it's only a matter of time before they ban us from enjoying white women.Originally Posted by byrnecres
it's only a matter of time before they ban us from enjoying white women.
You know what's funny about you, you simply ignore points which you don't like. I made a full post which absolutely destroyed all of your points, which you ignored, yet you continue to knit pick and take jabs where you think you can get a footing, while ignoring the core issues.
Your attitude reeks of typical elitist, multiculturalist condescension and you're talking out of your ass. What are "those old attitudes"? Whites in the south are generally about as white guilt ridden as people everywhere else. The degree to which they're not is because they actually LIVE around lots of blacks, and are disillusioned by the "we're all the same" propaganda which permeates the Northeast and Northwest. It's easy to cry "racist" and denounce all the "hate" when you live in areas which are 90+% white. It's easy to not understand "all the intolerance" when you aren't subjected to the violent, astonishingly disproportionate minority on white crime, or when your kids lack funding for college, or get denied admission over less qualified students because of their race. Sure, if you don't have friends and family members who've been raped, robbed, or killed and you live in a 90+% white area, it's easy to cast aspersions and yell "racist". Obviously, you chose to ignore the crime stats I shared with you in my previous post.
What are these supposed "attitudes" about segregation? Are you suggesting that many whites in the south advocate resurrecting jim crow laws? That's just pure horse shit. "Segregation" is a natural phenomenon. It happens with no force. Despite multi decade attempts to enforce "integration" to the tune of billions, segregation persists. Studies have shown that the more "diverse" a university is, the more students self segregate. Also that the more "diverse" a community is the less trust that people have in each other, the less they identify in their community, and the less of a vested interest they take in their community. People in more diverse communities are less likely to vote, less likely to volunteer, and are less likely to seek contact with neighbors. You can read more about these FACTS in Harvard's study "The Downside of Diversity": http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ide...ity/?page=full In fact, many of the biggest advocates of "diversity" all run away to all white suburbs as soon as nonwhites start moving into their neighborhoods, and spend small fortunes to send their kids to schools which are nearly all white. "Diversity" is generally always for the other guy. This pattern is so common there's even a name for it: "white flight". 85% of all churches are 90% or more one ethnicity. This isn't just a preference of white people. Generally all groups want to be among their own, and live in a community which reflects their values and ethnocultural traits. "Integration" is unnatural and forced, "segregation" is the organic norm.
People generally prefer to surround themselves with people like them. This doesn't just apply to whites. All people, on average, tend to identify most with, relate most readily with, and feel most comfortable with people like themselves. Don't you find it odd that despite the vast swaths of mixing propaganda, that people generally prefer to live in communities, have friends, select mates with people of their own racial group? Racial groups share tens of thousands of years of evolution separate from other groups. Racial groups represent epochs of numerous millennia worth of common ancestry. Mere babies readily recognize racial differences in people and respond more positively to members of their own racial group. Hence, it's highly natural and organic for people to identify and relate to most readily with members of their own racial group. Segregation, then, is a natural preference and has nothing to do with "hate" or "racism". Of course, I'm fully expecting you to ignore this post too, just like the last one I made in which your premise was bitch slapped. Better to just not respond, that way you don't have to acknowledge that you have no rebuttal and are empty handed. Of course, you continually respond to everyone else who hasn't nailed your ass to the wall and eviscerated your "points". Don't worry, it's not REALLY REALLY obvious or anything...
Nope.
When I say we hate the south....I mean we hate the history of the south and the fact some of those old attitudes (about blacks, segregation, etc) still prevail in many parts. My husband lived there for several years (in several southern states) back in the 1990s....he hated a lot of what he saw. He is also a Yankee....so go figure
However, I've met a few very nice southerners....so though I have no wish to go to the South for any reason, it would be wrong for me to lump ALL southerners into one group....and I don't do that.
The culture of the South is very different than the culture of the West Coast ....so should it really be that surprising that the ideals I was raised with would NOT mesh well with a person whose ideals come from the Old South?
