It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Why the Elites hate white culture more than any other.

page: 5
31
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by squandered
 


How is that any different?

I want control of your resources.

To add insult you will be a slave and collect the resource for me.

It has been the basis for human "civilization" going back as far as history knows.

We may not like to admit it, but we only get angry because we want the control someone else has.

After every change, what happens? New power takes over, new controller, new slave...still same game, same players...might have changed positions, but always the same.




posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by squandered
 




I just don't see how the elite are connected to this. It all appears to be the product of jealousy. The white people who give it power are 'yes men' to me and though I can see how it's beneficial for corporations to promote sheeple I don't know if I have understood why the effort is so concrete and formal.

Where is the gain in targeting white people? If we are such a threat then where is the fight back? What are they really afraid of?


I'm sure Poet will be along here shortly to give you more reasons why white people are seemingly in the cross-hairs of the elite, but I hear what you're saying, something seems to be "missing" here, and when you see indications of simple "jealousy" as you say, I can see how there might be some frustration.

Certainly nothing wrong with questioning such a broad assertion, and obviously the OP has caught some flak perhaps because it is in fact a bit too broad. But I will say without hesitation that I have come to believe that white people are in fact a "target", and I can share with you why.

First, your intuitions about slavery are to be commended, IMO. It's not often you see someone in a debate such as this take such a "counter-intuitive" stance. And yet, Europe was, and IS home to many-a-"serf", even today, a fact seldom spoken of. The best, and boldest likely went to the New World, and while our histories are not identical, many very hardy souls found themselves in Australia, for better or worse.

What we speak of now is in fact genetics. Why is the American citizen by-and-large that much more aggressive than the English "subject" (how apropos!)? Why is the Vietnamese "boat person" in the US so successful, compared to the average American?

It's a controversial subject, but it can't be avoided forever. Common sense seems to tell us that those who pass through difficulty, those who risk, those who would die for (whatever), are made of slightly different stuff than the ones who dare not, and who obey too easily. Over time, these tendencies express themselves in our progeny.

Here's the thing about the elite. They very much understand this dynamic, and have appropriately assigned "risk profiles" to various groups, as pertains to the elite desire for sustained (even "perpetual", we might say) hegemony. But it's not quite as simple as eliminating the "blue-eyed monsters" of Germany, or the "useless" dark hordes of Africa, or India. While some may tend to think that the elite would want this trait, or that, we might actually be very surprised to learn that our ideas, are not theirs.

Or as it was once put in one of their sacred books: "My ways, are not your ways..."

What an understatement!

In fact, what our masters desire, and have desired ardently for millennia, is "Utopia". One day, Atlantis will "rise again", and to that end, they will direct their efforts so that their grandchildren can one day enjoy that New World, where not only will they rule forever, but their slaves will serve them forever as well, with little "risk" of anything ever destroying their Utopian Dream, that they have sacrificed so much to attain!

And so what we see instead of the "logical", or the reasonable, is something actually quite horrible, at least as seen from the vantage point of the lowly slaves, who are tasked to serve this monstrous elite in their "Utopia", which is our "Plantation".

This is the beginning of understanding. Our masters haven't "just" targeted white people, although many of the policies that they promote may have the outward appearances of that very thing, at least at this point.

Racial "identity" is a thing like "fire" to our masters. It can be a very useful servant, as Washington once said, but it could prove to be a fearful master as well.

This being the case, our masters seek to "harness" strong group identities, to their ends. Take a look at the Jews. What a very strong identity they possess! Yes, a "strength", but also a dangerous weakness. They have been largely harnessed, as a group, IMO, and when their mission is completed, they should probably tremble, because our masters may not want that strength ever turned against them!

A very dangerous game they play, those who enjoy power. They can boldly grab the tiger by the tail, and hope they can keep it under control, before it turns on them, and strikes back.

Germany was an interesting case of white "pride" gone mad. Our masters harnessed this people, and yet, they certainly learned that such pride could get almost too crazy, and quickly moved to neutralize this "threat". Today, the German people are ridiculously chained, not just economically (such a nice workhorse!), but mentally, they are utterly pathetic. But it's actually sad that anyone can be so broken this way.

