Originally posted by masonwatcher
You are equating the worst of the worst (Hitler, et al) with historical figure and it is a bit extreme.
You specifically stated that
racists are known by their habit of invading other countries:
I just gave you the names of some "racists" that invaded other countries too.
Originally posted by masonwatcher
Why did you leave Alexander the Great when referring to Tarik ibn Ziyad?
Because all white people are subconciously racist - didn't you get the memo?
Originally posted by masonwatcher
As for Shaka Zulu, his activities was strictly limited to controlling grazing land and competing local tribes and did not include the use of death
camps and trans-Atlantic slavery.
What about the estimated 2 million deaths his reign caused? And last time I checked, colonial
America did not partake in "death camps".
Originally posted by masonwatcher
I think you are drawing a line between white folks and the rest of the human race.
Nope.
Originally posted by masonwatcher
Please understand that our technology is built on the shoulders of predecessor civilizations and whites have only been in domination for the past 500
years.
But the leap in technology from the Renaissance to the 21st Century has had no parallel in human history.
Originally posted by masonwatcher
Modern science is the direct progeny of Arabian hard sciences; everything from optics to medicine.
And where did the "Arabians" get their knowledge from? As you said, nearly all
human technological and scientific developments have been built off those done by preceding civilisations...
Originally posted by masonwatcher
Amicule, deliciae, num is sum qui mentiar tibi? Nevertheless, that pointless statement quoted above is wholly yours and has nothing to do with
me.
...except you compared the BNP to "Hitler" - wait,
Godwin's Law would probably be more
appropriate:
"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Originally posted by masonwatcher
Regarding the first part of your comment, have you actually seen women around a silky skinned, lean, black man delivering some cool? Funny you used
the words 'white women can't keep their hands off black men'.'
Someone's got
jungle fever! (I won't tell
)
Originally posted by masonwatcher
Regarding Russia and Iceland; Russia was known as an empire. Although it was extremely backwards until the Soviets turned up, it was very wealthy. Do
you know why? Because it colonised the Caucasus and the Far East. It was a land Empire dude. It relied upon the dark people of the south and the
Asiatics of the East.
...except the "Far-Eastern" parts of Russia were largely barren wastelands, inhabited by a handful of Asiatic tribes:
Your analogy would be like saying Canada is so developed because of their enslavement of Inuits.
Originally posted by masonwatcher
Iceland is a poor country in the North Atlantic with an umbilical cord to Norway and Denmark; what of it?
It's still
wealthier by GDP than countries 2 or 3 times its size, with higher
populations and more natural resources to exploit.
Originally posted by masonwatcher
A yank talking about class?! Nah, just joking. What is so un-classy about football? I don't get it. I consider myself cultured yet I am puzzled about
your snobby comment regarding football. How can that be?
Well, I'm actually a New Zealander so the term "yank" is a tad inaccurate.
My "keep it classy" response was in regards to the two previously-mentioned fallacies, and
not football (I don't have anything against
football - I'm just confused why anyone would waste hours watching a couple of meatheads chase around a ball - I'd rather be chasing the ball, but
that's not the point).
Originally posted by masonwatcher
Finally, I don't know what is your problem with Brazil. Might I suggest you completely ignore that country instead of obsessing about it?
Again, where am I "obsessed" with Brazil?
I'm not the one drooling over "Brazilian mulattos" - I'm merely confused why Leftists drool over Europe, the United States etc population
resembling Brazil, which seems to have a white/light-skinned overclass, a "brown" middle class and an Afro-Brazilian underclass.
Originally posted by masonwatcher
You know the National Front and old school BNP are considered freaks and unelectable and that is why Nick Griffin is trying to bring respectability
with plausible arguments to his movement.
Which is precisely how the BNP doubled the amount of councillors?
Originally posted by xmotex
Good.
It's pretty clear that the BNP are neo-NAZI's in all but name.
True -
who would want indigenous white Britons to
be the majority in Great Britain anyway?
Come on Yugoslavia -
show the white Britons what "diversity" is all about!
Originally posted by xmotex
It's a philosophy that must constantly be harried and hunted with the tenacity of a badger on crack (
) - otherwise we'll be looking at a repeat
performance of some very ugly history.
What would that be:
Britain still having white Britons as a majority in most of its
towns?
[edit on 19-11-2008 by Chaoticar]