I dunno. Makes sense to me.
Nevertheless....I never did make mention of banning that flag. I just said I hated that flag.....and I do hate it. But....people have the right to display it as long as it's not disrupting anything.
Last edited by Savant; 10-01-2011 at 01:53 PM.
Next time please try reading posts more carefully. Tennessee Williams, William Faulkner, etc., were not born in the Antebellum South.
Absolutely, when they say that we need to have "a conversation about race" in America they mean "let our side have a monologue about race". A conversation has multiple participants, but they only want one side to be aired. Like Buchanan said, let's have the whole conversation: despite any suffering of previous eras of blacks, American blacks are better off than pretty much any large population of blacks anywhere on earth. Even at that, a slave or jim crow era black still had an unthinkably better life than anyone in blacks in sub saharan Africa could have hoped for. So, I'm all for a "conversation about race", so long as we have the whole conversation...
THANK YOU. UGH. That was what I was explaining in another thread, and partially in this one.. I'd like to ask the negros who hate da white man for puttin dem in slavery, if they would have rather stayed in Africa being a prisoner/slave to either their own people or to sand niggers, (that slavery was 100000000x worse then anything they had here) or if they would rather come to a country, make mashed potatoes, pick cotton, and in return have housing and food (kind of like a job in a way), and to later on have every single fucking right of the founders of this country and be able to see one of their own as being a "leader"of this country.. Gee, I wonder if they would have wanted to stay in Africa enslaved by their own people never knowing anything of civilization
Byrnecres, there are two reasons Boudica and others are becoming angry with you:
1) They care about you. You're of our blood, and you've expressed an interest in preservationism; that makes you worth fighting for.
2) You seem to be completely oblivious to fact, which can be quite infuriating from the perspective of the person arguing from a fact-based position. Boudica, Savant, and myself--amongst others--have presented empirical facts which put the lie to the white oppressor/black oppressed dichotomy you've been spoon-fed your whole life. Amazingly, these facts seem to have no effect whatsoever on you, and you continue operating wholly on emotion and rhetoric.
Anyway, I don't have anything against you as a person, but it's very easy to see how your la-la-la-fingers-in-ears-I-can't-hear-you modus operandi gets people riled up.
It seems to me that I have lived alone—
Alone, as one that liveth in a dream:
As light on coldest marble, or the gleam
Of moons eternal on a land of stone,
The days have been to me. I have but known
The silence of Thulean lands extreme—
A silence all-attending and supreme
As is the sea's enormous monotone.
Yes lecture at university, and I remain skeptical that their figure was accurate so I am not at contest with ye however for the sake of a worst case scenario the figure still illustrates that a minority owned slaves and that 5% of Southrons (the wealthiest in the Cotton Belt) were the primary slave owners having had multiple slaves.
I know what slaves cost back in the day and I was basically agreeing with you that slave owners were still a minority as all my posts in this thread have indicated the flag and the war was not over slavery, and I know that the slaves were concentrated among the wealthy hence why my family owned not and fought for the Confederacy to push back invasion and Federalism.
Another inconvenient fact that they don't like to include in their lectures: being a slave trader was one of the number one employers of freed slaves. One in four freed slaves was a slave owner or slave trader themselves. Would that not also impute some guilt upon blacks themselves for slavery? After all, the slaves came from AFRICAN slave owners in the first place. NYC was the no 2 per capita city in terms of slave ownership. Oh, and that "emancipation proclamation"? It only freed the slaves in the confederate states. If the civil war was about slavery, why did Lincoln only free the southern slaves in his emancipation proclamation? Why is it never mentioned that Lincoln fully intended to "repatriate" all the slaves back to Africa after abolition?