Back to white people. Why does it appear that they are being focused upon, worldwide? "If" this is more than just a case of mere jealousy, sort of "originating" in the US, and then exported abroad (as you speculate on in your other posts based on your experiences in Australia), then could it be that our masters have indeed identified white people as a threat to them, and have moved accordingly?

Well, that might still be too simple of an explanation. What our masters desire on their merry way to Utopia is to establish a "One World" government, often called the NWO, etc. But how would you even go about doing that? A huge part of the preliminary plan is to create a "world culture" that must precede a true global government. We might recall the days of Rome, when it was a Roman world, wherever they found themselves.

Historically, what happened was that the British Empire found itself a kind of New Rome. After many so many centuries, their sprawling empire was like nothing ever seen before, and whether "planned" this way, or not, it stood in a position to be utilized as the foundation for a global "culture".

Enter the Great American Experiment. A topic unto itself, this arm of the Anglo-Empire would serve a critical function in the reestablishment of an "Atlantean-style" (One) world order. Let us recall that Francis Bacon and his ideas are deeply appreciated by many in control, especially in the US, since Masonry remains central to the American power structure. No, I don't want to get too far off-topic, but anyone who tours Washington DC should come away with at least a small appreciation for a seemingly major role Masonry plays.

I could go on of course, but the bottom line is that we have witnessed the birth of a "global culture", and it is in fact an "American" one. Supported by things as different as a massive military, to an entertainment industry that can help facilitate any desired emphasis, virtually at will. It is a beast to behold, for sure.

So the history has led us to a point where we observe an emerging global culture, and it is "American". But we are entering another phase of the program now. This (formerly) "white" America did indeed give birth to this global culture of today, relying upon a sort of moral high-ground, since America was so "multicultural", and open to immigrants, etc. And yet, it was (is) still much "too white" for Massa's bigger plan.

Think about it. If the present embryonic "global culture" is to be effectively built upon, perhaps one day our masters will even ambitiously attempt an absorption of the East Asian world, how can it possibly remain "too white"? It must gradually transform into something that is truly global.

And so we see, what we see today, with white people seemingly "targeted", and yet, we could just as easily interpret our master's actions within what some might choose to believe is a rather benign framework, as they march us all ever closer to their glorious Plantation of the future.

I hope this provides a bit more "context" concerning this matter. Certainly, many may disagree with my opinion that we even have "masters" at all, but it's interesting that once you come to accept this fact, many things fall into place. Yes, everywhere we look, we seem to discover that there is far more "intention" behind what we experience, than mere natural forces. This "attitude" of trying to see as Massa sees, can become a "key" IMO, for those who dare to put that key in the lock.

JR



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
I don't care if you're a purple pleidian, if you have one ounce of real free-thinking, intelligence, will stand up for your own rights (pride), and not on government dole, the elite want you out!!!! They have to eliminate any competition, they want slaves, and those who pose a threat I don't care what race/creed/religion you are, they will cut you down...these past few years are proof they are trying to eliminate any competition!!!!!



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 




Once again, no where do I "tear down other cultures", assert "that non-whites have never done anything", and you are the one who comes off as the pupil of the elites.

I agree with you. Seems as if he came to this thread with intentions of tearing it down before he even read it.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by JR MacBeth
 


Great post. I would just add, that when you look at history, it is a story of how elites, the PTB, are losing control, losing the war, and how the individual seeking freedom is continuing to win.

For the last decade the elites have won many a battle, they are a long, long way from winning the war.

The PC crowd has certainly taken over the democratic party in the U.S.. What was once a party that stood for the rights of humanity, has turned into a party of witch hunters.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JR MacBeth
 


Great post. I would just add, that when you look at history, it is a story of how elites, the PTB, are losing control, losing the war, and how the individual seeking freedom is continuing to win.

For the last decade the elites have won many a battle, they are a long, long way from winning the war.

The PC crowd has certainly taken over the democratic party in the U.S.. What was once a party that stood for the rights of humanity, has turned into a party of witch hunters.




Poet, I sure wish I had half of your optimism!

I suppose people do often look at history as mostly "advancement" of various kinds, perhaps some prefer a term like "evolving", and compared to times in the past, the flow of information alone, dwarfs anything our ancestors enjoyed.

And yet, I guess I am not as optimistic, and tend to see history a bit differently. I don't really see much evidence that TPTB are losing control, but there is certainly a lot of chaos and uncertainty in these times we're living in, so I can see people continuing to have some reason for hope.

