my head: Norway, Belgium, Finland, Switzerland, Austria, Germany, the ex-Yugoslav countries and most of Eastern Europe. Northern Ireland.

The Netherlands too (but you have to be member of a shooting club and without any kind of previous mental health or criminal record).

And guess what the European Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#European_Union) says about it:

1) If you don't intend to oppress anyone else, then you wouldn't care if they're armed or not.

2) As a rule (there are exceptions of course), you can't have full auto, what the US calls "destructive devices", etc. Again, if your government doesn't intend to repress you, then why would they mind?

3) The point of the US constitution is to limit the ability of the government to repress the citizens. Europe doesn't have that tradition. The point here is to make it easier for the government to rule over the populations.

rhiannon
03-11-2012, 04:05 PM
They make up a story "Muhammad went up to heaven here" while they actually think " this is where the Jewish temple stood and where Jesus threw the money changers out of the temple. Let's take this place because it is a Christian and Jewish holy site".

This could well be possible also.

Lumi
03-11-2012, 04:06 PM
Yeah, because arming people with guns is really going to solve our problems. /sarcasm

The Lawspeaker
03-11-2012, 04:07 PM
1) If you don't intend to oppress anyone else, then you wouldn't care if they're armed or not.
I just showed you that European governments in general don't give a shit. For instance in Britain strong gun laws were introduced after school shootings BECAUSE THE PUBLIC WANTED IT.


2) As a rule, you can't have full auto, what the US calls "destructive devices", etc. Again, if your government doesn't intend to repress you, then why would they mind?
Because people here wouldn't want a Wild West. I remember that this guy that shot up a shopping centre in Alphen a/d Rijn had a full automatic rifle. He killed scores of people down there before it could be stopped.


3) The point of the US constitution is to limit the ability of the government to repress the citizens. Europe doesn't have that tradition. The point here is to make it easier for the government to rule over the populations.
That's why they have the Patriot Act and all that.

Mary
03-11-2012, 04:08 PM
It's not a religious practice.

Yes, it is. There are lots of countries where this is practiced. In Saudi it's even mandatory.


So people should have nukes and tanks and all that. O.K.. you're complete ridiculous. Don't bother.

I'm not sure what the rules for tanks are (I think the ammo is restricted). But can own the actual vehicle almost anywhere.

Nukes are obviously a special case.

Mary
03-11-2012, 04:10 PM
And what will you do against government tanks, buy a panzerfaust or RPG? What will you do when they send aircraft, buy a AA battery to take it out?

You make an EFP. Google it.

Aircraft are obviously a different story. But I guess you could target the airbase with mortars.

The Lawspeaker
03-11-2012, 04:10 PM
Yes, it is. There are lots of countries where this is practiced. In Saudi it's even mandatory.
Saudi's are nuts anyway.




I'm not sure what the rules for tanks are (I think the ammo is restricted). But can own the actual vehicle almost anywhere.
Which is stupid because these things need special drivers in order not to wreck stuff out on the road.


Nukes are obviously a special case.
While they shouldn't be, right. Hey.. after all the citizenry should have the same weapons as their government . :wink

Stupid cow.

Baron Samedi
03-11-2012, 04:11 PM
Disgusting thread.

Mary
03-11-2012, 04:14 PM
I just showed you that European governments in general don't give a shit. For instance in Britain strong gun laws were introduced after school shootings BECAUSE THE PUBLIC WANTED IT.

It's about either of these principles:

* The government and the people are equal (America)
* The government holds absolute power of the citizens (European totalitarianism)


Because people here wouldn't want a Wild West. I remember that this guy that shot up a shopping centre in Alphen a/d Rijn had a full automatic rifle. He killed scores of people down there before it could be stopped.

They don't ban guns in the US when something like that happens.


That's why they have the Patriot Act and all that.

There's still a limit to the power that the government can exercise over the people. In Europe there is no such limit.

Sikeliot
03-11-2012, 04:15 PM
I say no. Even if certain pairings irk me to see, I think you should be able to marry whoever you want.

derLowe
03-11-2012, 04:16 PM
You make an EFP. Google it.

Aircraft are obviously a different story. But I guess you could target the airbase with mortars.

O.K. and whats your answer to ICBM's and orbital weapons?

Mortimer
03-11-2012, 04:16 PM
The radical policy is to allow interracial unions, particularly black and white ones, and was seen as such in the US until the 60s and in South Africa until even later.

So you want to persecute interracial couples like criminals?

The Lawspeaker
03-11-2012, 04:16 PM
It's about either of these principles:

* The government and the people are equal (America)
* The government holds absolute power of the citizens (European totalitarianism)
LOL. That fantasy. Try telling that to Europeans here. Particularly the Swiss and see what happens to you. I think that the difference between the American system and the European system has always been one of trust. Here we used to elect the governments trusting them to do things right in accordance to the constitution and all statutes. In America they are already afraid before the elections.




They don't ban guns in the US when something like that happens.
Consequently the police will have to go into every situation with their guns drawn. Here when the police has to draw it's weapons it's in the news for days.




There's still a limit to the power that the government can exercise over the people. In Europe there is no such limit.
There isn't in America. That's why people are so frightened over there that it will be a police state.

Mary
03-11-2012, 04:17 PM
Saudi's are nuts anyway.

Doesn't matter what you think personally. It's about the principle of religious freedom.


Which is stupid because these things need special drivers in order not to wreck stuff out on the road.

You're not allowed to drive it on the road. But if you can have one if you want one.


While they shouldn't be, right. Hey.. after all the citizenry should have the same weapons as their government . :wink

Stupid cow.

Nukes are a separate class of weapons even among governments. It doesn't invalidate the principle of equality of arms between the government and the people.

Lumi
03-11-2012, 04:17 PM
This topic has gone way off the rails.
Mary, shut up and leave, and take you stupid opinions with you.

Mary
03-11-2012, 04:18 PM
O.K. and whats your answer to ICBM's and orbital weapons?

Move out of the way? You can only fire ICBM:s at fixed targets anyway.

Lumi
03-11-2012, 04:20 PM
Mary, leave or I'll report your ass.

The Lawspeaker
03-11-2012, 04:21 PM
Doesn't matter what you think personally. It's about the principle of religious freedom.
It has nothing to do with religion and that's why it was banned: safety hazard.




You're not allowed to drive it on the road. But if you can have one if you want one.
Ah what about Europe: check (http://www.tanks-alot.co.uk/galleries/gallery27/). ;) This is Britain btw. I remember seeing that weird thing once in a program years back.






Nukes are a separate class of weapons even among governments. It doesn't invalidate the principle of equality of arms between the government and the people.
It shouldn't be. It's a violation of the right to bear arms and a clear sign of tyranny from the government over it's citizens. :wink

Sikeliot
03-11-2012, 04:22 PM
Mary is entitled to her opinion, so long as she presents it respectfully.

Joe McCarthy
03-11-2012, 04:22 PM
So you want to persecute interracial couples like criminals?

In some form interracial marriage was illegal in this country from 1661-1967. Interracial couples were simply denied a marriage license just as gay couples are.

Now I ask: what is so awful about that?

Mortimer
03-11-2012, 04:23 PM
a question to joe mccarthy: do you outlaw interracial marriage only or do you outlaw any kind of interracial relationships between whites and non-whites or even between all the races?

The Lawspeaker
03-11-2012, 04:23 PM
In some form interracial marriage was illegal in this country from 1661-1967. Interracial couples were simply denied a marriage license.

Now I ask: what is so awful about that?
You can keep that system to yourself then. :thumb001: We will just kindly remove the label: land of the free.

Mary
03-11-2012, 04:23 PM
LOL. That fantasy. Try telling that to Europeans here. Particularly the Swiss and see what happens to you. I think that the difference between the American system and the European system has always been one of trust. Here we used to elect the governments trusting them to do things right in accordance to the constitution and all statutes. In America they are already afraid before the elections.

Does that trust extend to not violating people's right to:

* Freedom of speech
* Freedom of religion
* Life and liberty

Obviously, a European government can, and will, violate these promises at will with no consequence.


There isn't in America. That's why people are so frightened over there that it will be a police state.

In practice the US government doesn't have enough soldiers to keep the whole population down. In Europe that works because Europeans are unarmed.

Bardamu
03-11-2012, 04:26 PM
The social aversion to interracial marriage was much stronger in places like 17th century colonial Virginia and Maryland than it is today yet it was still felt laws were needed to ban marriages between whites and blacks. Why do you suppose that was?

Social aversion is key not legal sanctions against. To keep a valuable sub-species intact what is needed are separate breeding territories more so than anti-miscegenation laws. For instance, if a white woman wants to marry a black she should be allowed to, in Africa, or Haiti.

The Lawspeaker
03-11-2012, 04:28 PM
Does that trust extend to not violating people's right to:

* Freedom of speech
* Freedom of religion
* Life and liberty
Freedom of speech (yes that's indeed an issue. I give you that one). Freedom of religion: fully covered. Life and liberty: we don't have the death penalty here in Europe as it is also banned and is on the death penalty is enshrined in both the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (EU) and the European Convention on Human Rights of the Council of Europe.

Liberty covered as well. Hell the Dutch may even be too liberal there as our Constitution literary says this:

Allen die zich in Nederland bevinden, worden in gelijke gevallen gelijk behandeld.

All that are present in the Netherlands are treated in equal measure.





Obviously, a European government can, and will, violate these promises at will with no consequence.
Bullshit.




In practice the US government doesn't have enough soldiers to keep the whole population down. In Europe that works because Europeans are unarmed.
Bullshit. That's why they only have to send the tanks down. And America can quash it's own population and it actually has before. Just look at American history. I am not even going to help you.

Mary
03-11-2012, 04:28 PM
It has nothing to do with religion and that's why it was banned: safety hazard.

It's worn only because of religion. There's no other reason. In either case, freedom of religion takes precedent over safety concerns, because freedom of religion is supposed to be a fundamental right.


Ah what about Europe: check (http://www.tanks-alot.co.uk/galleries/gallery27/). ;) This is Britain btw. I remember seeing that weird thing once in a program years back.

You can have the vehicle. But you can't have a functioning cannon. It's no more useful than a truck.


It shouldn't be. It's a violation of the right to bear arms and a clear sign of tyranny from the government over it's citizens. :wink

Again, nukes are an exception.

Mortimer
03-11-2012, 04:28 PM
In some form interracial marriage was illegal in this country from 1661-1967. Interracial couples were simply denied a marriage license just as gay couples are.

Now I ask: what is so awful about that?

at some point there was slavery as well in the US and women werent allowed to vote

Supreme American
03-11-2012, 04:29 PM
I just don't agree with the notion of going into a land and booting the people living there....OUT. It's basically the same shit as what was done to the Indians here (the US).

It's not necessarily a moral wrong. There are times when two cultures are not only so antagonistic but also so incompatible that separation is the only way to maintain peace.

For example, my mother and her family were expelled from Yugoslavia in 1945 for the sole reason they were ethnic Germans. Tito enacted laws stripping the ethnic German minority of all rights, property, and citizenship. The German military evacuated many of them ahead of the Red Army advance because the Red Army would rape and massacre many of those ethnic German villages they came across as they moved along. My mother's family only took what they could carry with them into their trek to Austria. Ethnic Germans left behind in my mother's country were at best put into concentration camps. Others filled mass graves. Others were shipped to the USSR to work in the coal mines (Stalin apparently had a slave labor quota).
Do us descendants build bombs, blow up buses, and hijack aircraft over it? Gimme a break. One of my uncles opened an upholstery shop and the other invested in apartment buildings. They never posed their children for photos like this:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_fnVStWcA3Ts/SXC0Nob7R7I/AAAAAAAAAQE/RYcTL6uQqrk/s400/hamas8.jpg http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rDddZ4Aqj2A/Tuj-NTXYi4I/AAAAAAAAFpo/UR_Mo9rW2a0/s640/hamasrally2.jpg

As part of the Potsdam Agreement, upwards of 16,000,000 ethnic Germans were expelled from lands they lived on upward 1,000 years back into Germany and Austria for the purpose of ethnic and political stability as well as frankly spoils of war. Ethnic Germans such as my mother's family may not have liked what happened, but they moved on with their lives as normal, healthy adults rather than have successive generations of kids they stoked hostility into from the cradle and strapped bomb belts to them as teenagers. Palestinians, or whatever you want to call them, have a frankly unhealthy and grotesque culture and they wonder why they're pariahs?

Sometimes in life some things are more important than bitching over who lived where and when.

The Lawspeaker
03-11-2012, 04:30 PM
It's worn only because of religion. There's no other reason. In either case, freedom of religion takes precedent over safety concerns, because freedom of religion is supposed to be a fundamental right.
It's not religion. A Muslim can wear a head scarve. It's just with the burqa you can rob banks. Not just the burqa was banned by the way but also wearing covered helmets inside buildings or wearing ski masks.




You can have the vehicle. But you can't have a functioning cannon. It's no more useful than a truck.
And rightfully so. Have you ever seen a tank go off ? And the damage it can do to a building. Suppose that someone pushes the wrong button. You don't really want to think about that.




Again, nukes are an exception.
You're pro tyranny !!!!!1

Joe McCarthy
03-11-2012, 04:31 PM
a question to joe mccarthy: do you outlaw interracial marriage only or do you outlaw any kind of interracial relationships between whites and non-whites or even between all the races?

This poll only deals with outlawing interracial marriage which requires no policing but only denial of a marriage license. Outlawing interracial sex itself is a more cumbersome matter requiring a lot of police activity, but it has been enacted, perhaps most notably in South Africa's Immorality Act.

Joe McCarthy
03-11-2012, 04:34 PM
at some point there was slavery as well in the US and women werent allowed to vote

I don't equate owning people with the denial of a marriage license. I'm sorry.