In 100% agreement here, also the way Virginian slavery worked (the kind of slavery practiced in Virginia, parts of North Carolina, Tennessee, etc.. basically the Upper South) was an indenture sort of system where after a certain term of years a slave would be freed and would at times purchase land from their former masters and prosper quite well. The Caribbean style of slavery was what was practiced in the cotton belt and could get messy at times (rare instances as slaves were an investment) since it was concentrated among a minority of the wealthiest minority the damages were not proportional to the hysteria taught in Americanization programs (high schools).
From the looks of things, the real problem is that she belongs to a generation that cannot break this belief system. At least from the way she has referred to herself, I must conclude that she was born before 1985. The only thing we as the upcoming generation can hope to do is take the preceding generation, the generation of the 1960s, 1970s, and early 1980s, and silence them, eradicate their ideology, and relegate all of their "achievements" to the footnotes of history where they belong.
I fear, however, that the elder generation is one whose influence cannot be eliminated, because it represents the chaos after the fall, not the decadence before. In any case, it is the responsibility of the young and intelligent, liberated of the falsehoods of the Martin Luther Kommissar, Jr. generation, to take it upon ourselves to form a society and a civilization in which the lies of Negro "oppression", Affirmative Action, and "dead white men" are completely swept away.
If such a one as this "Viking Bitch" (I mean no insult, she adopted the title herself) is forced into silence, as she ought to be, then the poisonous ideas with which her generation has infected the world will die with that generation - and the age of Baby-boomer ideology (which includes people born well beyond the end of the official baby-boomer time frame) will be brought to an end.
We cannot hope, in short, to recover those lost to this treachery. They are gone forever, as one infected with an incurable disease. All we can hope to do is fight the infection through quarantine and fumigation where necessary.
^ yes she's very old fashioned
Jon, I'm not that braindeadI don't necessarily see all whites as the oppressor, and whatever gave you that idea is beyond me. I see my race as imperfect and full of both strengths and flaws. Certainly, that is not an unreasonable approach.
Do you know why I don't judge other cultures or races? Because since I'm not a member of those groups and therefore privvy to the ins and outs of their cultures, I simply don't feel it is my place to judge. I don't have all the facts.
People on here think and assume my thought processes are much more narrow and uninformed than they are in reality. This is all that can be said, for none of you are going to believe me anyway.
The POINT of this thread discussed whether or not the confederate flag ought to be banned from display. I NEVER ONCE said that it should. That would be a violation of human liberty. I DID discuss my feelings about the flag...and those have not changed. But to get all up in my grill because I don't feel a sense of pride by seeing that flag? That's unfair.
I grew up out here on the West Coast. We are very similar out here to the types of thinking found in Mass and parts of New England. My ENTIRE family are like this and would basically argue in much the same way as I am now.
In Boudica's case, she was raised by her parents who have taught her to embrace the beliefs she has. She, like me, is a product of her upbringing and environment. The fact she and I disagree should not surprise anyone. But, I respect her opinion nonetheless....and I frankly respect your opinion and most others on here
My opinions are not blind, and nor are they naive in any sense. You and many others would be surprised to learn some of my life experiences in racism, honestly.
That's all I can tell you. I do appreciate your post....and I HAVE already made more impact on preservation of my race than many posters on here....for I have had two children, and they are of the same culture and race as I am
You know NOTHING of MY life and MY experiences as a white person. Never ONCE have I stated I am against all forms of segregation, either. Read my posts...You know what's funny about you, you simply ignore points which you don't like. I made a full post which absolutely destroyed all of your points, which you ignored, yet you continue to knit pick and take jabs where you think you can get a footing, while ignoring the core issues.