Don't get me wrong, I also have hope, I'm not ready to throw in the towel yet. But with my focus being more on our easily-manipulated human nature, I continue to see very serious problems ahead, and in many ways I don't see technology as always being there to help, in fact quite the opposite.

It seems that everything always ends up being the proverbial two-edged sword. The internet for example. Who among us doesn't appreciate this incredible fountain of information and communication that has ushered in what looks like a new era, seemingly unanticipated only a few short decades ago?

And yet, many of us see that it also is being "harnessed", like everything else, and many believe that there will come a day, perhaps not too far off, when this great "blessing" will turn to ashes in our mouths.

OK, OK! Enough of my "pessimism"! One of the things I like actually about ATS is the younger, more idealistic crowd. I think it helps some of us older people, who may not have that "spring in our step" anymore.

Of course, dark shadows don't really lurk around every corner, but I'm still hoping for more sunshine in this crazy world of ours.

JR



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 01:49 AM
link   
Poet, I'll get to all the personal stuff later in this post. First, I wanna address the historical stuff



Originally posted by poet1b

Europeans happened to hit the financial jackpot first. pretty much everything you see in Europe past 1500 is a result of that Jed Clampett-style lucky strike.


I am so sick of hearing this constantly repeated lie.


Except it's not a lie. That you dislike the fact of the matter doesn't make it untrue. The Spanish got lucky. It could have been the Chinese or the Malinese who reached the Western Hemisphere first; even the Ottomans had a fair shot at the time. In fact there's some evidence that the Chinese may have done just that, a few years before their emperor went bugnuts and burned all the boats.


It wasn't a matter of luck that Europeans were technologically centuries ahead of the other civilizations that you mention.


No, that would be a matter of fiction. Militarily, the ottoman empire had parity with most European powers, and was more powerful than many (the Swedish Empire woulda gotten whupped). Mali was a center of education and technology at this time period; Timbuktu was recognized as a cultural mecca even in Europe. China was several decades ahead of Europe in terms of navigation and technology, but as I just mentioned, bot severely hampered by Emperor Bugnuts.


Clearly you don't like it that the facts of the reality get in the way of your racist rants, and refusal to admit the accomplishments of white culture.


You have yet to actually refute any of the facts I've brought up. You've also failed to support any of your claims of white cultural unity with anything resembling fact. As I said, I'll handle the "racist" pap later in this post.


While other civilizations where worshiping their rulers as gods, Europeans were chopping off the heads of their kings for failure to respect the rights of individuals.


Your time frame is way off. Europeans didn't really start chopping heads off for this until the French Revolution; there were still European monarchs claiming divine authority into the 20th century. Both of course come way after the discovery of the Americas, and in fact, it's very likely that the pluralistic non-monarchal government systems of north America strongly influenced writers such as Rousseau and Paine, who of course set the stage for all this potentate-toppling.


Whites are still centuries ahead of these other civilizations in developing representative government.


Looking at the government of the United States, I really wonder if we can even measure days of advancement.

Incidentally, representative government has been discovered, lost, and rediscovered in numerous cultures. Like agriculture, it's one of those things that no one group can lay absolute claim to. Most tribal groups engage in this sort of government, since it's really the only way for a tribal society to function. Most Native American nations also worked this way; the Iroquois Confederacy deserves special mention, as an inspiration for the United States forming a federated representative government.


While other civilizations were perfecting the sword, whites were perfecting the gun.


Then why were the Turks using muskets and cannons against Hungarian knights swinging swords on horseback? The Mongols used rocket attacks against Polish knights back in the day as well. And while the Europeans introduced the gun to Japan, the Japanese tooled around with the things and by all accounts, actually made the best firearms of that timeframe - and then the warlords caught on that a peasant with a gun and three hours training could lay waste to a dude who'd spent 20 years training with a sword, and promptly smashed all the gunsmiths. (Same reason crossbows were illegal in Catholic Europe for so long)


Calculus,


Draws from input from numerous cultures, from the Greeks to the Egyptians to the Indians, Medieval Europe, Medieval Islam, even input from China and Japan. It's a collaborative work.