Mary
03-11-2012, 04:35 PM
Freedom of speech (yes that's indeed an issue. I give you that one). Freedom of religion: fully covered. Life and liberty: we don't have the death penalty here in Europe as it is also banned and is on the death penalty is enshrined in both the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (EU) and the European Convention on Human Rights of the Council of Europe.

Liberty covered as well. Hell the Dutch may even be too liberal there as our Constitution literary says this:

Allen die zich in Nederland bevinden, worden in gelijke gevallen gelijk behandeld.

All that are present in the Netherlands are treated in equal measure.

1) Freedom of religion: France, Belgium, Holland, Italy banned the burqa. Switzerland banned minarets.

2) Life and liberty: the right to this is meaningless without the ability of the individual to protect it. (gun laws again)

3) Nevertheless the Netherlands banned the burqa. So obviously some people are more equal than other, no?


Bullshit.

See above.


Bullshit. That's why they only have to send the tanks down. And America can quash it's own population and it actually has before. Just look at American history. I am not even going to help you.

Tanks are dependent on fuel. And tankers have to leave their vehicles eventually.

You can also build one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_formed_penetrator

Meanwhile in Europe, the police can kick down your door and put you on a plane to Afghanistan or Egypt and there's nothing you can do about it.

Supreme American
03-11-2012, 04:35 PM
This could well be possible also.

Muslims are like the Borg. The first thing belonging to another religion that they hijacked for Islam is the Qibla. If they don't convert other holy sites to Islam, they wreck them and build a Muslim place instead.

This link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_non-Muslim_places_of_worship_into_mosques) has a quotation from a book that reads,


The destruction of Hindu temples in India during the Islamic conquest of India occurred from the beginning of Muslim conquest until the end the Mughal Empire throughout the Indian subcontinent.

In his book "Hindu Temples - What Happened to Them", Sita Ram Goel included a list of 2000 mosques that it is claimed were built on Hindu temples.[7] The second volume of the book excerpts from medieval histories and chronicles and from inscriptions concerning the destruction of Hindu, Jain and Buddhist temples.

To this day, Muslims in south Asia are hostile to Hindus, sometimes to the point of murder.

The Palestinians can claim a desire for co-existence, but the Muslim track record of disrespect and desecration says otherwise. Can others really live peacefully in the same nation with people that act like this? If by chance Muslims were the majority in Israel and converted the whole area to an Islamic state, non-Muslims in an Islamic state are 2nd class citizens at best.

Aiur
03-11-2012, 04:37 PM
Of one thing i'm sure : it should be illegal

rhiannon
03-11-2012, 04:38 PM
It's not necessarily a moral wrong. There are times when two cultures are not only so antagonistic but also so incompatible that separation is the only way to maintain peace.

Two-state solution would do just that:D Of course, both would have to be sovereign states that signed some sort of treaty to stay the hell out of each's others beeswax, LOL!

Mary
03-11-2012, 04:39 PM
It's not religion. A Muslim can wear a head scarve. It's just with the burqa you can rob banks. Not just the burqa was banned by the way but also wearing covered helmets inside buildings or wearing ski masks.

It's not your decision what they can and can't wear to practice their religion. It's their decision since it's their religion.


And rightfully so. Have you ever seen a tank go off ? And the damage it can do to a building. Suppose that someone pushes the wrong button. You don't really want to think about that.

If you don't feel confident being around a tank, then obviously you shouldn't do so. But your personal insecurity or incompetence should not stop others from pursuing their interests.

Mortimer
03-11-2012, 04:39 PM
I don't equate owning people with the denial of a marriage license. I'm sorry.

ok.i dont either.it was just example what has changed. but it would degrade the existing interracial couples as second class citizens. it will also lead to more discrimination of mixed race people as "bastards".

2Cool
03-11-2012, 04:40 PM
1) Freedom of religion: France, Belgium, Holland, Italy banned the burqa. Switzerland banned minarets.

2) Life and liberty: the right to this is meaningless without the ability of the individual to protect it. (gun laws again)

3) Nevertheless the Netherlands banned the burqa. So obviously some people are more equal than other, no?



See above.



Tanks are dependent on fuel. And tankers have to leave their vehicles eventually.

You can also build one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_formed_penetrator

Meanwhile in Europe, the police can kick down your door and put you on a plane to Afghanistan or Egypt and there's nothing you can do about it.

How is the burqa = a person?

Do you mean that some cultures are superiors to others? Because that's obviously true. But the banning of the burqa is stupid not because of freedom of religion but because it fails at doing what it claims to do.

Joe McCarthy
03-11-2012, 04:40 PM
You can keep that system to yourself then. :thumb001: We will just kindly remove the label: land of the free.

America was dubbed the land of the free when it was illegal to marry niggers, another dude, your cousin, or farm animals. We now allow marrying niggers and we're getting to the fags marrying part. Surely we won't be truly free until you can marry your uncle or wed porky in the barnyard. :rolleyes:

The Lawspeaker
03-11-2012, 04:40 PM
1) Freedom of religion: France, Belgium, Holland, Italy banned the burqa. Switzerland banned minarets.
The burqa was banned as it is not related to religion but just a safety hazard. I have told you that and keep on talking about it.

So if Muslims would build that eye sore like a church then there would be no problem. It was done by means of a referendum btw: that's the difference between a democracy (European countries) and a constitutional republic (United States) but that's too difficult for you.


2) Life and liberty: the right to this is meaningless without the ability of the individual to protect it. (gun laws again)
Which is perfectly well arranged in most European countries. You keep on getting your arse kicked lol.


3) Nevertheless the Netherlands banned the burqa. So obviously some people are more equal than other, no?
For the same reasons that you fail to address: people can wear the headscarf but not the burqa. People cannot wear ski masks either.



Meanwhile in Europe, the police can kick down your door and put you on a plane to Afghanistan or Egypt and there's nothing you can do about it.
So that's why it only happened to Americans. Fuck off. Or to foreigners at America's request. No European has been arrested and dragged off to a prison camp somewhere.

Mary
03-11-2012, 04:41 PM
How is the burqa = a person?

Do you mean that some cultures are superiors to others? Because that's obviously true. But the banning of the burqa is stupid not because of freedom of religion but because it fails at doing what it claims to do.

I don't understand.

The Lawspeaker
03-11-2012, 04:42 PM
America was dubbed the land of the free when it was illegal to marry niggers, another dude, your cousin, or farm animals. We now allow marrying niggers and we're getting to the fags marrying part. Surely we won't be truly free until you can marry your uncle or wed porky in the barnyard. :rolleyes:
America has never been a land of the free anyway. Switzerland came much closer to that.

Mortimer
03-11-2012, 04:44 PM
My take on this. I dont view interracial marriage as positve nor as negative, im neutral about it, In the Past it was possible to outlaw it but the World has changed so much and we have now a status quo which should be dealt with carefully.

Question: Is interracial marriage outlawed in any country of the world?

The Lawspeaker
03-11-2012, 04:46 PM
Question: Is interracial marriage outlawed in any country of the world?
Saudi Arabia.. but only for women.

Mortimer
03-11-2012, 04:47 PM
America was dubbed the land of the free when it was illegal to marry niggers, another dude, your cousin, or farm animals. We now allow marrying niggers and we're getting to the fags marrying part. Surely we won't be truly free until you can marry your uncle or wed porky in the barnyard. :rolleyes:

I think Racial Laws shouldnt be equated with gay marriage or even bestiality. Also racial laws were always kinda dubious while in america it wasnt illegal to marry a jew, it was illegal and even death worthy in germany.

The Lawspeaker
03-11-2012, 04:47 PM
Two-state solution would do just that:D Of course, both would have to be sovereign states that signed some sort of treaty to stay the hell out of each's others beeswax, LOL!
Two-state solution sounds nice but neither one of them will respect it.

Aiur
03-11-2012, 04:49 PM
America was dubbed the land of the free when it was illegal to marry niggers, another dude, your cousin, or farm animals. We now allow marrying niggers and we're getting to the fags marrying part. Surely we won't be truly free until you can marry your uncle or wed porky in the barnyard. :rolleyes:

So freakin fuc.ek up :/

Mortimer
03-11-2012, 04:50 PM
Saudi Arabia.. but only for women.

you are right even. thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws#Saudi_Arabia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperation_Council_for_the_Arab_States_of_the_Gul f

its kinda weird since men produce equally mixed race offspring as women. but i think its more about controlling the women and jealousy of the foreigner.

Mary
03-11-2012, 04:50 PM
The burqa was banned as it is not related to religion but just a safety hazard. I have told you that and keep on talking about it.

So if Muslims would build that eye sore like a church then there would be no problem. It was done by means of a referendum btw: that's the difference between a democracy (European countries) and a constitutional republic (United States) but that's too difficult for you.

1) Religion goes before safety.

2) In any rights based state (regardless of democracy or republic) there are provisions there are provisions to protect individuals rights. So that no one can abuse the system.


Which is perfectly well arranged in most European countries. You keep on getting your arse kicked lol.

Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Tom_ap_Rhys_Pryce


For the same reasons that you fail to address: people can wear the headscarf but not the burqa. People cannot wear ski masks either.

It's not relevant. If it's your religion, you're free to practice it however you want. No one should be able to tell you what you can and can't believe in.


So that's why it only happened to Americans. Fuck off. Or to foreigners at America's request. No European has been arrested and dragged off to a prison camp somewhere.

You don't say?


Khalid El-Masri (also Khaled El-Masri[1] and Khaled Masri,[2] Levantine Arabic pronunciation: [ˈxaːlɪd elˈmɑsˤri, -ˈmɑsˤre]) (born June 29, 1963) is a German citizen who was kidnapped in the Republic of Macedonia,[3] flown to Afghanistan, allegedly beaten, stripped, raped,[4] and interrogated and tortured by the CIA for several months as a part of the War on Terror, and then released. His erroneous rendition was apparently due to a misunderstanding that arose concerning the similarity of the spelling of El-Masri's name with the spelling of suspected terrorist al-Masri[5] (the names are spelled the same way when using Arabic script).

El-Masri was born in Kuwait to Lebanese parents. He grew up in Lebanon. He based his application for asylum on his membership in the Islamic Unification Movement.[6] He was granted asylum, and in 1994 he obtained German citizenship through previous marriage with a German woman. In 1996, he married a fellow Lebanese and has several children.[1]
El-Masri travelled from his home in Ulm to go on vacation in Skopje at the end of 2003. He was detained by Macedonian border officials on December 31, 2003, because his name was identical (except for variations in Roman transliteration) to that of Khalid al-Masri, an alleged mentor to the al-Qaeda Hamburg cell who has not been apprehended, and because of suspicion that his German passport was a forgery. He was held in a motel in Macedonia for over three weeks and questioned about his activities, his associates, and the mosque he attended in Ulm.

The Macedonian authorities also contacted the local CIA station, who in turn contacted the agency's headquarters in Langley, Virginia. A December 4, 2005, article in the Washington Post said that an argument arose within the CIA over whether they should remove him from Macedonia in an extraordinary rendition. The decision to do so was made by the head of the al Qaeda division of the CIA's Counter-terrorism Center on the basis of a hunch he was involved in terrorism.[7] The local authorities released him on January 23, 2004 and American security officials, described in an MSNBC article as members of a "black snatch team", came to Skopje, and detained him. El-Masri alleges that they beat him, stripped him naked, drugged him, and gave him an enema. He was then dressed in a diaper and a jumpsuit, and flown to Baghdad, then immediately to "the salt pit", a covert CIA interrogation center in Afghanistan which contained prisoners from Pakistan, Tanzania, Yemen and Saudi Arabia.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri

The Lawspeaker
03-11-2012, 04:51 PM
you are right even. thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws#Saudi_Arabia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperation_Council_for_the_Arab_States_of_the_Gul f

its kinda weird since men produce equally mixed race offspring as women. but i think its more about controlling the women and jealousy of the foreigner.
Exactly. It's another dose of Arab hypocrisy. Just like miscegenation laws would now be a sign of jealousy and hypocrisy because some WN freaks can't get laid.

Incal
03-11-2012, 04:52 PM
The radical policy is to allow interracial unions, particularly black and white ones, and was seen as such in the US until the 60s and in South Africa until even later.

Radical policy would be to FORCE interracial unions. And I don't count the media, if white people is too dumb to do whatever the media tells them to do, then I guess the white race is not as superior as we used to think.

rhiannon
03-11-2012, 04:55 PM
For example, my mother and her family were expelled from Yugoslavia in 1945 for the sole reason they were ethnic Germans. Tito enacted laws stripping the ethnic German minority of all rights, property, and citizenship. The German military evacuated many of them ahead of the Red Army advance because the Red Army would rape and massacre many of those ethnic German villages they came across as they moved along. My mother's family only took what they could carry with them into their trek to Austria. Ethnic Germans left behind in my mother's country were at best put into concentration camps. Others filled mass graves. Others were shipped to the USSR to work in the coal mines (Stalin apparently had a slave labor quota).
Do us descendants build bombs, blow up buses, and hijack aircraft over it? Gimme a break. One of my uncles opened an upholstery shop and the other invested in apartment buildings. They never posed their children for photos like this:
My sincere condolences extend to your mother and her family for having to endure such horrific abuse:( Perhaps this is why she tried to teach you to be accepting of those different from you? You mentioned that in a post recently:)

Not all people respond to the same abuse or maltreatment in the same way, however. If they did, then all children that were abused would grow up to become serial killers...or not.

People are different, and some cultures place higher value on fighting for their honor, for example. Many Palestinians can't let the wrongs of the past, rest. Plus, the Israelis continue to fight them, despite the fact they have this HUGE fucking army, while the Palestinians have what....homemade bombs?

