What happened from the 80's till now racially?

(I thought this would fit under disinfo. Mods please move this if its in the wrong spot)

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is symptomatic of a pathology.

Of what is the. No. Why is the question.

I grew up in the South. East Texas area to be exact.

Growing up, I had dealings as a child and up with the usual "non white" races of the area. Mexicans, Blacks, and a very few others but they were the norm.

We got on famously except for the aholes of the groups (including white trash).

In school, we had no racial trouble. Everyone treated everyone with respect (except the aholes from the above groups) and respect was returned. We didnt date outside of our race for the most part. We treated each other the same outside of that (thats not a bad thing keeping races straight. Heritage not hate).

In the 90's, something happened. Its almost as if the PTB came in and said "Hey, this is getting too cozy. No tension in the ranks".

Enter Sharpton, Jackson, Duke and others.

The North and the Peoples Republic of California seemed to have all of the strife. The South didnt seem to have the crap. If we were "so backward and racist", why didnt we have the problems?

There is no sin in keeping races "straight". This DOES NOT mean they cant be friends and help each other. My friends of other races have been there for me and I for them. Not because of white, black, mexican, or other; because they were a person needing help. Period.

We are being divided by the dirtbags in the "New Black Panters", La Raza, Azatlan, and whom ever else.

The kicker is....WHY ARENT WE HEARING THE SAME CRAP OUT OF WHITE GROUPS? Where is the KKK et al? Shouldnt they be getting in on this garbage? Why arent the "whites" being "wound up"? Curious.


What is the end game? The parts dont make sense and it confuses the crap out of me.

Just the basic "divide and conquer"? The idiot in the white house sucks because of who and what he is. Not because he's black. I had at one time hoped that JC Watts or Alan Keyes might have made it. After some statements they made, I wasnt too sure about them anymore.

Any ideas?


[edit on 10/7/10 by felonius]

Interesting.

Its been a week and no reply.

reply to post by felonius


I'm kind of confused. What aren't whites "getting in on"? And are you saying that racism has "kicked in" again? Sorry, I'm just not sure of exactly what you're trying to say.

reply to post by felonius


I thought about replying the first time. What I had too say was too sideways, it would have redefined the subject into something else, maybe even tantamount to hijacking the thread, so I self censored, to let it stay on subject.

But since it now appears that I'm not stepping on anyone elses voice in the matter...




Felonius,

I approach the subject from the divide and conquer angle, and elaborate from there. There is a framing of so-called-issues that is inadmisable in court. The news and comedy shows use this method almost exclusively. This kind of disinformation from the MSM is so trivial as to hardly merit comment. By reacting too it, one mentally categorizes themselves. I say don't feed the trolls, particularly the ones on MSM.

Allow me to unpack that paragraph a little bit. Think of it as an outline with the conclusion already given.

In court one cannot "lead the witness" that is, to ask leading questions, or questions that suggest the answer. There is also the classic unfair question "do you still beat your wife." If one answers no, then the Lawyer asks, "when did you stop." The question presuposes, actually it forces, the premise that you ever beat you wife in the first place. Ever. Anyway there are a bunch of these tricks, and what is not legal in court turns out to be perfectly unobjectionable on TV.

The news and comedy shows use these methods continually. For instance back in July 2001 there was this story that hit national news for a couple of days. It usually segways into caution against sharks. I guess this is the message that this story was chosen to delivier.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

AN eight-year-old boy was saved by his uncle on a Florida beach after a shark bit off his right arm.

I met one of the reporters who covered the story. She says they left out one important fact. The Uncle had just caught the shark, and had sent the boy in to unhook it. Kind of changes the reality of the story. Is the Uncle still a hero? Why would one run a story that paints this person as a hero, and wilfully withold this key bit of the story.

I submit to you, it is to get one to condemn themselves by passing judgement on the story as-presented, thus validating the practice of witholding evidence. If the hero Uncle story who saved 8 year old boy from shark makes us feel a little better, or if the other version makes us feel like condemning, either way we have emotionally engaged ourselves with what ever the kangaroo court wishes to present.