physics,


Babylon, advanced by the Greeks, further advanced by the Arabs. Numerous peoples all over the world also studied physics in one form or another, however not as a solitary school of science.


steel,


Way off. Steel production in Europe probably originated in Anatolia (modern Turkey) but was independently developed in China, India, and East and West Africa. High-carbon steel was originally developed in what is now modern Sri Lanka. People in East Africa had perfected the blast furnace to produce high-carbon steel nearly two thousand years ago; Europeans didn't pull that off until the early 1800's.


the steam engine,


The first practical steam engine. However, a functional steam turbine was invented by an Arab in 1551. The trouble was it used too much fuel to be economical for much.


the internal combustion engine,


Can be credited to a Baghdadi Arab by the name of Al-Jazari in the 12th century. This dude was nuts with all the stuff he came up with. The Chinese also had a sort of combustion engine fueled by gunpowder, but, well... I think we can all imagine how that went.


harnessing of electricity,


Egypt or Sumeria. Hard to tell which borrowed from which.


wireless communication,


There we go! Alexander Graham Bell pioneered this one. Though a good case could be made that it's the Israelis and Japanese who are perfecting it these days.


all technologies developed primarily by white culture, along with a huge variety of other technologies.


I guess you consider one out of seven to be good odds.


And you are a fool for not recognizing these things, programmed by the elites to believe what they want you to believe.


Newsflash; just because you're wrong doesn't mean there's a conspiracy against you. It just means you're wrong. You've very obviously not given anything but a very passing study over these things you're talking about. Your knowledge of the history at hand is lacking, to say the least, and what you DO know seems heavily framed by your own desire to attribute everything to white people.


What the elites desire more than anything is to downplay the role of representative government in the success of white culture.


Works pretty well for the rest of us, too, by the by. You're welcome



This is why they have taught you to hate white culture.


One, I don't hate anything. It's a pointless emotion. if I'm going to expend all the energy required for hatred, I might as well same myself some gastric distress and love it instead.

Two, you have yet to make any sort of definition for "white culture." I keep asking, you keep evading. The few points you've brought out are factually wrong


And no, most whites do not want to belong to the elites. Most whites see the elites as a bunch of screwed up people who do a lot of bad things in this world.


Are you the official spokesperson? 'Cause if so, you must have missed a few memos. And several decades.


At least we had a civil rights movement, throughout most of the third world, they are still trying to gain any rights.


And you would do well o investigate why, precisely that is. Really, I think a good long study into the conditions and causes of third-world nations would do you a lot of good.


If you are as well educated as you claim, then you would know that racism and bigotry are practiced around the globe by people of all colors, and is not an exclusively white thing that you constantly imply.


I never implied such a thing. I'm simply pointing out that you're factually wrong on pretty much everything you say. On this note, let's move into that "racism" stuff you were rather ironically lobbing around.

But first, another correction:

Where do you think Arnold Schwarzenegger's family name came from?

One, the Germans weren't vikings. Two, the name means "black corner." - i.e., they're from a heavily wooded area, or live in the shadow of a mountain, etc. Sort of like how the German black forest has nothing to do with black people, it's just a reference to how dark it was under the canopy of the place


Now, onward!


This statement sums up your whole racist post.


Calling you out for being incorrect doesn't make me a racist. Though the form and message of your misinformation could very well paint YOU as one.


No, you have not quoted anything that backs up your false claims about what I have written in my posts. Inferred would be your gross misinterpretation of of what I have written.


Well, let's fix that. From this thread:


This is why they teach in our schools that whites have nothing to be proud of, while minorities have much to be proud of.


and only those who need to be proud of their culture, what their ancestors supposedly did, are people who have never done anything on their own to be proud of.


and their sexual mores are much more common to other whites than other groups.


What I see is a very organized and concerted effort to promote racism against whites. Maybe elites do not hate whites so much as they fear us, for our fierce independence, at least in the U.S..


It wasn't a matter of luck that Europeans were technologically centuries ahead of the other civilizations that you mention. ... While other civilizations where worshiping their rulers as gods, Europeans were chopping off the heads of their kings for failure to respect the rights of individuals. ... Whites are still centuries ahead of these other civilizations in developing representative government. ... While other civilizations were perfecting the sword, whites were perfecting the gun.


If you think whites make up the majority of the world's elites, and always have, than you are not only completely ignorant of history, but up contemporary events as well.


Rather than give credit where credit is due, non-whites have taken the bait, choosing to believe the racist propaganda our school systems are dishing out.


Do you really think the success of white culture is due to sheer luck?


The PC crowd has certainly taken over the democratic party in the U.S.. What was once a party that stood for the rights of humanity, has turned into a party of witch hunters.
(this one is notable because from 1865 til about 1950, the Democrats billed themselves as "the white man's party")

From the "Why is white pride a bad thing? thread:

The worst part of the slave trade took place in Latin America, but somehow that part is ignored, and the Spanish aren't exactly white, they certainly are not Anglo Saxon Germanic or Nordic.


Yeah, we conquered the world. Why should we feel guilty about it? We did what everyone else wanted to do. ...We improved the lives of those we conquered, and treated the people far better than they had been treated by their own people who had previously ruled them.


The biggest part of the reason whites are so successful is because of our culture, our belief in liberty, which goes back eons.


Um, dude, no, white people haven't had it easier for the most part than minorities.


You are right, for the last few centuries, white has been the color to be, because it has been our era for about the last 500 years. Who knows who will be on top in another hundred years.
(Make up your mind!)

My pointing out that Newton deserves credit for his contribution to science and mathematics does not mean that I think I deserve credit for what Newton has accomplished,
(Again, make up your mind!)

Still the fact that historically, Northern Europeans have favored democratic style government, is a huge factor in the success of European culture. ... The real kicker that burns your bum is that you can't stand the idea that the success of the U.S. is primarily due to white culture.


Affirmative action is systematic oppression of white people


In both threads, your overall message is that whites invented everything awesome, and scored every notable achievement in human history, and they did so simply by virtue of their whiteness, and that the "elite" are forcing soul-crushing hatred upon all white people in an effort to squash this. Everyone who's not white has just been sitting on the sidelines for the last ten thousand years thumbing their prostates while white people are off being f'ing awesome all the time.


I did not claim that "fighting for liberty" is an exclusively white thing, and you can't provide a quote to back this claim,


In fact you named it as an identifying hallmark that sets white culture apart.

White culture has a historically established practice of overthrowing the elites in power, and restoring order and liberty for the masses.


Still the fact that historically, Northern Europeans have favored democratic style government, is a huge factor in the success of European culture


Which is why I felt the need to point out you were wrong


because it is nothing but a slanderous attack on your part, and a typical example of the nastiness in your posts.


Actually, since this is text, it would be "libelous." However, you're the one calling names. i'm just pointing out that you're wrong, and that your wrongness centers around the notion that you think white people are the most awesome people ever and no one else counts for diddly.


You are the one who clearly sees everything as "exclusively" white or non-white.


Well, when I'm posting in threads about "Why the elites hate white culture more than any other" or "Why is white pride a bad thing?" then the binary equation, white and non-white, was already present before I showed up. When I'm arguing with a fellow such as yourself who is absolutely dividing the world into "whites" and "everyone else" then yeah, it's going to be expected.


Your hatred of whites jumps out of your posts, and you are one of the few who don't clearly see this.


You seem to be mistaking "knowing history" for "hating white people." Either that, or you're taking my criticism of your piss-poor facts that you base your own ethnic pride on to be a mark of hatred. Nah. If i'm hating anything, I'm hating bad history.

I suppose I "hate" blacks as well, since I happily point out the craptacular history some black supremacists spout (such as the ever fabulous one about how the Egyptians founded every European society, or that the Zimbabweans invented democracy. And don't get me started on kwanzaa.)


I have never told you that


whites were the superior race


Nope, never in those words. However, that's not much of an argument; it's certainly your intended message in both threads. Your statement here looks a lot like this.

You: We'd all be a lot better off if That Guy got killed! I wouldn't cry if someone did kill him. He's a terrible person, and things would be awesome if he wound up with a bullet in his skull!
Me: You really shouldn't hope for someone to kill That Guy.
You: Where did I ever say "someone should kill That Guy?" Quote me!
Me: Context.
You: Slander!


Once again, nothing but a slanderous attack by you against me.


Again, it's libel; and it's only libel if it's demonstrably false. And what I'm saying about the stance you're taking is demonstrably true. I mean really, look at what you've been saying. Everything worth note, you attribute solely (and falsely) to "white culture." And then you try to say you're not putting white people on a pedestal above others? Others whom you have claimed have "done nothing to be proud of" and "were centuries behind Europe"?


This comment of yours is the typical racist jab oft repeated by your kind.


"My kind" being what, exactly? And how is it racist to point out that you're wrong and that your diatribe is pretty much white supremacist pap? It's not racist to correct you, even if you're talking about race.
edit on 26-1-2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-1-2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-1-2011 by TheWalkingFox because: Tags are hard!



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


That is the same continuous mythology spread by racists such as yourself to claim that Europeans never accomplished anything, and it is nothing but mythology. The proof is not one link in your entire post to back up your claims.

Yeah, sure mathematics had been around for thousands of years, but that doesn't change the fact that Newton and Liebnitz developed calculus. It doesn't change Newtons tremendous contributions to science.

Your whole argument comes down to, other people were doing similar things, but they just didn't succeed.

If the Chinese were such accomplished sailors, and built such great sailing boats, why didn't they thrive as whalers the way that Europeans succeeded?

By the way, the Vikings had discovered the new world two centuries before Columbus. If it hadn't been for the suppression of technology by the catholic church, who prosecuted anyone who claimed that the world was round, knowledge of the New World would have spread much more quickly, and Europeans would have started settling there much earlier. This would have completely changed history in more ways than I care to speculate at this time.

Sorry, but firearm technology was primarily developed in Europe, and once again, while others tried, it was the Europeans who succeeded.

homepages.ihug.com.au...

The reality is that the same cultural traits that enabled the Europeans to throw off the yoke of the Catholic Church and explore the world, are also the same traits that enabled them to harness electricity and develop most of the advanced technology that we enjoy today.

You just can't stand the idea, so you will embrace anything that states differently.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   
To add to research, this piece of history adds greatly to the understanding of how Europeans broke loose from the Catholic Church.

From the link on firearms, or Hand Gonnes.

homepages.ihug.com.au...

The Hussite wars are the first wars where firearms played a decisive role.


Handgonnes were extensively used in the Hussite wars of 1426-32. An illustration from this period shows a short handgonne, stocked like a contemporary crossbow and aimed from the cheek. Bohemia and the Czech lands were to figure importantly in firearms history as a result.


So what were the Hussite wars? This is some very interesting history.

en.wikipedia.org...



Origins
The Hussite movement assumed a revolutionary character as soon as the news of the execution of Jan Hus by order of the Council of Constance (6 July 1415) reached Prague. The knights and nobles of Bohemia and Moravia, who were in favour of church reform, sent a protest to the Council of Constance on (2 September 1415), known as the protestatio Bohemorum, which condemned the execution of Hus in the strongest language. The attitude of Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor, who sent threatening letters to Bohemia declaring that he would shortly drown all Wycliffites and Hussites, greatly incensed the people.

Outbreak of Fighting
After a considerable part of the city had been destroyed, the parties declared a truce on 13 November. The nobles, who though favourable to the Hussite cause supported the regent, promised to act as mediators with Sigismund, while the citizens of Prague consented to restore to the royal forces the castle of Vyšehrad, which had fallen into their hands. Žižka, who disapproved of this compromise, left Prague and retired to Plzeň. Unable to maintain himself there he marched to southern Bohemia, and after defeating the Catholics at the battle of Sudoměř (25 March 1420) in the first pitched battle of the Hussite wars, he arrived at Ústí, one of the earliest meeting-places of the Hussites. Not considering its situation sufficiently strong, he moved to the neighbouring new settlement of the Hussites, called by the biblical name of Tábor.

Tabor soon became the centre of the advanced Hussites, who differed from the Utraquists by recognizing only two sacraments - Baptism and Communion - and by rejecting most of the ceremony of the Roman Catholic Church. The ecclesiastical organization of Tabor had a somewhat puritanical character, and the government was established on a thoroughly democratic basis. Four captains of the people (hejtmané) were elected, one of whom was Žižka; and a very strictly military discipline was instituted.

Wagenburg tactics
The Hussites' battle consisted of two stages, the first defensive, the second an offensive counterattack. In the first stage the army placed the carts near the enemy army and by means of artillery fire provoked the enemy into battle. The artillery would usually inflict heavy casualties at close range.