Personally, all the warmongering assholes over there can sod off. If you know anything about me by now, you likely know that I am speaking of the Palestinians and Israelis who are innocent bystanders and want NO part of this bullshit. They deserve a peaceful land to call home.

Regarding the pics:
Both the Israelis and the Palestinians are known to use children as human shields, also:mad::mad:


Palestinians, or whatever you want to call them, have a frankly unhealthy and grotesque culture and they wonder why they're pariahs? You realize that many Palestinians are not Muslim, right? I choose to stay out of the whole religious aspect of all of it....and regardless of whether you or I like their culture, I am sure you and I can agree on the fact that if some jackass just showed up at your door to boot you OUT on your ass so some other douchebags could move in?
You'd fight back.
So would I.
:wink

The Lawspeaker
03-11-2012, 04:55 PM
1) Religion goes before safety.

2) In any rights based state (regardless of democracy or republic) there are provisions there are provisions to protect individuals rights. So that no one can abuse the system.
Safety goes before religion. That's why sects are banned here and in a lot of cases in the United States. That's why Jim Jones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones) went to Guyana.




Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Tom_ap_Rhys_Pryce
One ill fitting example does not make a rule.





It's not relevant. If it's your religion, you're free to practice it however you want. No one should be able to tell you what you can and can't believe in.
Within reason. Muslims are not oppressed here in Europe and if you feel oppressed why don't you fuck off to the desert ? :cool:



You don't say?




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri


El-Masri travelled from his home in Ulm to go on vacation in Skopje at the end of 2003. He was detained by Macedonian border officials on December 31, 2003, because his name was identical (except for variations in Roman transliteration) to that of Khalid al-Masri, an alleged mentor to the al-Qaeda Hamburg cell who has not been apprehended, and because of suspicion that his German passport was a forgery. He was held in a motel in Macedonia for over three weeks and questioned about his activities, his associates, and the mosque he attended in Ulm.

Fraudelent passport and a member of a terrorist organisation. No further questions.

rhiannon
03-11-2012, 04:55 PM
Two-state solution sounds nice but neither one of them will respect it.

Yes, this may also be true, sad to say:(

CelticViking
03-11-2012, 04:55 PM
The first thing belonging to another religion that they hijacked for Islam is the Qibla.

Jews do that with culture.

WAGNER, RICHARD. 19th century German composer.
"The Jew has never had an art of his own, hence never a live of art-enabling import... "So long as the separate art of music had a real organic life-need in it, down to the epochs of Mozart and Beethoven, there was nowhere to be found a Jew composer: it was utterly impossible for an element quiet foreign to that living organism to take a part in the formative stages of that life. Only when a body's inner death is manifest, do outside elements win the power of judgment in it - yet merely to destroy it.
On one thing am I clear: that is the influence which the Jews have gained upon our mental life, as displayed in the deflection and falsification of our highest culture-tendencies. Whether the downfall of our culture can be arrested by a violent rejection of the destructive alien element, I an unable to decide, since that would require forces with whose existence I am unacquainted. (Judaism in Music)



The Palestinians can claim a desire for co-existence, but the Muslim track record of disrespect and desecration says otherwise. Can others really live peacefully in the same nation with people that act like this? If by chance Muslims were the majority in Israel and converted the whole area to an Islamic state, non-Muslims in an Islamic state are 2nd class citizens at best.


They are both Semitic people anyway, no matter what they believe in.



ERNEST RENAN, French historian
"The Jews are not merely a different religious community, but - and this is the most important factor - ethnically an altogether different race. The European felt instinctively that the Jew is a stranger, who immigrated from Asia. The so-called prejudice is natural sentiment. Civilization will overcome antipathy against the Israelite who merely professes another religion, but never against the racially different Jew...
In Eastern Europe the Jew is the cancer slowly eating into the flesh of other nations. Exploitation of the people is his only aim. Selfishness and a lack of personal courage are his chief characteristics; self-sacrifice and patriotism are altogether foreign to him."


HERDER, JOHANN GOTTFRIED. 18th century German philosopher.
"The Jewish people is and remains in Europe an Asiatic people alien to our part of the world, bound to that old law which it received in a distant climate, and which, according to its confession, it cannot do away with...
How many of this alien people can be tolerated without injury to the true citizen?
A ministry in which a Jew is supreme, a household in which a Jew has the key of the wardrobe and the management of the finances, a department or commissariat in which Jews do the principal business, are Pontine marshes which cannot be drained. (Bekehrung der Juden)
For thousands of years, since their emergence on the stage of history, the Jews were a parasitic growth on the stem of other nations, a race of cunning brokers all over the earth. They have cause great evil to many ill-organized states, by retarding the free and natural economic development of their indigenous population. ("Hebraer," in Ideen)

Joe McCarthy
03-11-2012, 04:57 PM
I think Racial Laws shouldnt be equated with gay marriage or even bestiality.

I might agree, but for different reasons. Race laws prevent interracial children. The other things you mention don't involve that problem.

StonyArabia
03-11-2012, 05:00 PM
Two-state solution sounds nice but neither one of them will respect it.

I have no idea how Israel was brought to this topic. However the way Israel was formed illegally, and the Palestinians are just Christianized and Islamized locals, and this was seen in their genetics. However it does not matter anymore, Palestine is emerging and Israel is going. The Palestinians both Christian and Muslim have been suffering under Israelis. In fact Christian churches are often disrespected more so than mosques. What is also interesting most of the Palestinian Christians have played an important role in the Palestinian nationalist scene, and this was not even it, they ironically have supported Hamas and brought it into power. Everyone is tired of Israel. If you have been living under oppression constantly, then this would be the expected outcome. I don't care about religious scriptures in this but about human dignity that was violated. I am sure Israel will not respect anything, however it would should not have been formed. Israel dreams to expel all the Palestinians into Arabia, and it ain't going to happen. They were successful in deportating them to Jordan, but this because the monarchy had cooperated. Israel can take a hike.

Supreme American
03-11-2012, 05:00 PM
Two-state solution would do just that:D Of course, both would have to be sovereign states that signed some sort of treaty to stay the hell out of each's others beeswax, LOL!

A two-state solution would mean the Palestinians don't get the unfettered access to Israel they want, though, would it not? It would mean accepting they'll never live back on great grandpa's old olive tree farm. I don't see them willing to accept this. They also rally around protecting the Dome of the Rock, which they'd likewise have to give up. They're not about to.

I have no problem even booting them out of the Territories if it would mean a position of better geographical security for Israel. As I said, the Muslim world extends from Morocco to Indonesia, they don't need the West Bank or any of the other camps. I also believe that Israel needs to ultimately expel it's internal Arab minority or within some decades, Jews within the country will be the demographic minority and the country itself will fall, leaving Jews at the whim of the hostile Muslim majority.

Palestinians basically screwed themselves by taking on Islam since Islam has a very long history of violent antagonism against other groups. Muslims have been persecuting Hindus since they first invaded the Asian subcontinent. One thing they don't have is a track record of respectful, peaceful dealings with others. Western colonialism was quite benign in comparison.

The Muslim dealings with the Hindus are quite horrific: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus#During_Islamic_rule_of_the_I ndian_sub-continent)


The Mohammedan Conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precarious thing, whose delicate complex of order and liberty, culture and peace may at any time be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within.


The levies it had to pay were so crushing that one catastrophic harvest was enough to unleash famines and epidemics capable of killing a million people at a time. Appalling poverty was the constant counterpart of the conquerors' opulence.

Had the Palestinians not embraced Islam, I don't think we'd be seeing the kind of clashes we see today, nor would we necessarily see them expelled at all. I studied the religion years ago and even considered converting, then I worked past the websites geared at converting Westerners (with their laundered content) and found more authentic and repulsive unfiltered Islam.

There is a reason Muslims have never lived in peace with other religions. They are some sick fucks.

Mary
03-11-2012, 05:02 PM
Safety goes before religion. That's why sects are banned here and in a lot of cases in the United States. That's why Jim Jones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones) went to Guyana.

No, it doesn't. Freedom of religion is a fundamental right. Safety is not a right.


One ill fitting example does not make a rule.

How many examples do you want?

http://roguesgallery666.blogspot.com/2011/11/tiniest-fraction-of-those-first-and.html


Within reason. Muslims are not oppressed here in Europe and if you feel oppressed why don't you fuck off to the desert ? :cool:

There is no requirement for a religious belief to be "reasonable" as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.

I think I'll stay, thank you.


Fraudelent passport and a member of a terrorist organisation. No further questions.

His passport was genuine and the German government kept quiet about the whole thing:


The passport was sent to the CIA headquarters in Langley where in March the CIA's Office of Technical Services concluded it was indeed genuine. Discussion over what to do with El-Masri included secretly transporting him back to Macedonia, without informing German authorities, dumping him, and denying any claims he made. In the end they did inform the German government, without apologizing, and were able to persuade the Germans to remain silent.[9]
In April 2004, CIA Director George Tenet learned that El-Masri was being wrongfully detained. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice learned of his detention in early May and ordered his release.[8] El-Masri was released on May 28 following a second order from Rice.[8] They flew him out of Afghanistan and released him at night on a desolate road in Albania, without apology, or funds to return home.

Bardamu
03-11-2012, 05:04 PM
Let me just take this opportunity to say, Goddamn to hell the slave traders who brought Blacks to Western shores in the first place.

Joe McCarthy
03-11-2012, 05:05 PM
And I don't count the media, if white people is too dumb to do whatever the media tells them to do, then I guess the white race is not as superior as we used to think.

The talk we often hear about j00z in the media, MTV or whatever is a red herring. Races will mix if they come into contact barring legal means to prevent it, which is precisely why we need anti-miscegenation laws.

zack
03-11-2012, 05:11 PM
The talk we often hear about j00z in the media, MTV or whatever is a red herring. Races will mix if they come into contact barring legal means to prevent it, which is precisely why we need anti-miscegenation laws.

Racial mixing is not a problem unless it is done on a large scale to where the host races traits are diluted to the point that the entire nation looks like a mixture.

StonyArabia
03-11-2012, 05:13 PM
A two-state solution would mean the Palestinians don't get the unfettered access to Israel they want, though, would it not? It would mean accepting they'll never live back on great grandpa's old olive tree farm. I don't see them willing to accept this. They also rally around protecting the Dome of the Rock, which they'd likewise have to give up. They're not about to.

The Dome of the Rock is located beside the temple but it's not. However many Christian Palestinians and churches have been disrespected by Israel. They have been oppressed like their Muslim counterparts.


I have no problem even booting them out of the Territories if it would mean a position of better geographical security for Israel. As I said, the Muslim world extends from Morocco to Indonesia, they don't need the West Bank or any of the other camps. I also believe that Israel needs to ultimately expel it's internal Arab minority or within some decades, Jews within the country will be the demographic minority and the country itself will fall, leaving Jews at the whim of the hostile Muslim majority.

Palestinians are natives to the land, they will not be booted anywhere. A Palestinian only shares religious elements with a Moroccan and Indonesian despite that they have different culture and lifestyle. As well a considerable number of Palestinians are Christians. Palestinian Christians have been oppressed and have no love for Israel either.


Palestinians basically screwed themselves by taking on Islam since Islam has a very long history of violent antagonism against other groups. Muslims have been persecuting Hindus since they first invaded the Asian subcontinent. One thing they don't have is a track record of respectful, peaceful dealings with others. Western colonialism was quite benign in comparison.

Palestinians have considerable amount of Christians. They are not pro-Israel for a reason.


Had the Palestinians not embraced Islam, I don't think we'd be seeing the kind of clashes we see today, nor would we necessarily see them expelled at all. I studied the religion years ago and even considered converting, then I worked past the websites geared at converting Westerners (with their laundered content) and found more authentic and repulsive unfiltered Islam.

It's not a religious problem but rather an ethnic one. The clashes would still have existed if the majority of the Palestinians were Christians. The idea is that their nation and land have been violated and they have to defend it, against all odds at oppression and to reclaim their dignity. Palestinian Christian feels very close to a Palestinian Muslim rather to anyone else, because blood is thicker than water.

Mortimer
03-11-2012, 05:20 PM
I might agree, but for different reasons. Race laws prevent interracial children. The other things you mention don't involve that problem.

interracial children are children and humans just like the monoracial children.

Incal
03-11-2012, 05:22 PM
Races will mix if they come into contact barring legal means to prevent it, which is precisely why we need anti-miscegenation laws.

1) I beg to disagree. In countries where whites are minority (such as Bolivia and SouthAfrica) minus some exceptions, whites keep marrying between themselves.

2) And what do you mean by 'we'? The Single White Males on their Mid 40's Society?

Pallantides
03-11-2012, 05:25 PM
Personally I think miscegenation is a very Indo-European thing, their bastard children populate large parts of Eurasia.:p

Joe McCarthy
03-11-2012, 05:28 PM
Racial mixing is not a problem unless it is done on a large scale to where the host races traits are diluted to the point that the entire nation looks like a mixture.

Even a small amount of mixing will destroy the white race taken over several generations. Even in the 40s anthropologists extrapolated then mixing rates to mean whites would be extinct in 300 years in the US. If you have a decent grasp of math the reason why this is requires little explanation.

Jon Snow
03-11-2012, 05:32 PM
Completely agree with this. My husband meets all of these criteria:)


Most don't. This is a sad truth. Some black males....like Obama himself (though he is biracial, for our purposes you can think of him as black as he is married to a black woman and he identifies more as black) also fit this criteria.

It would be nice to have a situation in which all men were more like my husband....or Obama:thumb001: Both are devoted, loving husbands whose actions tend to reflect a sincere investment in their family's best interests.