Your attitude reeks of typical elitist, multiculturalist condescension and you're talking out of your ass. What are "those old attitudes"? Whites in the south are generally about as white guilt ridden as people everywhere else. The degree to which they're not is because they actually LIVE around lots of blacks, and are disillusioned by the "we're all the same" propaganda which permeates the Northeast and Northwest. It's easy to cry "racist" and denounce all the "hate" when you live in areas which are 90+% white. It's easy to not understand "all the intolerance" when you aren't subjected to the violent, astonishingly disproportionate minority on white crime, or when your kids lack funding for college, or get denied admission over less qualified students because of their race. Sure, if you don't have friends and family members who've been raped, robbed, or killed and you live in a 90+% white area, it's easy to cast aspersions and yell "racist". Obviously, you chose to ignore the crime stats I shared with you in my previous post.
What are these supposed "attitudes" about segregation? Are you suggesting that many whites in the south advocate resurrecting jim crow laws? That's just pure horse shit. "Segregation" is a natural phenomenon. It happens with no force. Despite multi decade attempts to enforce "integration" to the tune of billions, segregation persists. Studies have shown that the more "diverse" a university is, the more students self segregate. Also that the more "diverse" a community is the less trust that people have in each other, the less they identify in their community, and the less of a vested interest they take in their community. People in more diverse communities are less likely to vote, less likely to volunteer, and are less likely to seek contact with neighbors. You can read more about these FACTS in Harvard's study "The Downside of Diversity": http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ide...ity/?page=full In fact, many of the biggest advocates of "diversity" all run away to all white suburbs as soon as nonwhites start moving into their neighborhoods, and spend small fortunes to send their kids to schools which are nearly all white. "Diversity" is generally always for the other guy. This pattern is so common there's even a name for it: "white flight". 85% of all churches are 90% or more one ethnicity. This isn't just a preference of white people. Generally all groups want to be among their own, and live in a community which reflects their values and ethnocultural traits. "Integration" is unnatural and forced, "segregation" is the organic norm.
People generally prefer to surround themselves with people like them. This doesn't just apply to whites. All people, on average, tend to identify most with, relate most readily with, and feel most comfortable with people like themselves. Don't you find it odd that despite the vast swaths of mixing propaganda, that people generally prefer to live in communities, have friends, select mates with people of their own racial group? Racial groups share tens of thousands of years of evolution separate from other groups. Racial groups represent epochs of numerous millennia worth of common ancestry. Mere babies readily recognize racial differences in people and respond more positively to members of their own racial group. Hence, it's highly natural and organic for people to identify and relate to most readily with members of their own racial group. Segregation, then, is a natural preference and has nothing to do with "hate" or "racism". Of course, I'm fully expecting you to ignore this post too, just like the last one I made in which your premise was bitch slapped. Better to just not respond, that way you don't have to acknowledge that you have no rebuttal and are empty handed. Of course, you continually respond to everyone else who hasn't nailed your ass to the wall and eviscerated your "points". Don't worry, it's not REALLY REALLY obvious or anything...
I am against Jim Crow laws and what sort of segregation was practiced prior to 1964.
Voluntary segregation has NOTHING to do with that.
You people think because I don't respond to your post that this makes you superior and that you've won an intellectual argument?
What is my premise, pray tell? Since you know me so well and all.
I am very aware of white flight, sir. That is how most ghettos formed, actually. When the whites fled, so did all the MONEY... It's the opposite of gentrification..
Why is it a person cannot have an opinion that is different on these core issues without so many people getting into an uproar about it? Do you really think you can change my mind, here?
If you do, it certainly will not be done by insulting ME personally. Who the hell wants to have a discussion with persons that engage in personal ad hominem attacks as a means to make their points?
I'd happily discuss with you. As for your last post, I recall seeing it a while back, and actually meant to discuss some of it, but got sidetracked by other things....mainly my husband and son
Anyway...if you wish to talk with me, I have no problems doing that. But, I don't respond to personal insults.
Thank you.
ETA: To get an idea where I am coming from, if you care to understand, take a good look at my response to my own Rule the World thread. That will give a good synopsis of how I feel about the mess this whole world is in, and what I'd wish to see happen if I ever did rule the world, lol.
You ought to reply to the post yourself
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
United States
España
United States
England
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks