It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Discrimination against white males will soon be encouraged

page: 14
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 21 2008 @ 11:55 AM
reply to post by amaxa

I treat people how I want to be treated. My family was not in this country during that period in history when all this is supposed to have taken place.

I do not accept such guilt conditioning from others. It is a shakedown. It leads to entitlement programs in perpetuity on the public purse. It has also become a cottage industry among many who make a living from it.
As far as I am concerned these causes must have and maintain racism for thier existance...just a the Klukers must also maintain thier form of racism for thier existance.
I choose not to live under such fear or intimidation from any of these peoples...nor under such guilt conditioning.
I dont accept it in public education, nor politics, nor, socially as guilt conditioning through the media or this platform.

I dont accept anyone trying to heap guilt conditioning on me...period..and will speak out so on such a shakedown. Such things do not play through unquestioned or by default by me. When it suits me I will speak out so.

Heaping guilt and sin on someone because of their race is racism. Simple. You do not solve racism with racism.


When one observes the zeal and devotion ...that accompanys several posts on this thread it becomes obvious that this type of hipocrisy is a devout religion with some. It is the main topic with them. They can deal with nothing else. The attempt is by default to heap this topic, guilt and leverage on others. Not interested....on this topic or any other. I've seen way to much of this cheap poliltical social drivel attempting to play through unquestioned and unchallanged by default. Not interested in being part of a shakedown.

Oh..and gratified to see that you understand the concept of Talmud...rules for breaking or modifying the rules by hidden rules. No particular race has any monopoly on this. It is however a religious just have to figure out the nature of such a hidden religion.

Thank you,

posted on Dec, 21 2008 @ 01:39 PM

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Grand Puba

You know you are too intelligent to keep playing this one string banjo about violence being the reason the white man wound up on top of the heap over these last several centuries. Clearly if violence was the answer, some species like wolverines, bears, or lions and tigers would be the planets Apex species.

The white man is no more, nor any less, violent than any other race of man. Intelligence is the key factor, but being that as a species, all us humans are so closely related, it is nonsense to try and claim one race of men is more intelligent than another, so therefore no more capable of being more treacherous, or more conniving.

The whites who manipulate third world oppressor are only capable of getting those people to do what they want to do for their own selfish needs. Long before wealthy U.S. industrialists started bribing third world dictators, the dictators were brutally oppressing their own people. Oppressoin of the rights of man was practiced openly and extremely brutally long before the white man showed up on their shores. Can you admit this?

The reality is that white man was the first to recognize the rights of the average man, even if that average man at the time was only the white men. It was a huge step forward for mankind.

Acknowledge it, eat it, drink it, bed it, and wake up in the morning a better man. It is a slight sliver of change in perspective, but one that opens a whole new world.

[edit on 20-12-2008 by poet1b]

Where is your proof that the whiteman was the 1st to reconize the rights of the average man? Pure hubris man!!

We aint just talking bribes either...

China, 1945-49:
Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of Chiang Kai-shek against the Communists, even though the latter had been a much closer ally of the United States in the world war. The U.S. used defeated Japanese soldiers to fight for its side. The Communists forced Chiang to flee to Taiwan in 1949.

Italy, 1947-48:
Using every trick in the book, the U.S. interfered in the elections to prevent the Communist Party from coming to power legally and fairly. This perversion of democracy was done in the name of "saving democracy" in Italy. The Communists lost. For the next few decades, the CIA, along with American corporations, continued to intervene in Italian elections, pouring in hundreds of millions of dollars and much psychological warfare to block the specter that was haunting Europe.

Greece, 1947-49:
Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of the neo-fascists against the Greek left which had fought the Nazis courageously. The neo-fascists won and instituted a highly brutal regime, for which the CIA created a new internal security agency, KYP. Before long, KYP was carrying out all the endearing practices of secret police everywhere, including systematic torture.

Philippines, 1945-53:
U.S. military fought against leftist forces (Huks) even while the Huks were still fighting against the Japanese invaders. After the war, the U. S. continued its fight against the Huks, defeating them, and then installing a series of puppets as president, culminating in the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos.

South Korea, 1945-53:
After World War II, the United States suppressed the popular progressive forces in favor of the conservatives who had collaborated with the Japanese. This led to a long era of corrupt, reactionary, and brutal governments.