Michelle Obama and I are both lucky women;) I'd like to see this be the case for ALL women and children:)

I'm glad that your marriage and family bring you such joy, rhiannon. Sadly, that's more than many can say in this cultural dark age that we have the misfortune to live in. Ya done good. :thumbs up

As for Obama: as you acknowledged, he isn't exactly black; one could just as easily credit his (supposed ;)) "family man" status to his white side as to his black. In fact, those crediting his white genes/upbringing would probably be closer to the mark; one needs only reference Obama's own father's actions to see behavior that is more typical of black males.

Know who else is a family man? Ron Paul! :wink

zack
03-11-2012, 05:34 PM
Even a small amount of mixing will destroy the white race taken over several generations. Even in the 40s anthropologists extrapolated then mixing rates to mean whites would be extinct in 300 years in the US. If you have a decent grasp of math the reason why this is requires little explanation.

Too bad i suck at math,but please explain this to me.

This just sounds like kookery.

Joe McCarthy
03-11-2012, 05:34 PM
1) I beg to disagree. In countries where whites are minority (such as Bolivia and SouthAfrica) minus some exceptions, whites keep marrying between themselves.

The exceptions are the norm most everywhere. The point is that mixing occurs and law is made to prevent it from occurring.

StonyArabia
03-11-2012, 05:45 PM
The exceptions are the norm most everywhere. The point is that mixing occurs and law is made to prevent it from occurring.

Racemixing will occur anyhow even when laws are passed. Sometimes it's comical in the case of Saudi Arabia but it's more about nationality rather than race:D

Joe McCarthy
03-11-2012, 05:49 PM
Racemixing will occur anyhow even when laws are passed. Sometimes it's comical in the case of Saudi Arabia but it's more about nationality rather than race:D

Armed robbery will occur even if we pass laws against it. That doesn't mean we legalize it. Banning behavior decreases its frequency.

Bardamu
03-11-2012, 05:51 PM
The talk we often hear about j00z in the media, MTV or whatever is a red herring. Races will mix if they come into contact barring legal means to prevent it, which is precisely why we need anti-miscegenation laws.

No, what is needed is control of national population movements into white countries. White Manistans, White Republics, or in the case of Europe ethno-national republics, but understanding also needs to be realistic, that some mixing will happen no matter what. A 3% mix rate per generation of racially similar peoples will not destroy an ethnene over time.

StonyArabia
03-11-2012, 05:52 PM
Armed robbery will occur even if we pass laws against it. That doesn't mean we legalize it. Banning behavior decreases its frequency.

That's true, but this is a different case, and in fact might led to more secret interracial romances, and these quite often have happened, and it's due to the attraction allure of the forbbiden fruit. I believe in true love and if it occurred between two different people, why do you stop it, frankly it seems bit tad cruel.

rhiannon
03-11-2012, 05:58 PM
I'm glad that your marriage and family bring you such joy, rhiannon.
Thank you. So am I:)

Sadly, that's more than many can say in this cultural dark age that we have the misfortune to live in. Ya done good. :thumbs up
That I have. Luck and fate were finally watching out for me....for I met my husband online:)

The situation with my daughter's father wasn't as good:( He had health problems and anger issues because of them. He is now dead.
Plus, I was very young when we met and he was much older. My husband has proven to be a very caring stepfather, however. I also have a certain rapport with my stepchildren....and my stepdaughter respects me more than she does her own mother.


As for Obama: as you acknowledged, he isn't exactly black; one could just as easily credit his (supposed ;)) "family man" status to his white side as to his black. In fact, those crediting his white genes/upbringing would probably be closer to the mark; one needs only reference Obama's own father's actions to see behavior that is more typical of black males.

True.
But I suspect Obama identifies more as black because it reflects itself in who he's married to, plus I've heard him refer to himself as a black man:)

As for his father bailing on the family.....I suspect one contributing factor to that might have been the stigma and danger living in a biracial family represented back then. This was the 1960s, after all. Obama's dad wasn't some Tupac the Thug type character, that much I know.:thumbs up

Supreme American
03-11-2012, 05:59 PM
That's true, but this is a different case, and in fact might led to more secret interracial romances, and these quite often have happened, and it's due to the attraction allure of the forbbiden fruit. I believe in true love and if it occurred between two different people, why do you stop it, frankly it seems bit tad cruel.

Except that this only happened on an extremely small scale when such laws were in force. Such laws do not provoke such behavior, they curb it.

StonyArabia
03-11-2012, 06:10 PM
Except that this only happened on an extremely small scale when such laws were in force. Such laws do not provoke such behavior, they curb it.

They provoke it in secret most often. It will not stop people from what they want to do. Laws can only go so far, but well the heart does much deeper than that.

Supreme American
03-11-2012, 06:11 PM
They provoke it in secret most often. It will not stop people from what they want to do. Laws can only go so far, but well the heart does much deeper than that.

Nonsense. Very few people are retarded enough to do something simply because it's illegal.

European Loyalist
03-11-2012, 06:29 PM
Nonsense. Very few people are retarded enough to do something simply because it's illegal.

Especially something as important as marriage, in which their lives and all of their finances are implicated.

zack
03-11-2012, 06:35 PM
but understanding also needs to be realistic, that some mixing will happen no matter what. A 3% mix rate per generation of racially similar peoples will not destroy an ethnene over time.

I don't even see how a 10% mixing rate per generation will destroy a race or 'ethnene' over time.

5 generations is all it takes for mongoloid admixture to become undetectable on DNA tests according to 23&me.

I would generally state though that black admixture takes longer to be taken out of the gene pool and therefore should be subject to more caution and scrutiny.

I don't see how a small amount of mixing will somehow destroy a race.

Incal
03-11-2012, 06:40 PM
The exceptions are the norm most everywhere. The point is that mixing occurs and law is made to prevent it from occurring.

hahaha I had lots of fun today. Have a nice afternoon Joe.

Supreme American
03-11-2012, 06:43 PM
The Dome of the Rock is located beside the temple but it's not. However many Christian Palestinians and churches have been disrespected by Israel. They have been oppressed like their Muslim counterparts.

The Dome was built on the Temple Mount, one of the holiest sites in both Christianity in Judaism. As I have pointed out, Muslims have a long history of desecrating and building over religious sites. 2,000 Hindu sites alone were destroyed.

The Dome was built intentionally on the site believing it to be the Holy of Holies. It was not accidentally built there. That was the point of it being built there. How you can compare a bulldozer knocking down a small rare church here or there is no comparison whatsoever. Further...



Palestinians are natives to the land, they will not be booted anywhere. A Palestinian only shares religious elements with a Moroccan and Indonesian despite that they have different culture and lifestyle. As well a considerable number of Palestinians are Christians. Palestinian Christians have been oppressed and have no love for Israel either.

Well, they've already been booted somewhere and they're not going back, much like what the Palestinian Muslims are doing to Palestinian Christians.

Yes, Palestinian Christians are being persecuted and oppressed - by Muslims (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/bethlehem_exodus_jH6iVNuarsPLBceXPzHO6I).


Christians are fleeing the town of Christ's birth, and the much-reported hardship that Israel inflicts on residents of the West Bank town has little to do with it. It's the same reality across the Arab world: rising Islamism pushes non-Muslims away.

Islamists frown on real-estate ownership by non-Muslims -- Christian, Jew or anything else. And though the secular Palestinian Authority still controls the West Bank, the clout of groups like Hamas is growing: Even in Bethlehem, where followers of history's most famous baby once thrived, Christians are ceding the land...

Fifty years ago, Christians made up 70 percent of Bethlehem's population; today, about 15 percent.

Indeed, the Christian population of the entire West Bank -- mostly Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic, with Copts, Russian Orthodox, Armenians and others -- is dwindling.

But, again, the story's the same in Egypt, Iraq and elsewhere in the Mideast. Practically the only place in the region where the Christian population is growing is in Israel.

In Bethlehem, Christians now feel besieged. Growing numbers of rural southern West Bankers from the Hebron area have moved north to Bethlehem in recent years. Many see the land as Waqf -- belonging to the Muslim nation. They increasingly buy or confiscate land -- and talk of laws to ban Christian landownership.

Seeing the trend, many Christians have decided to sell while they still can; real estate is leaving families that have owned it for generations.

So apparently the Muslims really don't have an issue with religious persecution and ethnic cleansing of "indigenous" populations, after all! Those other groups - the Christian ones - are very bit as "indigenous" to the area as the Muslims and yet the Muslims aren't even pretending to bother to respect their right to be there. Thus the Muslim argument is nothing but a LIE.


First Baptist Church of Bethlehem has been firebombed 14 times and other accounts of persecutions including murder and assault from Palestinian Muslims are seen on this video:

_1iM-kzqAGY



It's not a religious problem but rather an ethnic one. The clashes would still have existed if the majority of the Palestinians were Christians. The idea is that their nation and land have been violated and they have to defend it, against all odds at oppression and to reclaim their dignity. Palestinian Christian feels very close to a Palestinian Muslim rather to anyone else, because blood is thicker than water.

As I said from the above, as has always been the case for 1400 years, the biggest and most violent instigators of religious clashes have been Muslims.

zack
03-11-2012, 06:43 PM
True.
But I suspect Obama identifies more as black because it reflects itself in who he's married to, plus I've heard him refer to himself as a black man:)

As for his father bailing on the family.....I suspect one contributing factor to that might have been the stigma and danger living in a biracial family represented back then. This was the 1960s, after all. Obama's dad wasn't some Tupac the Thug type character, that much I know.:thumbs up

With illegitimacy rates and single mother rates in the black community at 65-75% this seems to be a black behavior. Although to put it in context white out of wedlock births are higher than blacks were during the 1960s,but even so the decline of the family has been much more worse on the black end.

There is a reason why there is this:

http://www.chimpout.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=9381&d=1323210633

StonyArabia
03-11-2012, 06:45 PM
Nonsense. Very few people are retarded enough to do something simply because it's illegal.

They would do it in secret, just like how many people do drugs, although their illegal it does not stop them form doing it.


Especially something as important as marriage, in which their lives and all of their finances are implicated.

Who said marriage, it could be dating or sleeping with one another. Such cases often happened.

zack
03-11-2012, 06:48 PM
Who said marriage, it could be dating or sleeping with one another. Such cases often happened.

The vast majority of interracial children are born out of wedlock from one night stands and cohabitation. Most of the parents of such children probably were not even thinking long term.

At least in the USA.

Joe McCarthy
03-11-2012, 06:48 PM
I don't even see how a 10% mixing rate per generation will destroy a race or 'ethnene' over time.

5 generations is all it takes for mongoloid admixture to become undetectable on DNA tests according to 23&me.

I would generally state though that black admixture takes longer to be taken out of the gene pool and therefore should be subject to more caution and scrutiny.

I don't see how a small amount of mixing will somehow destroy a race.

It's called exponential math. If you have a ten percent rate over several generations progressively the percentage will get higher as the number of mixed race people grows and the number of whites decreases. One mongrel is birthed, who in turn marries another white, who in turn births more mongrels, who marry more whites. In about nine generations, as Lytton of Columbia pointed out in the 40s, you have a thoroughly mongrelized population (though it'll speed up with the immigration we've received since in play).

Supreme American
03-11-2012, 06:51 PM
They would do it in secret, just like how many people do drugs, although their illegal it does not stop them form doing it.

Being illegal curbs drug use, which is the point. No law "stops" any kind of behavior, it does though, discourage minimize it. That's the point.

Supreme American
03-11-2012, 06:54 PM
The vast majority of interracial children are born out of wedlock from one night stands and cohabitation. Most of the parents of such children probably were not even thinking long term.

At least in the USA.

Mindless behavior consummated the relationship, why would it not continue and multiply itself? Cohabitation isn't nearly as serious a level of commitment as marriage, thus there is a much wider envelope of casual behavior and the relationship itself is considered disposable.

zack
03-11-2012, 06:55 PM
It's called exponential math. If you have a ten percent rate over several generations progressively the percentage will get higher as the number of mixed race people grows and the number of whites decreases. One mongrel is birthed, who in turn marries another white, who in turn births more mongrels, who marry more whites. In about nine generations, as Lytton of Columbia pointed out in the 40s, you have a thoroughly mongrelized population (though it'll speed up with the immigration we've received since in play).

How 'mongrelized' are we talking here? If you go by the 1 drop rule then yes eventually the population will be 'mongrelized'. I don't believe in racial purity and not because I'm not pure either,but because I've seen admixture studies that show admixture from the neolithic period and so far I've not seen a 'pure' European population. If there is a pure Euro population genetically then they probably number very small compared to the rest of Europeans.

In this scenario I was of course assuming that white people would still be having more kids than multiracial couples and that each generation that multiracial kid would either marry into one of his parents races and dilute the admixture.

IMO as long as more white people are having more kids with each other than multiracials are being born then i can't really see how this would be possible.

I don't see white people abandoning other whites in favor of non-white mates in mass. Most people seem to be born with implicit racial bias.

If you believe that people naturally prefer their own through kin-selection and Ethnic nepotism then i don't see the problem here.

StonyArabia
03-11-2012, 06:59 PM
The vast majority of interracial children are born out of wedlock from one night stands and cohabitation. Most of the parents of such children probably were not even thinking long term.

At least in the USA.

That's true in many cases, but they have happened when such laws existed even and more so. In fact there wany children born out of wedlock and often such relationships were in secret. The laws don't help, people will simply continue to do it if they desire to do so. As well speaking for marriage if it happenes there are could many reasons for it and maybe that was the suitable partner than the others, they just happened to come from different stocks. Frankly such laws don't help and make the situation as a very attractive enterprise and thus at the end they fail to accomplish anything in the first place.


Being illegal curbs drug use, which is the point. No law "stops" any kind of behavior, it does though, discourage minimize it. That's the point.

It won't minimize it at all maybe in public but not behind closed doors.

Supreme American
03-11-2012, 07:12 PM
It won't minimize it at all maybe in public but not behind closed doors.

When such laws existed previously, it helped minimize it in both cases.

Electronic God-Man
03-11-2012, 07:18 PM
In some form interracial marriage was illegal in this country from 1661-1967. Interracial couples were simply denied a marriage license just as gay couples are.

Now I ask: what is so awful about that?

I'm not suggesting anything, but as a thought experiment, wouldn't it be easier to simply have a homogenous nation in the first place, or create one, and then limit immigration?

Interracial marriage laws only further indicate the never-ending ethnic/racial struggles of a multiracial country.


Races will mix if they come into contact barring legal means to prevent it, which is precisely why we need anti-miscegenation laws.


The exceptions are the norm most everywhere. The point is that mixing occurs and law is made to prevent it from occurring.


Armed robbery will occur even if we pass laws against it. That doesn't mean we legalize it. Banning behavior decreases its frequency.

I still think the point is that interracial marriage laws can only be passed when a majority of people feel strongly about not wanting interracial marriages and at that point popular opinion does more to deter interracial marriage than any law.

You might argue that most people are against armed robbery yet we have still outlawed it, and to an extent this must be where the disagreement lies. Armed robbery is a violent crime which causes clear and immediate harm to other individuals. Interracial marriage, if ever outlawed again, would be what most would consider a "victimless" crime committed by two consenting adults involving their private sex and love lives. The problem, of course, lies in arguing that occasional interracial marriage harms the greater community to such an extent that it must be perceived as a crime. Even if you were able to do that we would have to ask "whose greater community"? It would be the White community, of course, which immediately places the White population above all other members of the society. Good luck passing that law in a country like the United States which is soon to be less than 50% White.

I could have an easier time understanding arguments for separatism.

StonyArabia
03-11-2012, 07:18 PM
When such laws existed previously, it helped minimize it in both cases.

The evidence shows otherwise to be frank.

Joe McCarthy
03-11-2012, 07:28 PM
I don't see white people abandoning other whites in favor of non-white mates in mass.

They don't need to. In 1790 whites were of 80 percent English stock. In the ensuing 222 years not only has that shrunk to about 25 percent but the ones who are English are also usually mixed with other European ethnicities. If English colonials couldn't maintain ancestral purity in two centuries the implications for whites maintaining racial purity over 3-4 centuries while in contact with non-whites and without miscegenation laws should be obvious.

Supreme American
03-11-2012, 07:30 PM
The evidence shows otherwise to be frank.

In the United States, when such laws were removed, relationships of that type increased, so I don't know what you mean.

European Loyalist
03-11-2012, 07:36 PM
They don't need to. In 1790 whites were of 80 percent English stock. In the ensuing 222 years not only has that shrunk to about 25 percent but the ones who are English are also usually mixed with other European ethnicities. If English colonials couldn't maintain ancestral purity in two centuries the implications for whites maintaining racial purity over 3-4 centuries while in contact with non-whites and without miscegenation laws should be obvious.

The difference is that eventually the english-americans accepted some other (protestant) european ethnicities into their "tribe", from a socio-cultural acceptance viewpoint at least. In an environment where people speak the same language and are part of the same culture it's easy to see how the conception of the pan-europid white tribe arose in colonial countries.

European Loyalist
03-11-2012, 07:41 PM
In the United States, when such laws were removed, relationships of that type increased, so I don't know what you mean.

Correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation.

I think it shows in the importance of cultural factors in such things as miscegenation. If the culture is against it they may want to put in place laws just to be clear that they don't accept it from a cultural perspective. It's really a symbolic and exhortative gesture in my opinion.

Supreme American
03-11-2012, 07:44 PM
Correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation.

I think it shows in the importance of cultural factors in such things as miscegenation. If the culture is against it they may want to put in place laws just to be clear that they don't accept it from a cultural perspective. It's really a symbolic and exhortative gesture in my opinion.

I think in this case it does. Removing a law always increases the behavior as the message sent is that the behavior is OK.

Joe McCarthy
03-11-2012, 07:45 PM
The evidence shows otherwise to be frank.

There were maybe 30,000 interracial births yearly in the US in the 1930s with almost no interracial marriages. Now the interracial marriage rate has skyrocketed and the interracial birthrate is now in six figures. I'm curious why anyone would think we had more interracialism under Jim Crow than under Barack Obama unless the aim is an overly-aggressive attempt to push a miscegenation agenda. In any case, any such suggestion is ludicrous.

European Loyalist
03-11-2012, 07:52 PM
I think in this case it does. Removing a law always increases the behavior as the message sent is that the behavior is OK.

Perhaps. But you could also look at it from the perspective that laws are merely a reflection of the culture of that society. Maybe the reason the law changed is because the culture changed.

Electronic God-Man
03-11-2012, 08:06 PM
The difference is that eventually the english-americans accepted some other (protestant) european ethnicities into their "tribe", from a socio-cultural acceptance viewpoint at least. In an environment where people speak the same language and are part of the same culture it's easy to see how the conception of the pan-europid white tribe arose in colonial countries.


Of course, I've long been of the opinion that there does exist an "American" ethnicity, largely identifiable with Anglo-American culture (with a few regional flavors), which has been the product of the colonial experience in the American colonies. I'm often amazed at how sociologists will talk of the "Anglo-core culture" and the "dominant ethnic group" or the "dominant culture" without ever just coming flat out and saying that there is a White American ethnicity.

They really pussy-foot around it, talking about how certain ethnic groups become "White." It seems clear to me that you "become White" by entirely assimilating into American ethnic culture. The confusion arises when you have an American say of partial Italian ancestry and someone who is better described as an Italian-American, a person not fully assimilated for whatever reason. Americans still look at Italians and Eastern Europeans as "not White like me" even if we will say that they are "White."

I think it just means that if someone were to be completely assimilated into the White American ethnic group and happened to have Italian ancestry we wouldn't say they're not American. On the other hand, Italians aren't really "White." So we get into this actually fairly simple but hard to pin down confusion between "race" and "ethnicity."

/off-topic

Electronic God-Man
03-11-2012, 08:11 PM
So we get into this actually fairly simple but hard to pin down confusion between "race" and "ethnicity."

I must add that this confusion is not restricted to White Americans alone, but also "African-Americans."

See all the debates in 2008 where many Blacks were saying Obama isn't really Black and most Whites were like "LOL. Look at his skin, nigga's black." All the while totally ignoring that what they were saying is that he's not an ethnic Black American.

askra
03-11-2012, 08:15 PM
No, such a law is incompatible with the most basilar fundaments of individual freedom.

zack
03-11-2012, 08:16 PM
They don't need to. In 1790 whites were of 80 percent English stock. In the ensuing 222 years not only has that shrunk to about 25 percent but the ones who are English are also usually mixed with other European ethnicities. If English colonials couldn't maintain ancestral purity in two centuries the implications for whites maintaining racial purity over 3-4 centuries while in contact with non-whites and without miscegenation laws should be obvious.

Which comes back to immigration policy. You make Civis point for him,all that needs to be done is immigration should be halted or restricted to areas of the world you desire.

The difference between me and you though is that I'm fine with regions of the United States breaking off to form ethnic enclaves and nations. I would be perfectly fine with the eastern half of the United states ditching the western half and then halting immigration from everywhere but Europe and Australia.

This is unacceptable to you because the united states breaking off would mean China or Russia would inherit the earth.

I could care less.

Supreme American
03-11-2012, 08:21 PM
No, such a law is incompatible with the most basilar fundaments of individual freedom.

The United States Supreme Court disagreed with you. It also allowed anti-obscenity laws in media.

Why? There is a difference between freedom and free dumb.

askra
03-11-2012, 08:32 PM
The United States Supreme Court disagreed with you. It also allowed anti-obscenity laws in media.

Why? There is a difference between freedom and free dumb.

The US president is mulatto. :D

Bardamu
03-11-2012, 08:33 PM
I don't even see how a 10% mixing rate per generation will destroy a race or 'ethnene' over time.

5 generations is all it takes for mongoloid admixture to become undetectable on DNA tests according to 23&me.

I would generally state though that black admixture takes longer to be taken out of the gene pool and therefore should be subject to more caution and scrutiny.

I don't see how a small amount of mixing will somehow destroy a race.

I'd be interested in reading references as it doesn't make sense to me that Asian admixture would disappear so soon. A 10% Black admixture into a White gene pool would soon wipe out a majority White culture. Personally, I only feel comfortable with 3% admix of racially similar people, so that the dominant race has time to assert itself and transform the immigrants rather the other way around.

zack
03-11-2012, 08:38 PM
I'd be interested in reading references as it doesn't make sense to me that Asian admixture would disappear so soon. A 10% Black admixture into a White gene pool would soon wipe out a majority White culture. Personally, I only feel comfortable with 3% admix of racially similar people, so that the dominant race has time to assert itself and transform the immigrants rather the other way around.

I don't have it on hand. Commerce & Industry sent me the link to the article and while it did not say "mongoloid genes become undetectable through our testing within 5 generations" they did say as much for Amerindian admixture.

I'll see if i can't find it though.

EDIT: I've found it Bardamu!


Then the Finder compares your Ancestry Painting proportions to a table that contains the results of an extensive series of simulations that we performed to determine what would happen to that three-to-one Asian/European proportion over the generations if a Native American and a partner of all-European descent had a child who then reproduced with another all-European partner, and so on. We did the same analysis for a Native American marrying into an all-Asian pedigree. Unfortunately, partly due to inadequate sampling of Africa’s genetic diversity, this method cannot yet establish Native American ancestry for African Americans.

We found that it takes at least five generations after the appearance of a single Native American in an otherwise all- European pedigree for the percentage of Asian (orange) DNA to reach zero. In an otherwise all-Asian pedigree that process is much faster — in two generations, the grandchild of that single Native American can have no trace of European in his or her Ancestry Painting.

http://spittoon.23andme.com/2009/04/23/new-23andme-lab-searches-genome-for-native-american-ancestry/

Of course this is 23&me and they only go back 5 generations anyway from what I've been told. decodeme could probably still find traces of admixture,but by that point I'm not sure it would matter.

Scrapple
03-11-2012, 08:43 PM
I don't have it on hand. Commerce & Industry sent me the link to the article and while it did not say "mongoloid genes become undetectable through our testing within 5 generations" they did say as much for Amerindian admixture.

I'll see if i can't find it though.

You have to have tested with 23andme to see what I linked so I will quote it.
https://www.23andme.com/you/labs/natam_finder/results/?profile_id=213951bb3bad7473


How can we be sure this person has no genetically Native American ancestors in the past five generations, and what is the likelihood prior to that?
To address this question we start with the observation that people who identify themselves as Native American exhibit fairly consistent Ancestry Painting proportions of about 75% Asian and 25% European, plus or minus 10%. The reason: Native Americans descend from a small number of people who crossed the Bering land bridge from Siberia more than 14,000 years ago. In Ancestry Painting, Siberians and people from many other central and northern Asian locales tend to have a roughly three-to-one proportion of Asian to European DNA simply because they lie geographically and thus genetically intermediate between the Asian reference population, which consists of Japanese and Han Chinese individuals, and the European reference population, which consists of Americans of northern European descent.

Next we consider what would happen to that three-to-one Asian/European proportion over the generations if a Native American and a partner of all-European descent had a child, who then reproduced with another all-European partner, and so on. In such a case, the amount of Asian DNA in each successive generation's Ancestry Painting would necessarily diminish, until at some point it disappeared altogether.

To get an empirical idea of how this process works, we simulated SNP genotypes for 1,000 people with one Native American and one European parent, then 1,000 people with one Native American parent and three European grandparents, and so on down the line. Then we ran all these simulated individuals through Ancestry Painting, and looked at the range of Asian and European DNA percentages for each kind of relationship. (We also looked at the African percentages for these simulations, but those were nearly always zero, or a trace at most.)

We found that it takes at least five generations after the appearance of a Native American for the percentage of Asian (orange) DNA to reach zero. So we're able to say with confidence that a person with an all-European Ancestry Painting (actually, 99.74% European or greater) did not have any genetically Native American ancestors in the past five generations.In other words, the simulations suggest that Michael Colton could have a Native American ancestor no closer than a great-great-great-grandparent.

What are the chances that a person in the United States with an all-European Ancestry Painting does have Native American ancestry from more than five generations back? It's impossible to know for sure, but we can say that in our ancestry survey, "Where Are You From?", 4.3% of our customers with Ancestry Paintings indicating greater than 99.74% European DNA said they had some Native American ancestry.

It's possible that some of those customers are mistaken; then again, it's also possible that there are other customers who have Native American ancestors more than five generations back but are unaware of it.

If you have reliable evidence, such as a genealogical record, that contradicts this conclusion, we would appreciate hearing about it. There are two options: First, you may contact us privately by email; to do so, please click Send feedback with code to include a special code in your message that tells us how you were classified. Second, you may use the Discuss this feature link (also above) to post your evidence where other customers can see it.

BTW I was Commerce & Industry.

Supreme American
03-11-2012, 08:47 PM
The US president is mulatto. :D

That would be free dumb.

Supreme American
03-11-2012, 08:48 PM
Scrapple was C&I? I cannot keep track of these name changes... :(

zack
03-11-2012, 08:51 PM
You have to have tested with 23andme to see what I linked so I will quote it.
https://www.23andme.com/you/labs/natam_finder/results/?profile_id=213951bb3bad7473



BTW I was Commerce & Industry.

These name changes....

The Lawspeaker
03-11-2012, 08:51 PM
The United States Supreme Court disagreed with you. It also allowed anti-obscenity laws in media.


I don't think that the United States Supreme Court is an institution that should be taken seriously in any way as most of it's rulings are politically motivated (either biased for the left or the right as depending on what president is in office as it is the president that nominates the candidates).