See, If one does not have the opportunity to have all the evidence presented too us, the power of the court to call for and summon evidence, and our time table to reach a conclusion about it, then we must presume that we are being presented with only that evidence that plays to what we are almost emotionally ready to accept.

In other words, if a national news story causes us to bite, then we've taken the hook. Our emotions become currency, and can be used in comerce on TV. I mean what do we really know about this group. If anything at all. There is a fair chance that some key peice of the story is absent as well. Which police departments filed the stories first or did the media generate this story? Cause the last time I heard, the Sheriffs of America are not inclined to call the press over every strange incident.


Take the case of Michael Jackson, back when it was national news that he was in court with the dad of some young boy. Did you know that MJ was a "castrada." Ever notice that his voice never changed. He sang just like young Michael his whole life? He certainly wasn't afraid of surgery.

I think the young man found out, told his dad, and his dad pressed for money. The reason the Media was able to capture in him that imberassing inuendo, is because Michael paid them. But I think he was just concerned about record sales and concert attendance. Can't be a rock star if you got no nads. Just doesn't work.

Unfortunately for him, it put him in a position where he too was trapped by the secret of his vocal range.

But once again, the story as reported was intentionally portrayed as sexual inuendo, as that plays big. The castrada thing would have played for a day, then been forgotten as fact. But more importantly a great number of americans emotionally commited to having an opinion on child molesters.

So this new party that is the subject of the OP? This kind of disinformation from the MSM is so trivial as to hardly merit comment. It's pure emotion. Looks like connecting fact pairs, and lines of reasoning are completely gone. What do I see? I see someone fiddling with the volume control trying to turn up the volume on this subject.

In addition I would be more interested in the comercials before and after this segment to see who was funding this message. Many times that will tell one a lot more about the story than the segment itself.


By reacting to it, one mentally categorizes themselves. I feel that the sides presented are phantoms, and I have no doubt there is a destination in mind, and who knows what the sides will be defined as by then.

My hunch?

I'll take a Heilein on this one. Someone wants something like this to happen. Like I've said before. What are the Liberals gonna do. Start agreeing with each other?


David Grouchy.

Election day was a shambles and the counting of the ballots resolved itself into a multitude of little battles between the Knights and the embattled individualists.

-Heinlein "For us the Living"

[edit on 14-7-2010 by davidgrouchy]

reply to post by davidgrouchy


Sorry, but what's a "castrada"? I've never heard this term before and can't seem to find any info about it.

reply to post by HarmonicNights




This is from
Answers.com

The English word eunuch is from the Greek eune ("bed") and ekhein ("to keep"), effectively "bed keeper." Servants or slaves were usually castrated in order to make them safer servants of a royal court where physical access to the ruler could wield great influence – seemingly lowly domestic functions such as making the ruler's bed, bathing him, cutting his hair, carrying him in his litter or even relaying messages, giving him "the ruler's ear" could impart de facto power on the formally humble but trusted servant, as reflected in the humble origins and etymology of many high offices (e.g. chancellor started out as a servant guarding the entrance to an official's study). Eunuchs supposedly did not generally have loyalties to the military, the aristocracy, or to a family of their own (having neither offspring nor in-laws, at the very least), and were thus seen as more trustworthy and less interested in establishing a private 'dynasty'. Because their condition usually lowered their social status, they could also be easily replaced or killed without repercussion.

A more traditional Itallian name of a castrated person is a castrada, particularly when one is refering to, one of many, famous singers. They never went through puberty and thus kept their childhood vocal range for life. It's a forgotten practice fadded into the pages of history, but something a doctor could understand instantly.


David Grouchy

reply to post by davidgrouchy


Thanks for clearing that up!

reply to post by felonius


I don't know how you can lump David Duke together with people like Jackson and Sharpton.

I've read his My Awakening and based on it, I consider him a decent person.

Contrary to popular belief, he doesn't advocate violence against other races, but separation.
And if individuals have a right to separate from other individuals, then don't groups of individuals have a right to separate from other groups of individuals?

Originally posted by The Cap de Pepene
reply to post by felonius

 

I don't know how you can lump David Duke together with people like Jackson and Sharpton.

I've read his My Awakening and based on it, I consider him a decent person.

Contrary to popular belief, he doesn't advocate violence against other races, but separation.
And if individuals have a right to separate from other individuals, then don't groups of individuals have a right to separate from other groups of individuals?

Thanks to all that have participated. As you were last Cap, i'll respond to you first.

David Duke was the only "recognizable" clan person I could think of. I dont have any "white power" names to use.

Regardless, I'm called a "nazi" frequently on ATS. So be it.

Duke seemed to me (way back then) to be more of a nationalist or even maybe "racialist". Read that as not being racist but merely supporting his race. Not a bad thing REGARDLESS of who does it.

I apologies and that is my reason.

reply to post by davidgrouchy


You pretty much told me what I was expecting. I was wondering if there was anything happening "outside" of Texas that may explain it.

Thanks for responding.

In response to the original post.

I also grew up in south east Texas and graduated high school in the mid eighties.

The school I went to was about 50% white and 50% black.

There were a very few people who had "racial" issues with each other but for the most part everybody got along. The black kids and white kids had friends of both races and the groups and clicks were pretty well mixed. I can't remember an incident from any point in school that was really 'racial' in origin.

The eighties were in my memory pretty happy times. We had no wars going on. the USSR was still the bad guys and they were pretty quiet up until glastnos happened. Run DMC and Aerosmith were doing this new rock/rap type of experiment with "Walk This Way". People just seemed to have a more positive view of race because the idea was that things would continue to get better.

Things weren't perfect but they were going in a good direction.

Somewhere along the way all of that stuff evaporated and was replaced with a polarized, actively angry and antagonistic society that is instigated and fueled by the MSM and politics.

I guess they just don't want a united society here. We'd be so much harder to abuse and take advantage of.


[edit on 21-7-2010 by badgerprints]

reply to post by badgerprints


We have the same stories pretty much. I graduated in the mid eighties as well.

It seemed to go tits up in the early 90's.

I remember one scene vividly.

I worked in SE Dallas at an automotive electrical garage. Batteries, generators, odd ball stuff.

We could handle some strange issues with the pre-90's stuff.

The Cowboys were going for the 2nd or 3rd super bowl. DART bus's were running people downtown.

Down the street, I saw a group of black kids ( teen's -early 20's) push an elderly white or mexican lady out of the way to get on the bus!

The driver had to be terrified.

The entire bus was full of blacks acting like animals...literally. They were hanging out of the top of the bus (I guesss and emergency hatch?), out the windows, and just going berserk! Downtown it got worse. It got so bad that the team parade diverted and went home for safety.

I've never seen anything like that before. the kids I grew up with wouldnt have dreamed of such.

Originally posted by felonius

Originally posted by The Cap de Pepene
reply to post by felonius

 

I don't know how you can lump David Duke together with people like Jackson and Sharpton.

I've read his My Awakening and based on it, I consider him a decent person.

Contrary to popular belief, he doesn't advocate violence against other races, but separation.
And if individuals have a right to separate from other individuals, then don't groups of individuals have a right to separate from other groups of individuals?

Thanks to all that have participated. As you were last Cap, i'll respond to you first.

David Duke was the only "recognizable" clan person I could think of. I dont have any "white power" names to use.

Regardless, I'm called a "nazi" frequently on ATS. So be it.

Duke seemed to me (way back then) to be more of a nationalist or even maybe "racialist". Read that as not being racist but merely supporting his race. Not a bad thing REGARDLESS of who does it.

I apologies and that is my reason.

It's mindblowing that people would call you a Nazi. I mean you have never once insinuated anything at all that was less than completely and totally respectful of the people around you. People are so unfair toward you, aren't they?