Albania, 1949-53:
The U.S. and Britain tried unsuccessfully to overthrow the communist government and install a new one that would have been pro-Western and composed largely of monarchists and collaborators with Italian fascists and Nazis.

Germany, 1950s:
The CIA orchestrated a wide-ranging campaign of sabotage, terrorism, dirty tricks, and psychological warfare against East Germany. This was one of the factors which led to the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961.

Iran, 1953:
Prime Minister Mossadegh was overthrown in a joint U.S./British operation. Mossadegh had been elected to his position by a large majority of parliament, but he had made the fateful mistake of spearheading the movement to nationalize a British-owned oil company, the sole oil company operating in Iran. The coup restored the Shah to absolute power and began a period of 25 years of repression and torture, with the oil industry being restored to foreign ownership, as follows: Britain and the U.S., each 40 percent, other nations 20 percent.

Guatemala, 1953-1990s:
A CIA-organized coup overthrew the democratically-elected and progressive government of Jacobo Arbenz, initiating 40 years of death-squads, torture, disappearances, mass executions, and unimaginable cruelty, totaling well over 100,000 victims -indisputably one of the most inhuman chapters of the 20th century. Arbenz had nationalized the U.S. firm, United Fruit Company, which had extremely close ties to the American power elite. As justification for the coup, Washington declared that Guatemala had been on the verge of a Soviet takeover, when in fact the Russians had so little interest in the country that it didn't even maintain diplomatic relations. The real problem in the eyes of Washington, in addition to United Fruit, was the danger of Guatemala's social democracy spreading to other countries in Latin America.

Middle East, 1956-58:
The Eisenhower Doctrine stated that the United States "is prepared to use armed forces to assist" any Middle East country "requesting assistance against armed aggression from any country controlled by international communism." The English translation of this was that no one would be allowed to dominate, or have excessive influence over, the middle east and its oil fields except the United States, and that anyone who tried would be, by definition, "Communist." In keeping with this policy, the United States twice attempted to overthrow the Syrian government, staged several shows-of-force in the Mediterranean to intimidate movements opposed to U.S.-supported governments in Jordan and Lebanon, landed 14,000 troops in Lebanon, and conspired to overthrow or assassinate Nasser of Egypt and his troublesome middle-east nationalism.

Wait, there's more...

posted on Dec, 21 2008 @ 01:44 PM
Indonesia, 1965:
A complex series of events, involving a supposed coup attempt, a counter-coup, and perhaps a counter-counter-coup, with American fingerprints apparent at various points, resulted in the ouster from power of Sukarno and his replacement by a military coup led by General Suharto. The massacre that began immediately-of Communists, Communist sympathizers, suspected Communists, suspected Communist sympathizers, and none of the above-was called by the New York Times "one of the most savage mass slayings of modern political history." The estimates of the number killed in the course of a few years begin at half a million and go above a million.

It was later learned that the U.S. embassy had compiled lists of "Communist" operatives, from top echelons down to village cadres, as many as 5,000 names, and turned them over to the army, which then hunted those persons down and killed them. The Americans would then check off the names of those who had been killed or captured. "It really was a big help to the army. They probably killed a lot of people, and I probably have a lot of blood on my hands," said one U.S. diplomat. "But that's not all bad. There's a time when you have to strike hard at a decisive moment. "

Chile, 1964-73:
Salvador Allende was the worst possible scenario for a Washington imperialist. He could imagine only one thing worse than a Marxist in power-an elected Marxist in power, who honored the constitution, and became increasingly popular. This shook the very foundation stones on which the anti-Communist tower was built: the doctrine, painstakingly cultivated for decades, that "communists" can take power only through force and deception, that they can retain that power only through terrorizing and brainwashing the population.

After sabotaging Allende's electoral endeavor in 1964, and failing to do so in 1970, despite their best efforts, the CIA and the rest of the American foreign policy machine left no stone unturned in their attempt to destabilize the Allende government over the next three years, paying particular attention to building up military hostility. Finally, in September 1973, the military overthrew the government, Allende dying in the process.
They closed the country to the outside world for a week, while the tanks rolled and the soldiers broke down doors; the stadiums rang with the sounds of execution and the bodies piled up along the streets and floated in the river; the torture centers opened for business; the subversive books were thrown into bonfires; soldiers slit the trouser legs of women, shouting that "In Chile women wear dresses!"; the poor returned to their natural state; and the men of the world in Washington and in the halls of international finance opened up their check- books. In the end, more than 3,000 had been executed, thousands more tortured or disappeared.

Greece, 1964-74:
The military coup took place in April 1967, just two days before the campaign for j national elections was to begin, elections which appeared certain to bring the veteran liberal leader George Papandreou back as prime minister. Papandreou had been elected in February 1964 with the only outright majority in the history of modern Greek elections. The successful machinations to unseat him had begun immediately, a joint effort of the Royal Court, the Greek military, and the American military and CIA stationed in Greece. The 1967 coup was followed immediately by the traditional martial law, censorship, arrests, beatings, torture, and killings, the victims totaling some 8,000 in the first month. This was accompanied by the equally traditional declaration that this was all being done to save the nation from a "Communist takeover." Corrupting and subversive influences in Greek life were to be removed. Among these were miniskirts, long hair, and foreign newspapers; church attendance for the young would be compulsory.

It was torture, however, which most indelibly marked the seven-year Greek nightmare. James Becket, an American attorney sent to Greece by Amnesty International, wrote in December 1969 that "a conservative estimate would place at not less than two thousand" the number of people tortured, usually in the most gruesome of ways, often with equipment supplied by the United States.

Becket reported the following: Hundreds of prisoners have listened to the little speech given by Inspector Basil Lambrou, who sits behind his desk which displays the red, white, and blue clasped-hand symbol of American aid. He tries to show the prisoner the absolute futility of resistance: "You make yourself ridiculous by thinking you can do anything. The world is divided in two. There are the communists on that side and on this side the free world. The Russians and the Americans, no one else. What are we? Americans. Behind me there is the government, behind the government is NATO, behind NATO is the U.S. You can't fight us, we are Americans."
George Papandreou was not any kind of radical. He was a liberal anti-Communist type. But his son Andreas, the heir-apparent, while only a little to the left of his father had not disguised his wish to take Greece out of the Cold War, and had questioned remaining in NATO, or at least as a satellite of the United States.


posted on Dec, 21 2008 @ 01:47 PM
reply to post by Grand Puba

East Timor, 1975 to present:
In December 1975, Indonesia invaded East Timor, which lies at the eastern end of the Indonesian archipelago, and which had proclaimed its independence after Portugal had relinquished control of it. The invasion was launched the day after U. S. President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had left Indonesia after giving Suharto permission to use American arms, which, under U.S. Iaw, could not be used for aggression. Indonesia was Washington's most valuable tool in Southeast Asia.

Amnesty International estimated that by 1989, Indonesian troops, with the aim of forcibly annexing East Timor, had killed 200,000 people out of a population of between 600,000 and 700,000. The United States consistently supported Indonesia's claim to East Timor (unlike the UN and the EU), and downplayed the slaughter to a remarkable degree, at the same time supplying Indonesia with all the military hardware and training it needed to carry out the job.

icaragua, 1978-89:
When the Sandinistas overthrew the Somoza dictatorship in 1978, it was clear to Washington that they might well be that long-dreaded beast-"another Cuba." Under President Carter, attempts to sabotage the revolution took diplomatic and economic forms. Under Reagan, violence was the method of choice. For eight terribly long years, the people of Nicaragua were under attack by Washington's proxy army, the Contras, formed from Somoza's vicious National Guard and other supporters of the dictator. It was all-out war, aiming to destroy the progressive social and economic programs of the government, burning down schools and medical clinics, raping, torturing, mining harbors, bombing and strafing. These were Ronald Reagan's "freedom fighters." There would be no revolution in Nicaragua.

Grenada, 1979-84:
What would drive the most powerful nation in the world to invade a country of 110,000? Maurice Bishop and his followers had taken power in a 1979 coup, and though their actual policies were not as revolutionary as Castro's, Washington was again driven by its fear of "another Cuba," particularly when public appearances by the Grenadian leaders in other countries of the region met with great enthusiasm.

U. S. destabilization tactics against the Bishop government began soon after the coup and continued until 1983, featuring numerous acts of disinformation and dirty tricks. The American invasion in October 1983 met minimal resistance, although the U.S. suffered 135 killed or wounded; there were also some 400 Grenadian casualties, and 84 Cubans, mainly construction workers.

At the end of 1984, a questionable election was held which was won by a man supported by the Reagan administration. One year later, the human rights organization, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, reported that Grenada's new U.S.-trained police force and counter-insurgency forces had acquired a reputation for brutality, arbitrary arrest, and abuse of authority, and were eroding civil rights.
In April 1989, the government issued a list of more than 80 books which were prohibited from being imported. Four months later, the prime minister suspended parliament to forestall a threatened no-confidence vote resulting from what his critics called "an increasingly authoritarian style."

Libya, 1981-89:
Libya refused to be a proper Middle East client state of Washington. Its leader, Muammar el-Qaddafi, was uppity. He would have to be punished. U.S. planes shot down two Libyan planes in what Libya regarded as its air space. The U. S . also dropped bombs on the country, killing at least 40 people, including Qaddafi's daughter. There were other attempts to assassinate the man, operations to overthrow him, a major disinformation campaign, economic sanctions, and blaming Libya for being behind the Pan Am 103 bombing without any good evidence.

Panama, 1989:
Washington's bombers strike again. December 1989, a large tenement barrio in Panama City wiped out, 15,000 people left homeless. Counting several days of ground fighting against Panamanian forces, 500-something dead was the official body count, what the U.S. and the new U.S.-installed Panamanian government admitted to; other sources, with no less evidence, insisted that thousands had died; 3,000-something wounded. Twenty-three Americans dead, 324 wounded.

Question from reporter: "Was it really worth it to send people to their death for this? To get Noriega?"
George Bush: "Every human life is precious, and yet I have to answer, yes, it has been worth it."

Manuel Noriega had been an American ally and informant for years until he outlived his usefulness. But getting him was not the only motive for the attack. Bush wanted to send a clear message to the people of Nicaragua, who had an election scheduled in two months, that this might be their fate if they reelected the Sandinistas. Bush also wanted to flex some military muscle to illustrate to Congress the need for a large combat-ready force even after the very recent dissolution of the "Soviet threat." The official explanation for the American ouster was Noriega's drug trafficking, which Washington had known about for years and had not been at all bothered by.

Oh yeah, plus...

posted on Dec, 21 2008 @ 01:51 PM
reply to post by Grand Puba

Iraq, 1990s:
Relentless bombing for more than 40 days and nights, against one of the most advanced nations in the Middle East, devastating its ancient and modern capital city; 177 million pounds of bombs falling on the people of Iraq, the most concentrated aerial onslaught in the history of the world; depleted uranium weapons incinerating people, causing cancer; blasting chemical and biological weapon storage and oil facilities; poisoning the atmosphere to a degree perhaps never matched anywhere; burying soldiers alive, deliberately; the infrastructure destroyed, with a terrible effect on health; sanctions continued to this day multiplying the health problems; perhaps a million children dead by now from all of these things, even more adults.

Iraq was the strongest military power among the Arab states. This may have been their crime. Noam Chomsky has written: "It's been a leading, driving doctrine of U.S. foreign policy since the 1940s that the vast and unparalleled energy resources of the Gulf region will be effectively dominated by the United States and its clients, and, crucially, that no independent, indigenous force will be permitted to have a substantial influence on the administration of oil production and price. "

Afghanistan, 1979-92:
Everyone knows of the unbelievable repression of women in Afghanistan, carried out by Islamic fundamentalists, even before the Taliban. But how many people know that during the late 1970s and most of the 1980s, Afghanistan had a government committed to bringing the incredibly backward nation into the 20th century, including giving women equal rights? What happened, however, is that the United States poured billions of dollars into waging a terrible war against this government, simply because it was supported by the Soviet Union. Prior to this, CIA operations had knowingly increased the probability of a Soviet intervention, which is what occurred. In the end, the United States won, and the women, and the rest of Afghanistan, lost. More than a million dead, three million disabled, five million refugees, in total about half the population.

El Salvador, 1980-92:
El Salvador's dissidents tried to work within the system. But with U.S. support, the government made that impossible, using repeated electoral fraud and murdering hundreds of protesters and strikers. In 1980, the dissidents took to the gun, and civil war.

Officially, the U.S. military presence in El Salvador was limited to an advisory capacity. In actuality, military and CIA personnel played a more active role on a continuous basis. About 20 Americans were killed or wounded in helicopter and plane crashes while flying reconnaissance or other missions over combat areas, and considerable evidence surfaced of a U.S. role in the ground fighting as well. The war came to an official end in 1992; 75,000 civilian deaths and the U.S. Treasury depleted by six billion dollars. Meaningful social change has been largely thwarted. A handful of the wealthy still own the country, the poor remain as ever, and dissidents still have to fear right-wing death squads.

Haiti, 1987-94:
The U.S. supported the Duvalier family dictatorship for 30 years, then opposed the reformist priest, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Meanwhile, the CIA was working intimately with death squads, torturers, and drug traffickers. With this as background, the Clinton White House found itself in the awkward position of having to pretend-because of all their rhetoric about "democracy"-that they supported Aristide's return to power in Haiti after he had been ousted in a 1991 military coup. After delaying his return for more than two years, Washington finally had its military restore Aristide to office, but only after obliging the priest to guarantee that he would not help the poor at the expense of the rich, and that he would stick closely to free-market economics. This meant that Haiti would continue to be the assembly plant of the Western Hemisphere, with its workers receiving literally starvation wages.

Yugoslavia, 1999:
The United States is bombing the country back to a pre-industrial era. It would like the world to believe that its intervention is motivated only by "humanitarian" impulses. Perhaps the above history of U.S. interventions can help one decide how much weight to place on this claim.

And this is just the american white man!

Can you image if I threw in the UK, Israel and Russia?


posted on Dec, 21 2008 @ 02:12 PM

Hopefully these links will paint a thorough picture of white america's hypocrisy!!

White men can be very talmudic!! LOL!!

Titans game is on!! Gotta go!!


posted on Dec, 21 2008 @ 11:34 PM
Grand Puba, I'll join you and assume that the actions of military/intelligence/governmental higher-ups of a nation are representative of whatever race forms a majority of said nation's military/intelligence/governmental departments:

Originally posted by Grand Puba
And this is just the american white man!

Originally posted by Grand Puba
Hopefully these links will paint a thorough picture of white america's hypocrisy!!

White men can be very talmudic!! LOL!!

Therefore, we can assume that Zimbabwe's cholera epidemic, skyrocketing inflation rate and increasing famine are due to, or are inherent to the race of, the Zimbabwean black man?

Of course not! That would be racist, right?

[edit on 21-12-2008 by Chaoticar]

posted on Dec, 22 2008 @ 05:54 AM
Grand Puba,

I almost missed this from page 12 of this thread but it illustrates textbook public school thinking attempting to pass for the moral high ground today.

Many women earn less than men. The national average for white females is about 74 cents to every dollar a white male earns. Black women's earnings were 85 percent of black men's and Hispanic women made 87 percent as much as Hispanic men (US Department of Labor, Aug. 2001)

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2001), among women, those without a high school diploma earned $303 a week, compared with $760 a week for those with college degrees. Among men, school dropouts had earnings of $409 a week, compared with $1,022 for college graduates.

This type of scenerio ...and quoting of statistics is pretty much standard today especially in political circles. It even attempts to pass for the moral high ground until you learn to think outside fo the box that someone misuses to put you under control and guilt.

What is not told to the public is that women usually require more expensive facilities in the work place. Women usually take more time off..even leave of abscences etc etc. They are not as inclined to work overtime or travel away from home or where they work.
None of this informations is in the statistics when the attempt is made to play through unnoticed, unquestioned, undebated.

Here is the major catch..particularly in difficult economic times. If women are indeed doing the same or better work as are the men and for less moneys....buisnesses would be firing all the men and replacing them with women. In fact if they could ...they would be firing all the men and women and replacing them with illegal aliens as they work cheaper than both sexes.

Pretty simple isnt it??? 'But dont expect to find this line of thinking in any such politically derived statistics and quotes.
Once you know how to think this through will not be fooled by this standard political rhetoric again.

Grand Puba,
You have gone to great difficulty to post a very long dissertation on history.

I know of most of the events in which you posted.

What I know of the CIA is that it is an extension of the US State Department. The famous CIA Farm is about 30 miles up the road from me.

The US State department is full of Socialists, Communist, and Pro Marxists. On the other hand the Defense Department is full of Pro Israel peoples. These two institutions have often found each other at odds but it is mostly kept out of the publics view. You can see this if you look closely. Neither of these institutions have worked to the benifit of the American public since the Boxer Rebellion/Spanish American War. They have worked to the benifit of certain Merchants and not all of them even American.

You want to put this down to race. I put this down to religion. A religion and religious practice not known by the bulk of Americans who have found themselves and thier generations subject to war after war after war and continuing to another war.

Such a religion of such proportions and confusion can only be an Occult Religious practice. A practice and religion not known by those subject to it.....those used to bear the brunt of the expense of it.

From what I can tell this religion has been around since before the first of the great world empires...the Egyptian Empire. It has only changed form as empires came and went....but always the same fingerprint when one peels back the vineer of the public face allowed to be seen.

One of the key fingerprints under which this religion "travels" is violence.

"For they have filled the land with violence"

This is not a knowledge or principle which will ever be taught in public schools. For this religion is and always will be the religion of the secret. And it is very ancient. It is also to be found all over the world. Different forms and expressions but always the same religion.

You put it down to race. I put it down to religion. The white man has no monopoly on this religion for it is very very ancient.


[edit on 22-12-2008 by orangetom1999]

posted on Dec, 22 2008 @ 06:22 AM

I could show u the whiteman's hand in zimbabwe, but that's too easy!!

How about you show me where I've ever denied that non-whites have committed atrocities?


Where I've ever said that the whiteman's violence is inherent to his skin?

Strawman much?


posted on Dec, 22 2008 @ 07:03 AM
Everyone please take a moment and read this:

Trim Those Quotes!

Thank you


posted on Dec, 22 2008 @ 09:29 AM
reply to post by orangetom1999

Good points! I'll look into it!


posted on Dec, 22 2008 @ 10:46 AM
Grand Puba,

On a change of pace to do with quoting.

I too had difficulty even learning to quote but with the generous help of some of the members I was able to combine quoting with scrolling/copying and pasting.

Although I very much enjoy the use of the computer in looking up various information's, I am not what one would call computer savvy.

For example the above quote about not being computer savvy...if I wanted to quote only that line and not the whole section up to this point...I would type in at the beginning.... this symbol for the first bracket [ followed by the word quote..then the following bracket ]...then [ and the letter i and then the other bracket ].

At the end your copied and pasted section of a quote...I put in the bracket [ followed by / and then the word quote followed by the other bracket ].

You can copy and paste as many individual sections as needed then comment on them and do it again in another section. You see alot of folks doing this rather than one huge quote.

Then when I am finished with my post I would click on Preview Post and take a look at the finished product. Adjustments could be made as you would see the finished text above this format when typing all this out. Then click on Preview Post again to see the adjusted edited product before final posting.

And of course you can also edit within 24 hours if need be. I often, in editing, go down to the bottom of my edit post and remove the line stating "edited by orangetom1999." This is because each time you edit it will put another of these lines in the finished product and I sometimes edit three or four times. No need to have this come up but once.

Ok...lets see how this is going to look...clicking on preview post.

Although I very much enjoy the use of the computer in looking up information's, I am not what one would call computer savvy.

I was so computer unsavvy that for a long time I did not comprehend how much computer space was being used daily in this type of the posters here every day. And I mean huge wide. It is quite a labor for the mods to keep track of it all.

You may be more computer savvy than I but in case not I hope this helps.


[edit on 22-12-2008 by orangetom1999]

posted on Dec, 22 2008 @ 02:41 PM

Originally posted by Grand Puba
I could show u the whiteman's hand in zimbabwe, but that's too easy!!

Damn those "white imperialists"!

Originally posted by Grand Puba
How about you show me where I've ever denied that non-whites have committed atrocities?

The whiteman's violent use of technology from the mis-use of the asian man's invention of what we today call "Gun powder"

You claimed that it was "the White Man" who devisde military uses for gunpowder - despite the fact that the Chinese swiftly applied gunpowder to create various weapons of war, after they discovered it.

Originally posted by Grand Puba
Where I've ever said that the whiteman's violence is inherent to his skin?