Today they say one thing. In 2016 they say will the opposite as it's all purely a matter of interpreting the Constitution. And interpretation purely depends on what party is ruling then. In my eyes that is one of the profound weaknesses of the American system.

Bardamu
03-11-2012, 08:58 PM
I don't think that the United States Supreme Court is an institution that should be taken seriously in any way as most of it's rulings are politically motivated (either biased for the left or the right as depending on what president is in power as it is the president that nominates the candidates).

Today they say one thing. In 2016 they say the opposite. It's all about interpretation. And interpretation purely depends on what party is ruling then. In my eyes that is one of the profound weaknesses of the American system.

People like Kagan and Sotomayor, cultural Marxists both, in all probability despise the US Constitution, and they are justices on the Supreme Court.

The Lawspeaker
03-11-2012, 08:59 PM
People like Kagan and Sotomayor, cultural Marxists both, in all probability despise the US Constitution, and they are justices on the Supreme Court.
Exactly. And in some years time it will be someone else.. So it, frankly, doesn't say all that much.

Scrapple
03-11-2012, 09:07 PM
Exactly. And in some years time it will be someone else.. So it, frankly, doesn't say all that much.

Yeah I posted earlier that a cousin of mine voted to uphold anti-miscegenation laws only to have his grandson overturn them.

The Lawspeaker
03-11-2012, 09:08 PM
Yeah I posted earlier that a cousin of mine voted to uphold anti-miscegenation laws only to have his grandson overturn them.
Exactly. So it's purely a matter of interpretation. Id say that maybe the U.S political/judicial system needs an overhaul of some sort.

Bronze
03-11-2012, 09:36 PM
Berbers seem to be paternally African anyways

the actually arent, Berbers are paternally haplogroup E for the most part, but Haplogroup E is actually a euroasian lineage originally, its descended from M168 like all non-african lineages.

Modern east africans are mutts, they used to be full negroid, with native A and B lineages, until middle eastern populations migrated back into africa and mixed with the locals. east africans look more negroid today than north africans do because east africans have more negroid maternal dna.

Rereg
03-11-2012, 09:38 PM
http://www.tvsa.co.za/forum/images/misc/hildegardt_kuba_large.jpg
http://www.huisgenoot.com/uploads/articles/troue4.jpg?width=614
http://www.safarilodges.co.za/images/news/kuba%20&%20bonita%20trou.jpg

Hildegardt Whites and her polish husband Jakub Silkiewicz

Supreme American
03-11-2012, 09:50 PM
^^^^ Braindead.

Mosov
03-11-2012, 10:23 PM
Could this be a suitable definition of interracial marriage?

A mix is considered interracial if the mixed person could not fit physically in both ethnic communities...

So a British-Russian mix, could fit in both in England and Russia, while a British-Indian mix would most likely not be able to fit....

Bozkurt_Karabash
03-11-2012, 10:35 PM
Could this be a suitable definition of interracial marriage?

A mix is considered interracial if the mixed person could not fit physically in both ethnic communities...

So a British-Russian mix, could fit in both in England and Russia, while a British-Indian mix would most likely not be able to fit....

What about a Turkish Armenian mix? Would it fit in both countries?

The Lawspeaker
03-11-2012, 10:37 PM
What about a Turkish Armenian mix? Would it fit in both countries?
Given the history of the two countries the Turk would be hanging in a Turkish tree and his Armenian wife in an Armenian tree. Each on their respective side of the border but side by side.... or...

StonyArabia
03-11-2012, 10:47 PM
Could this be a suitable definition of interracial marriage?

A mix is considered interracial if the mixed person could not fit physically in both ethnic communities...

So a British-Russian mix, could fit in both in England and Russia, while a British-Indian mix would most likely not be able to fit....

It depends on the culture. Some cultures accept you. For example in Circassian culture, you are accepted to what your father is. A mixture like a Circassian-Arabian like me would be counted as Circassian, because I take after my father not my mother. In some cultures the physical looks are not important at all, you are seen part of the community. I certainly look more Arabian than Circassian, but I feel very close to my Circassian ancestry and bloodline so why would I not identify with it. At the same token I am proud of my Arabian maternal line, and would never discarded. Thus some cultures accept people who are mixed and others don't. It depends on acceptance, thus what people say about mixed race people having identity issues can not be applied to some pairings, nor the so called bone marrow transplants that are often rare and only apply to some and not the majority of the people. The cultural and environmental situation plays a big role in all of this. This why as mixed person I know the complications and none complications of the situation.

Pyramidologist
03-12-2012, 12:49 AM
^^^^ Braindead.

What went Wong.

:D

Supreme American
03-12-2012, 01:37 AM
What went Wong.

:D

I'd start with a lack of parental guidance, left-wing cultural influences, and go from there.

Pyramidologist
03-12-2012, 01:51 AM
I'd start with a lack of parental guidance, left-wing cultural influences, and go from there.

Not it's a joke, lol.

You see the ''wong'' instead of ''wrong''...

Sorry, i was trying to be funny as jokes i usually don't understand.

That's about as good as my joke attempts get @ the comment at civis asking about why he went ''sweet and sour''.:D

In all seriousness these photos are absolutely disgusting. Its not really worth trying to get your head around why people date outside their race. I just find some discussions about anthropology though very interesting.

Joe McCarthy
03-12-2012, 02:19 AM
Good luck passing that law in a country like the United States which is soon to be less than 50% White.

I could have an easier time understanding arguments for separatism.

White minorities have maintained anti-miscegenation laws in post-Reconstruction era South Carolina and South Africa. It can be done, in theory.

Separatism is no solution. It won't prevent the whites who oppose laws barring them from their illicit sexual practices from engaging in it, and breaking up the United States opens up all kinds of new problems including frequent wars between the new nations, meddling by foreign powers, and Chinese hegemony. The only real answer to our problem in this country is a reenergized, determined white population rallying around our core Anglo identity and asserting that this is our country and that we have a right to rule. It may get violent as Reconstruction did, but it is our only chance.

Of course, if you believe the right to bang whoever you choose (not sure where that is found in the American canon or tradition) trumps any legal prohibition against interracial unions - and it seems you may - then this will fall on deaf ears. Responsible people though will prioritize the survival of the white race over some frivolous license that thinks Jefferson was talking about the inalienable right to fuck niggers.

Osweo
03-12-2012, 02:24 AM
http://www.bostoncostume.com/product-images/rental-scottish-woman-1-xl.jpg + http://www.uta.fi/FAST/FIN/CULT/images/muumipeikko.gif

Sickening. A crime against nature. :suomut:

Arrow Cross
03-12-2012, 02:31 AM
Such laws were definitely among the healthiest and most progressive examples America has given the world in its pre-WWII existence.

The rest of us lived in pure White dreamlands, secluded from the day-to-day reality of Third World savages, or even had some foolish, naively romantic notions about them from various works of literature.

No wonder multiracialism has made such inroads so rapidly in Europe. It's starting to become uncomfortable now even to mainstream sheeple, but it's also very nearly too late to act. Should have opened a history book - or looked at places like Detroit in time.

The future of the West is the Vin Diesels and Halle Berrys.

Joe McCarthy
03-12-2012, 03:00 AM
In North America, laws against interracial marriage and interracial sex existed and were enforced in the Thirteen Colonies from the late seventeenth century onwards, and subsequently in several US states and US territories until 1967.

Quote:

The term miscegenation, a word invented by American journalists to discredit the Abolitionist movement by stirring up debate over the prospect of white-black intermarriage after the abolition of slavery, was first coined in 1863, during the American Civil War.[2] Yet in the Thirteen Colonies laws banning the intermarriage of whites and blacks were enacted as far back as the late seventeenth century

Quote:

All anti-miscegenation laws banned the marriage of whites and non-white groups, primarily blacks, but often also Native Americans and Asians.[3] In many states, anti-miscegenation laws also criminalized cohabitation and sex between whites and non-whites. In addition, the state of Oklahoma in 1908 banned marriage "between a person of African descent" and "any person not of African descent", and Kentucky and Louisiana in 1932 banned marriage between Native Americans and African Americans.[4] While anti-miscegenation laws are often regarded as a Southern phenomenon, many northern states had anti-miscegenation laws as well.

Quote:

Although anti-miscegenation amendments were proposed in United States Congress in 1871, 1912-1913 and 1928,[5][6] a nation-wide law against racially mixed marriages was never enacted. From the 19th century into the 1950s, most US states enforced anti-miscegenation laws. From 1913 to 1948, 30 out of the then 48 states did so.

Quote:

The first laws criminalizing marriage and sex between whites and blacks were enacted in the colonial era in the English colonies of Virginia and Maryland, which depended economically on unpaid labor such as indentured servitude and slavery.

At first, in the 1660s, the first laws in Virginia and Maryland regulating marriage between whites and blacks only pertained to the marriages of whites with black (and mulatto) slaves and indentured servants. In 1664, Maryland enacted a law which criminalized such marriages. Virginia (1691) was the first English colony in North America to pass a law forbidding free blacks and whites to intermarry, followed by Maryland in 1692. This was the first time in American history that a law was invented that restricted access to marriage partners solely on the basis of "race", not class or condition of servitude.[7] Later these laws also spread to colonies in the Thirteen Colonies with fewer slaves and free blacks, such as Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. Moreover, after the independence of the United States had been established, similar laws were enacted in territories and states which outlawed slavery.

Quote:

The constitutionality of anti-miscegenation laws was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1883 case Pace v. Alabama (106 U.S. 583). The Supreme Court ruled that the Alabama anti-miscegenation statute did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. According to the court, both races were treated equally, because whites and blacks were punished in equal measure for breaking the law against interracial marriage and interracial sex. This judgment was overturned in 1967 in the Loving v. Virginia case, where the Supreme Court declared anti-miscegenation laws a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore unconstitutional.

[edit] Proposed Anti-Miscegenation Amendments
At least three proposed constitutional amendments intended to bar interracial marriage in the United States have been introduced in Congress.[19]

In 1871, Representative Andrew King (Democrat of Missouri) was the first politician in Congress to propose a constitutional amendment to make interracial marriage illegal nation-wide. King proposed this amendment because he feared that the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868 to give equal civil rights to the emancipated ex-slaves (the Freedmen) as part of the process of Reconstruction, would render laws against interracial marriage unconstitutional.

In December 1912 and January 1913, Representative Seaborn Roddenbery (Democrat of Georgia) again introduced a proposal in the United States House of Representatives to insert a prohibition of miscegenation into the US Constitution and thus create a nation-wide ban on interracial marriage. According to the wording of the proposed amendment, "Intermarriage between negros or persons of color and Caucasians... within the United States... is forever prohibited." Roddenbery's proposal was more severe because it defined the racial boundary between whites and "persons of color" by applying the one-drop rule. In his proposed amendment, anyone with "any trace of African or Negro blood" was banned from marrying a white spouse.

Roddenbery's proposed amendment was also a direct reaction to African American heavyweight champion Jack Johnson's marriages to white women, first to Etta Duryea and then to Lucille Cameron. In 1908, Johnson had become the first black boxing world champion, having beaten Tommy Burns. After his victory, the search was on for a white boxer, a "Great White Hope", to beat Johnson. Those hopes were dashed in 1912, when Johnson beat former world champion Jim Jeffries. This victory ignited race riots all over America as frustrated whites attacked celebrating African Americans [Rust and Rust, 1985, p. 147]. Johnson's marriages to and affairs with white women further infuriated white Americans. In his speech introducing his bill before the United States Congress, Roddenbery compared the marriage of Johnson and Cameron to the enslavement of white women, and warned of future civil war that would ensue if interracial marriage was not made illegal nationwide:

"No brutality, no infamy, no degradation in all the years of southern slavery, possessed such villainious character and such atrocious qualities as the provision of the laws of Illinois, Massachusetts, and other states which allow the marriage of the negro, Jack Johnson, to a woman of Caucasian strain. [applause]. Gentleman, I offer this resolution ... that the States of the Union may have an opportunity to ratifty it. ... Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant to the very principles of Saxon government. It is subversive of social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately this slavery of white women to black beasts will bring this nation a conflict as fatal as ever reddened the soil of Virginia or crimsoned the mountain paths of Pennsylvania. ... Let us uproot and exterminate now this debasing, ultra-demoralizing, un-American and inhuman leprosy"

Pyramidologist
03-12-2012, 03:03 AM
Such laws were definitely among the healthiest and most progressive examples America has given the world in its pre-WWII existence.

The rest of us lived in pure White dreamlands, secluded from the day-to-day reality of Third World savages, or even had some foolish, naively romantic notions about them from various works of literature.

No wonder multiracialism has made such inroads so rapidly in Europe. It's starting to become uncomfortable now even to mainstream sheeple, but it's also very nearly too late to act. Should have opened a history book - or looked at places like Detroit in time.

The future of the West is the Vin Diesels and Halle Berrys.

http://www.themeltingpotwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/endangered-species-alert-12.jpg

Uncontrolled mass immigration, London, Trafalgar Square in 2010:

http://bnpideas.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/eid-on-the-square.jpg

Click to zoom.

Supreme American
03-12-2012, 03:27 AM
In all seriousness these photos are absolutely disgusting. Its not really worth trying to get your head around why people date outside their race. I just find some discussions about anthropology though very interesting.

No worse than that Giovanni whore and her white husband, dude.

GeistFaust
03-12-2012, 03:34 AM
Hildegardt Whites and her polish husband Jakub Silkiewicz[/QUOTE]

I had to ask myself what that was at first, because she is so racially messed up its almost if her entire face has been involved in a train wreck.

Supreme American
03-12-2012, 03:37 AM
I had to ask myself what that was at first, because she is so racially messed up its almost if her entire face has been involved in a train wreck.

The top pic looks like a bleached nig, the bottom two look like some kind of panface/mestiza thing.

Mosov
03-12-2012, 03:52 AM
It depends on the culture. Some cultures accept you. For example in Circassian culture, you are accepted to what your father is. A mixture like a Circassian-Arabian like me would be counted as Circassian, because I take after my father not my mother. In some cultures the physical looks are not important at all, you are seen part of the community. I certainly look more Arabian than Circassian, but I feel very close to my Circassian ancestry and bloodline so why would I not identify with it. At the same token I am proud of my Arabian maternal line, and would never discarded. Thus some cultures accept people who are mixed and others don't. It depends on acceptance, thus what people say about mixed race people having identity issues can not be applied to some pairings, nor the so called bone marrow transplants that are often rare and only apply to some and not the majority of the people. The cultural and environmental situation plays a big role in all of this. This why as mixed person I know the complications and none complications of the situation.

But if your mother was Circassian not your father and you grew up as Circassian, I don't see how you wouldn't be accepted...


What about a Turkish Armenian mix? Would it fit in both countries?

According to my definition you could even have a French-Lebanese/Syrian mix and that mix fit in both countries. Probably Yemen-French would already start not to fit.

Electronic God-Man
03-12-2012, 06:21 AM
White minorities have maintained anti-miscegenation laws in post-Reconstruction era South Carolina and South Africa. It can be done, in theory.

Blacks were unable to vote in both cases.


Separatism is no solution. It won't prevent the whites who oppose laws barring them from their illicit sexual practices from engaging in it, and breaking up the United States opens up all kinds of new problems including frequent wars between the new nations, meddling by foreign powers, and Chinese hegemony.

The only real answer to our problem in this country is a reenergized, determined white population rallying around our core Anglo identity and asserting that this is our country and that we have a right to rule. It may get violent as Reconstruction did, but it is our only chance.

I'm not sure what's more of a pipe-dream though, hoping that ~50% of our population (Whites) unanimously and very unexpectedly decide to not only outlaw interracial marriage but reclaim the nation and essentially knock non-Whites back to second class citizens in some rebirth that is bound to cause widespread bloodshed, or separatism which would require some much smaller percentage of Whites and probably the same or less amount of bloodshed.

I don't see any scenario happening. Not unless the US hits rock bottom. Actually, I think that if Whites did reclaim the nation for themselves that it would cause many Blacks and Hispanics to become separatists anyhow.

zack
03-12-2012, 06:29 AM
Blacks were unable to vote in both cases.



I'm not sure what's more of a pipe-dream though, hoping that ~50% of our population (Whites) unanimously and very unexpectedly decide to not only outlaw interracial marriage but reclaim the nation and essentially knock non-Whites back to second class citizens in some rebirth that is bound to cause widespread bloodshed, or separatism which would require some much smaller percentage of Whites and probably the same or less amount of bloodshed.

I don't see any scenario happening. Not unless the US hits rock bottom. Actually, I think that if Whites did reclaim the nation for themselves that it would cause many Blacks and Hispanics to become separatists anyhow.

There is no way to 'reclaim' the nation with a non-white majority. Its not going to happen.

States seceding will be the only answer.

Joe McCarthy
03-12-2012, 06:41 AM
Blacks were unable to vote in both cases.


Blacks were able to vote in South Carolina. That problem was soon solved. ;)

Joe McCarthy
03-12-2012, 06:46 AM
There is no way to 'reclaim' the nation with a non-white majority. Its not going to happen.

States seceding will be the only answer.

How would you explain then the whites of South Carolina successfully overthrowing a Reconstruction government and effectively banning blacks from voting when blacks made up close to 60 percent of the population? Similar was accomplished in Mississippi. Political and military tactics were used to chase scalawags out of the state, suppress black voting, and restore white rule. None of this required secession, and in fact secession got crushed and made this other stuff necessary at all.

Electronic God-Man
03-12-2012, 06:57 AM
Blacks were able to vote in South Carolina. That problem was soon solved. ;)


How would you explain then the whites of South Carolina successfully overthrowing a Reconstruction government and effectively banning blacks from voting when blacks made up close to 60 percent of the population? Similar was accomplished in Mississippi. Political and military tactics were used to chase scalawags out of the state, suppress black voting, and restore white rule. None of this required secession, and in fact secession got crushed and made this other stuff necessary at all.



Yes, I understand that Blacks were lynched, abused and otherwise frightened into submission.

Let's not be ridiculous though. That occurred at a time when Blacks had just been freed from slavery, most of them probably only half-believed it. These people had never dreamed of voting and they had very little idea of what to do anyhow. Is that situation in any way comparable to today? I think not.

zack
03-12-2012, 07:11 AM
Yes, I understand that Blacks were lynched, abused and otherwise frightened into submission.

Let's not be ridiculous though. That occurred at a time when Blacks had just been freed from slavery, most of them probably only half-believed it. These people had never dreamed of voting and they had very little idea of what to do anyhow. Is that situation in any way comparable to today? I think not.

Blacks & non-whites today would fight to the death before we went back to the good old days.

Joe McCarthy
03-12-2012, 07:14 AM
Yes, I understand that Blacks were lynched, abused and otherwise frightened into submission.

Let's not be ridiculous though. That occurred at a time when Blacks had just been freed from slavery, most of them probably only half-believed it. These people had never dreamed of voting and they had very little idea of what to do anyhow. Is that situation in any way comparable to today? I think not.

I dunno. I don't see a lot of strength in the black community today. I see druggies, drunks, and disorganized gangbangers that knock up chicks and dump them. The problem is the weakness in our camp and lack of will. Niggers could probably get rolled again relatively easy. I'd expect strong initial resistance with no ability to sustain it followed by rapid collapse.

Joe McCarthy
03-12-2012, 07:23 AM
Blacks & non-whites today would fight to the death before we went back to the good old days.

Unlikely. The military history of Mexicans and niggers is unimpressive to say the least. Mexican regulars typically ran when faced with our assaults during the Mexican-American War. We just need to get back to that standard again. They'll fold quickly.

Joe McCarthy
03-12-2012, 07:42 AM
Benjamin Ryan Tillman (August 11, 1847– July 3, 1918) was an American politician who served as the 84th Governor of South Carolina, from 1890 to 1894, and as a United States Senator, from 1895 until his death in office. Tillman's views were a matter of national controversy.

Tillman was a member of the Democratic Party. Tillman also served on the first Board of Trustees at Clemson University after assisting with its founding.[1]

Biography

Tillman, of English descent, was born near Trenton, South Carolina. He left school in 1864 to join the Confederate States Army during the American Civil War, but was disabled by an illness that later caused the removal of his left eye; thus, he never fought for the Confederacy. During Reconstruction, he became a paramilitary fighter in the struggle to overthrow the Republican coalition in the state. He was present at the Hamburg Massacre in July 1876, during which a federal militia was overthrown and its arms seized by a group of armed citizens led by Tillman's fellow "Red Shirts".

It was at the Hamburg Massacre that he came of age in 1876, Stephen Kantrowitz writes in this biography of Tillman. As the commander of Edgefield County's Sweetwater Sabre Club, a paramilitary unit dedicated to terrorizing Republican officeholders in South Carolina, the 29-year-old Tillman, with his red-shirted troopers, participated in the Hamburg Riot on July 8, an occasion marked by the murder of a number of black militiamen who had conducted a celebratory parade through the mostly black town of Hamburg, South Carolina, four days earlier. As Tillman himself would later put it, "The leading white men of Edgefield" had decided "to seize the first opportunity that the Negroes might offer them to provoke a riot and teach the Negroes a lesson" by "having the whites demonstrate their superiority by killing as many of them as was justifiable." None of the perpetrators of the Hamburg murders were ever brought to justice.

Tillman's role in the Hamburg Riot established him as a leading figure in the white supremacist movement. His involvement, about which he boasted constantly in future years, was the cornerstone upon which he would build his political career, first as governor of South Carolina and then, for 24 years, as a United States senator.[2]

Governor of South Carolina

Presenting himself as the friend of ordinary white farmers, "Pitchfork Ben" Tillman took over the South Carolina Farmers Alliance, and used the organization to advance his political ambitions. He was elected Governor of South Carolina in 1890, and served from December 1890 to December 1894. He helped establish Clemson College and Winthrop College while in office, and the Tillman Halls on both campuses are named in his honor. When the Alliance founded the Populist Party on the Ocala Demands, Tillman arranged for the South Carolina Democratic Party to adopt the platform, though he refused to endorse the "sub-treasury," the Populists' most ambitious economic proposal, or to countenance any appeal to black voters. The strategy prevented the development of an independent Populist Party and the biracial politics of North Carolina, thus assuring white control through the dominant, white Democratic Party.

He was largely responsible for calling the State constitutional convention in 1895 that disfranchised most of South Carolina's black men and required Jim Crow laws. As Tillman proudly proclaimed in 1900, "We have done our level best [to prevent blacks from voting]... we have scratched our heads to find out how we could eliminate the last one of them. We stuffed ballot boxes. We shot them. We are not ashamed of it." (Logan, p.91)

In 1892, a group of Tillman's supporters in Abbeville, South Carolina, prepared a banner anointing the governor the "Champion of White Men's Rule and Woman's Virtue". Earlier that year, Tillman had coupled a statement opposing lynching with a declaration that he would "willingly lead a mob in lynching a Negro who had committed an assault upon a white woman." His "lynching pledge", as this promise became known, was never personally carried out, but it reveals a great deal about Tillman's rhetorical and political strategy. The black man, in Tillman's words, "must remain subordinate or be exterminated". An epidemic of mob killings broke out in South Carolina in the 1890s, and in the upcountry counties of Abbeville, Edgefield, Laurens and Newberry, lynchings outnumbered legal executions during that decade.[2]

U.S. Senate

Tillman was elected to the United States Senate in 1894, succeeding Senator Matthew Butler, who had also been directly involved in the Hamburg Massacre. Tillman would be re-elected three more times, and would hold office from 1895 to his death in 1918. A hotheaded and intemperate debater, Tillman became known as "Pitchfork Ben" after a 1896 Senate speech in which he "won the voters' hearts by announcing his determination to go to Washington and plunge a pitchfork into the rump of President Grover Cleveland."[3]

In 1901, after President Theodore Roosevelt dined in the White house with Booker T. Washington, Senator Tillman said, “The action of President Roosevelt in entertaining that nigger will necessitate our killing a thousand niggers in the South before they learn their place again.” [4]

During his Senate career, he was censured by the Senate in 1902 after assaulting John L. McLaurin, another Senator and his counterpart from South Carolina.[5] As a result, the Senate added to its rules the provision that "No senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator."[6] He was also barred from the White House.[7]

He became the chairman of the Committee on Revolutionary Claims (57th through 59th Congresses); served on the Committee on Five Civilized Tribes of Indians (61st and 62nd Congresses); and the Committee on Naval Affairs (63rd through 65th Congresses). During World War I, impatient with the Navy's requests for larger battleships every year, he ordered the United States Navy to design "maximum battleships," the largest battleships that they could use.

Tillman took the lead in railroad regulation, though his foe Republican President Theodore Roosevelt out-maneuvered him in passage of the Hepburn Act of 1906. Tillman was the primary sponsor of the Tillman Act, the first federal campaign finance reform law, which was passed in 1907 and banned corporate contributions in federal political campaigns.

Tillman was the younger brother of George Dionysius Tillman (1826–1902), a U.S. Representative from South Carolina, serving from 1879 to 1893 (with one interruption).

Senator Tillman died in office in Washington, D.C. and is buried in Ebenezer Cemetery, Trenton, South Carolina. A statue of him is outside the South Carolina State House.[8] Tillman Hall at Winthrop University and Clemson University is also named in his honor as an early trustee of the university.

rhiannon
03-12-2012, 09:04 AM
With illegitimacy rates and single mother rates in the black community at 65-75% this seems to be a black behavior. Although to put it in context white out of wedlock births are higher than blacks were during the 1960s,but even so the decline of the family has been much more worse on the black end.

There is a reason why there is this:

http://www.chimpout.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=9381&d=1323210633

zack, it's more prevalent in the black community...this much is true....more than half of all black males in this country will spend time behind bars. This is a contributing factor.

However, lest you think otherwise, there are more than a fair share of white men who do the same damn thing. You're kidding yourself to think otherwise.

I know of a situation, for example, the woman is my ex best friend....the father of her second child is a black man. He is an honorable black man, however, and he has NEVER walked out on his son. Yes, they were not married when she got pregnant, but HE wanted to marry her. SHE said no. She has shown herself to be more of a dirtbag than he is....and this is why she is now my EX best friend:(

Alleging something to be a *black behavior* makes the assumption that other races don't engage in the same behavior....and this is simply not true.

Joe McCarthy
03-12-2012, 09:10 AM
Such laws were definitely among the healthiest and most progressive examples America has given the world in its pre-WWII existence.

The rest of us lived in pure White dreamlands, secluded from the day-to-day reality of Third World savages, or even had some foolish, naively romantic notions about them from various works of literature.

Yes, and unfortunately back in the day we were subjected to a good deal of lecturing from Europe about the way we treated blacks. One of the most violent fulminations I've read came ironically from Arthur Schopenhauer, who came off like a radical, moralistic abolitionist In denouncing our slave system. Ironic, that, given his 'far right' approval and his status as Hitler's favorite philosopher.

Sadly, not much has changed, either. To Western liberal snobs we're still uncouth racists, fit to be looked down on. That such types had and have little understanding of the situation or the doom we've long faced with the presence of Africans among us only makes the sneering all the more a source of resentment.

Rereg
03-12-2012, 09:15 AM
Nigerian footballer Emmanuel Olisadebe and his polish wife Beata Smolińska:

http://old.vipnews.pl/news/grafika/duze2/06_18_beata_smolinska_i_emmanuel_olisadebe.jpg

http://img.interia.pl/sport/nimg/Sportowcy_slubnym_1155259.jpg

CelticViking
03-12-2012, 09:52 AM
zack, it's more prevalent in the black community...this much is true....more than half of all black males in this country will spend time behind bars. This is a contributing factor.