And this is just the american white man!

Hopefully these links will paint a thorough picture of white america's hypocrisy!!

White men can be very talmudic!! LOL!!

You don't blame the "Elites", "rich Americans", "America's intelligence/military/government figures", you blame "the White Man":
As you are blaming a group of people entirely based on their skin colour, you have just invalidated your argument.

posted on Dec, 23 2008 @ 05:17 AM
reply to post by Grand Puba

Nice laundry list of things that are essentially only speculation, all conducted by secret operatives hidden from the U.S. public, because it was well known that if the U.S. public knew what the CIA was doing, there would be considerable uprising.

Most of these adctivities evolved around the idea of fighting communism, and succeeded in being over looked in general for this reason, but hey, if you want to go around carrying signs supporting Chairman Mao, you aren't going to make it with anyone anyhow. Tthe average white man has not benefitted from any of this, stuck with the blame and screwed over in the lopsided trade deals taking advantage of slave labor.

But you are more than happy to spread the propaganda.

posted on Dec, 24 2008 @ 10:18 AM
reply to post by Chaoticar

The elites who rule the world are damn near 100% white and male!!

You deny that?

Actually it took over 200 years before weapons were made with gunpowder!!

And even then weapons weren't used to invade and colonize non-asians!


posted on Dec, 24 2008 @ 10:22 AM
reply to post by poet1b

Guess you've never heard of the freedom of information act, leaked documents, former agents testimony and books authored, ect...


posted on Dec, 24 2008 @ 07:50 PM
reply to post by Grand Puba

Most of that information is very vague, and most of the books written are pure speculation, and who the good guys are and who the bad guys are is very hard to determine.

Maybe you think communism and socialism are good forms of government, but the most of the people who lived under such rule will tell you different. In addition, while the U.S. used it's influence to try and get the people it desired into positions of power, it was the people of those third world nations who carried out the bloody violence, and they have been controlling their own countries for the benefit of the elites over the commoners for centuries before white man ever showed up. Your attempt to ignore the great amount of violence perptrated on the people EQUALLY by all people of all races is a joke.

Whites do currently rule the world, and have for centuries now. During this time the people of the Earth have prospered greatly, and violence and wars have decreased, and people are living better lives. People who live in countries controlled by whites live in far better circumstances and have far higher standards of living. Yet people like you want to paint whites as the bad people, it is ridiculous.

I think Orangetom is right, you are only here to pursue your own agenda.

posted on Dec, 24 2008 @ 08:05 PM

Originally posted by Grand Puba
The elites who rule the world are damn near 100% white and male!!

You deny that?

No, but I refuse to support the theory that the policies of "white elites" are somehow to advance "the white race":
You honestly believe that the exact same white "elites" who supported racial integration, exporting any-and-all manufacturing jobs to India/China, deliberately ignore millions of "Hispanics" marching north of the border, want "diversity" and "multiculturalism" (in Europe/America/Canada/Australia only - non-whites are too "diverse" already!
) through mass-immigration by any non-white with an I.Q. higher than 85 etc are somehow acting in the "interests of the white race"?

Note: They are only in it for the money and power.

Originally posted by Grand Puba
Actually it took over 200 years before weapons were made with gunpowder!!

But they still made weapons out of gunpowder though.

Originally posted by Grand Puba
And even then weapons weren't used to invade and colonize non-asians!

They didn't have the resources to "colonise" non-Asians:
However, that's wishful thinking that they wouldn't.

posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 01:17 AM

Originally posted by Alucard Hellsing
and they are trying reeeaall hard to bring us down, whoever they might be

Most of the time when we (and when I say we I mean us black folks) say "they" we're usually referring to "the man". A majority of us black folks think "the man" is a white man. Why would "the man" bring down his own people?


Anyway, reading the title of this thread made me think of this bit from the bible:

Mark 10:31 But many who are First will be Last; and the Last First."

Whenever I first read that I'd always think that it hinted at situations like this.

[edit on 28-12-2008 by The Scarecrow]

posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 04:25 PM
reply to post by The Scarecrow

Everywhere you go, there is always The Man, but he isn't always white. It isn't about race. Once people recognize this, then they can begin to be a part of the solution.

top topics

<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in