However, lest you think otherwise, there are more than a fair share of white men who do the same damn thing. You're kidding yourself to think otherwise.

I know of a situation, for example, the woman is my ex best friend....the father of her second child is a black man. He is an honorable black man, however, and he has NEVER walked out on his son. Yes, they were not married when she got pregnant, but HE wanted to marry her. SHE said no. She has shown herself to be more of a dirtbag than he is....and this is why she is now my EX best friend:(

Alleging something to be a *black behavior* makes the assumption that other races don't engage in the same behavior....and this is simply not true.

Yes a few White men can be losers too, but you're always throwing the fact away and trying to make everyone equal.

rhiannon
03-12-2012, 10:27 AM
Yes a few White men can be losers too, but you're always throwing the fact away and trying to make everyone equal.

People on here constantly excuse the poor behavior of whites by deflecting blame. It is all over this board.

It's stupid and ridiculous, and it does NOTHING to help us solve our own problems.

In the USA, there are a shitload of deadbeat fathers....men who don't do jack diddly squat for their children. They're not ALL black. Is that so difficult for you to comprehend?

This refusal to see any negativity within our own race, while at the same time refusing to see anything BUT negativity in nonwhite races is getting old....not to mention it speaks directly to a collective denial of sorts.

Yes, people are equal in my eyes in the fact we are all human beings. So shoot me:rolleyes:

zack
03-12-2012, 09:03 PM
Unlikely. The military history of Mexicans and niggers is unimpressive to say the least. Mexican regulars typically ran when faced with our assaults during the Mexican-American War. We just need to get back to that standard again. They'll fold quickly.

Have you seen whites today? You would not be just fighting non-whites but their white lovers and white sympathizers.

That is not much to say though when whites in america are a bunch of obese video game loving over educated tards.

Odoacer
03-12-2012, 09:42 PM
It's not the denial of a marriage ban: it is the very fact that government can reach behind the close doors of the sanctity of the home.

Someone please remind me: When did marriage become strictly a private, bedroom institution? Because as I recall, it's been a public institution regulated by the state for millennia; indeed, I'm certain that polygamy is outlawed in the vast majority of Europe. That has nothing to do with "totalitarianism."

AussieScott
03-13-2012, 12:37 AM
Mississippi seems like a good place to live for a white man... :)


Public Policy Polling surveyed self-identified Republican voters in Mississippi. They were asked a series of questions regarding issue positions and their likelihood of voting for a given Republican presidential candidate in the 2012 race. Among their findings: apparently, race still matters to the good Tea Party GOP voters of Mississippi, with 46 percent of the respondents indicating that interracial marriage should be illegal. And in good news for Sarah Palin, those who supported her were significantly more likely to oppose marriage across the colorline.

A comment form a biracial man... even the other races don't want him...


try to be a multiracial (black and white) guy dating in and around St. Louis. 90 percent of the profiles are of caucasian women (whom I have zero problem dating) and 90 percent of those say they date caucasian men only. Interestingly, most of the hispanic and all of the asian profiles say caucasian men only.

Attorney, military officer, no kids, and I might as well be nonexistent and primarily based on these profiles because of an aversion to interracial dating.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002415195

The Lawspeaker
03-13-2012, 12:39 AM
Someone please remind me: When did marriage become strictly a private, bedroom institution? Because as I recall, it's been a public institution regulated by the state for millennia; "
Since we have a separation of Church and State.

Odoacer
03-13-2012, 01:44 AM
Since we have a separation of Church and State.

So the Netherlands began allowing polygamy & gay marriage way back in 1795 with the disestablishment of the Dutch Reformed Church, right? :lol: Please, Civis. Marriage is regulated because it is a public institution at the heart of society. Not granting a marriage license is not the same as outlawing sexual fetishes in the bedroom.

RagnarLodbrok666
03-13-2012, 01:46 AM
I'll raise my hand and say yes. :D

Incal
03-13-2012, 01:47 AM
http://www.tvsa.co.za/forum/images/misc/hildegardt_kuba_large.jpg

Hildegardt Whites and her polish husband Jakub Silkiewicz


And what's the problem? She's whites!

http://werewolf-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/ba-dum-tss.jpg

The Lawspeaker
03-13-2012, 02:03 AM
So the Netherlands began allowing polygamy & gay marriage way back in 1795 with the disestablishment of the Dutch Reformed Church, right? :lol: Please, Civis. Marriage is regulated because it is a public institution at the heart of society. Not granting a marriage license is not the same as outlawing sexual fetishes in the bedroom.
We don't have marriage licenses here as in America. Here it only states that one cannot be married to someone if one is already married and that's it.

But luckily we should do things we see fit in this country.

Supreme American
03-13-2012, 02:16 AM
I dunno. I don't see a lot of strength in the black community today. I see druggies, drunks, and disorganized gangbangers that knock up chicks and dump them. The problem is the weakness in our camp and lack of will. Niggers could probably get rolled again relatively easy. I'd expect strong initial resistance with no ability to sustain it followed by rapid collapse.

Don't forget that 99% of their activist base is controlled and funded by Jews.

Supreme American
03-13-2012, 02:17 AM
Mississippi seems like a good place to live for a white man... :)

The US media as of late has been repeatedly taking cheap shots at Mississippi, trying to portray them as backward. Sounds like some good folk that way.

Supreme American
03-13-2012, 02:21 AM
Blacks & non-whites today would fight to the death before we went back to the good old days.

I think their biggest concern is being disinvited from the white man's dinner table altogether, as having their access to it regulated. That more than anything scares the living shit out of them.

Odoacer
03-13-2012, 05:39 AM
We don't have marriage licenses here as in America.

You still have to register with the local authorities to have a legal marriage in the Netherlands, so I'm not sure that there is much difference here.


Here it only states that one cannot be married to someone if one is already married and that's it.

:eek: TOTALITARIANISM! How dare the Dutch state interfere with the sacred privacy of the bedroom! :....

The Lawspeaker
03-13-2012, 05:49 AM
You still have to register with the local authorities to have a legal marriage in the Netherlands, so I'm not sure that there is much difference here.
That's the ondertrouw, yes. But it is not a marriage permission in the American sense.




:eek: TOTALITARIANISM! How dare the Dutch state interfere with the sacred privacy of the bedroom! :....
One has to be of the legal age, legally capable and unmarried. These are the sole qualifications.

Siberyak
03-13-2012, 05:52 AM
Mississippi seems like a good place to live for a white man... :)



A comment form a biracial man... even the other races don't want him...



http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002415195

The state of Mississippi is 37% black. So no Mississippi is not a good place to live for a white man.

AussieScott
03-13-2012, 11:13 AM
The state of Mississippi is 37% black. So no Mississippi is not a good place to live for a white man.

Explains the racial awareness, at least it kicks in.

Scrapple
03-13-2012, 12:00 PM
Mississippi seems like a good place to live for a white man... :)



A comment form a biracial man... even the other races don't want him...



http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002415195


Love some of the comments:eek:

Mississippi may be more racist than other states, but there's a lot of racism here in Nebraska too, including within my husband's family. We have nothing to do with them. Our allegiance goes to our kids and their "rainbow" families - to our daughters-in-law and our biracial and multiracial grandchildren and adoptive African American grandson.

I'd post a video of "Here's to the State of Mississippi" but I'm pretty sure my post would be alerted on.

I despise racists of all skin colors.

Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to frogmarch (Reply #12)Mon Mar 12, 2012, 04:06 PM
Rozlee
36. Same here.

Last edited Mon Mar 12, 2012, 04:08 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

My mom, a Mexican national, had my half siblings by a Cajun. I married a German national and one of my daughters married a Haitian. My husband's late wife was from Okinawa. My children, step-children and grandchildren are so beautiful that it takes my breath away. No bias here.

StonyArabia
03-13-2012, 05:16 PM
There were maybe 30,000 interracial births yearly in the US in the 1930s with almost no interracial marriages. Now the interracial marriage rate has skyrocketed and the interracial birthrate is now in six figures. I'm curious why anyone would think we had more interracialism under Jim Crow than under Barack Obama unless the aim is an overly-aggressive attempt to push a miscegenation agenda. In any case, any such suggestion is ludicrous.

Actually that's because some of them were not documented. Some communities were born through racemixing, and some eventually got White status or Indian status this depends on who they interacted with and what culture they adopted. Even when there were such laws, people did it, nor it was limited as people often claim, and the reason they are not documented because it was done secret a very common thing that was done. The communities like the Melungeon, JacksonWhites, Redbones, Lumbee, ect. Shows indeed otherwise, that such laws did not really stop it. Even if you implement laws it will still go on. None is pushing anything but rather this about freedoms of the individuals and they have the right to choose who their partner is going to be,and the state has no role in it nor does the general public because it's none of their business.

ShlomoLen
03-13-2012, 05:18 PM
No. If anything, mixing should be encouraged, because it would end all the racism.

rhiannon
03-13-2012, 05:23 PM
No. If anything, mixing should be encouraged, because it would end all the racism.

Truthfully, ShlomoLen, I am not sure human beings are capable of ending racism. People just tend to hate and fear what they see as different.

It's a sad thing all around:(

Joe McCarthy
03-13-2012, 08:39 PM
Truthfully, ShlomoLen, I am not sure human beings are capable of ending racism. People just tend to hate and fear what they see as different.

It's a sad thing all around:(

In the 1950s Papa Doc Duvalier was elected President of Haiti on a platform of empowering the 'black masses' against the mulatto elite. So in essence you're right. Mixing doesn't end 'racism'. It just creates a color gradient and difference is still seen based on that. As Disraeli said, the existence of racial differences creates conflict. As even mixing cannot abolish racial differences we'll always have conflict. What can be abolished, however, is the white race in America, and it will very likely happen unless we change course and return to the real America of our forefathers.

Contra Mundum
03-13-2012, 08:44 PM
The Left focuses so much on combating white racism, but not prejudice in general, because the Left is the most prejudicial and hateful. In America, they despise Christians and Southerners, and even excuse or ignore racial attacks on innocent whites.

Joe McCarthy
03-13-2012, 08:51 PM
Actually that's because some of them were not documented.

I see. So though we have documented statistics on how many interracial births we had both under Jim Crow and now, we're to ignore those in favor of no documentation, which assumes there were more interracial births based on no evidence, or as you put it 'not documented'. Excuse me if I dismiss this as an argument from ignorance fallacy.



Even if you implement laws it will still go on.

At much reduced rates, yes.


None is pushing anything but rather this about freedoms of the individuals and they have the right to choose who their partner is going to be,and the state has no role in it nor does the general public because it's none of their business.

So do individuals have the right to choose gay partners, incestuous marriages, triad marriages, or do they just have a 'right' (one wonders where this right is found in the Bill of Rights) to engage in interracial marriages because as you said yourself you're a product of one? ;)

Supreme American
03-13-2012, 10:29 PM
Explains the racial awareness, at least it kicks in.

Most liberal American whites are nicely ensconced in white suburbs.

Supreme American
03-13-2012, 10:30 PM
The Left focuses so much on combating white racism, but not prejudice in general, because the Left is the most prejudicial and hateful. In America, they despise Christians and Southerners, and even excuse or ignore racial attacks on innocent whites.

Well how much money is there also in speaking of non-white racism against whites? The niggers and panfaces don't own corporations and consequently you can't shake them down.

Aivap
03-13-2012, 11:22 PM
I favour laws banning marriage among people who favor laws banning interracial marriage.

The Lawspeaker
03-13-2012, 11:33 PM
I favour laws banning marriage among people who favor laws banning interracial marriage.
Totalitarian measures for those that desire it for others. That's a good idea.

BiałaZemsta
03-13-2012, 11:41 PM
There are laws in place to preserve certain animals, so why should humans not be preserved as seperate types also? I am all for a ban on interacial marriage.

StonyArabia
03-13-2012, 11:52 PM
I see. So though we have documented statistics on how many interracial births we had both under Jim Crow and now, we're to ignore those in favor of no documentation, which assumes there were more interracial births based on no evidence, or as you put it 'not documented'. Excuse me if I dismiss this as an argument from ignorance fallacy.

One has to exactly look at the Melungeon, Jackson Whites, Redbones, and the Lumbee, to see that an interracial relationships were not known and most often they did in fact happen in secret. The documentation fails because some communities like I have said chose to identify as White or Indian, depending on the cultural background those. It's not ignorance fallacy at all, and it happened and will continue to happen, not every interracial birth is documented. As well here http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/mixed/



At much reduced rates, yes.

Then nothing was changed at all.Many often it happens behind closed doors, so why the point of having them in the first place.


So do individuals have the right to choose gay partners, incestuous marriages, triad marriages, or do they just have a 'right' (one wonders where this right is found in the Bill of Rights) to engage in interracial marriages because as you said yourself you're a product of one? ;)


Frankly it's apples and oranges since in all societies universally agree that gay marriage, incestuous marriages and triad marriages are wrong or seen as part of defective element in society. However interracial marriage is rather a natural product because it often happens when people of two different sexes and stocks of people just like monoracial marriages. As well some say it's rather natural because it often happened since the beginning of humanity itself. Well people have the right to sleep and fall in love with however they want, and this is important aspect in all of this. Yes I am a product of interracial marriage, but in reality this is not why oppose such laws in the first place but because they are against the freedom of the individual to choose who they fall in love with and it's their business and the state has no role in it.

Supreme American
03-13-2012, 11:53 PM
There are laws in place to preserve certain animals, so why should humans not be preserved as seperate types also? I am all for a ban on interacial marriage.

Spotted owls are more important than white folks. Everyone knows this.