In order to avoid more losses, the enemy knights finally attacked. Then the infantry hidden behind the carts used firearms and crossbows to ward off the attack, weakening the enemy. The shooters aimed first at the horses, depriving the cavalry of its main advantage. Many of the knights died as their horses were shot and they fell.

As soon as the enemy's morale was lowered, the second stage, an offensive counterattack, began. The infantry and the cavalry burst out from behind the carts striking violently at the enemy - mostly from the flanks. While fighting on the flanks and being shelled from the carts the enemy was not able to put up much resistance. They were forced to withdraw, leaving behind dismounted knights in heavy armor who were unable to escape the battlefield. The enemy armies suffered heavy losses and the Hussites soon had the reputation of not taking captives.


Hope this quote isn't too long.

Apparently this war lead to Rome declaring the disastrous third Crusade.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 




No, that would be a matter of fiction. Militarily, the ottoman empire had parity with most European powers, and was more powerful than many (the Swedish Empire woulda gotten whupped)


Walking, you bring some balance to the thread, IMO, and while I don't care to butt-in to your ongoing debate with Poet, I thought I would comment on a couple of tidbits here, since you offered your clarification concerning the Ottoman Empire. Of course, I'm long-winded, so just a little warning to anyone who likes to keep it simple.

The way I read history, during the 16th Century, the Ottoman Empire was clearly superior to Europe as a whole, in just about every important way.

Militarily, they perhaps actually had an edge, even though technology per se, was seemingly at parity. They had a huge advantage due to the fact that the Empire was more organized than Europe. They could mobilize in unity, just at the time when Europe was beginning to experience the divisive forces of the Reformation.

True, Europe had the Pope, who did in fact "rally the troops", famously crediting God's Will for the victory at Lepanto (1571), even going so far as to establish a Holy Day in remembrance, celebrated to this day in some parts, the Feast of the Holy Rosary (since the Pope had explained that it was due to praying the rosary that the critical battle was won).

Of course, Lepanto became a symbolic victory mostly, since the Empire "could" have continued it's assaults, and many historians seem to believe that the Turks would have almost certainly PREVAILED over Europe, if they had not succumbed to internal issues, and a certain complacency with the detente of the day.

"If" the Ottoman Empire had pushed just a bit more over the following decades after Lepanto, Europe probably would have fallen, and would be Muslim today (and therefore most of the world). I say this not just to agree with the historical consensus, but to me, it makes a lot of sense, considering Europe would be severely torn, fighting amongst themselves, Catholic against Protestant, Reformation, and Counter-Reformation, for the next century.

It was a moment in history that for various reasons was not exploited, and yet, we can imagine that if it had been, none of us would be having this conversation at all.

How to "interpret" such a thing might make for an interesting debate itself. On the one hand, looking at the evidence, it would appear that Europe dodged the bullet, and was indeed "lucky". On the other hand, religionists often look at this pivotal period and invoke God's Will, concluding that God would not let Christianity fail. In both cases, a certain amount of "humility" dare I say, would be called for. In other words, this is clearly not a case of a "superior" force triumphing over the weaker one, rather, other circumstances came into play.

Interestingly, this leads me to the other tidbit I wanted to comment on, one that has come up now a few times in your debate with Poet.

What should we make of the "luck" that Spain enjoyed in their conquest of the New World?

Well, we could come up with any number of ideas, as the debate thus far has shown, but I wonder what people of the time thought about it?

In fact, we can read about exactly what they thought, although even 500 years ago there could have been a debate about "why" things fell the way they did, just as today.

In the part of Europe that remained Catholic, the consensus seems to have been that God was showing his "favor" to the "True Faith", by bestowing upon the faithful nations this great fortune. Spain was quite literally THEE most Catholic nation in all of Europe, with perhaps only the Poles competing for the title. After having battled the Moors for centuries, the Spanish identity back then was very different from that of the Spaniard of today.

Five hundred years ago, Spain found itself as the world's "superpower", wealthy, internally stable, culturally solid. Those Spaniards were probably closer to "Spartans" than anything else in Europe at the time. Again, they had fought the Moors for generations, finally expelling them from the continent. This made the Spanish tough as nails, and imbued them with an identity something like an "American", one we are more familiar with, at least in the sense that a certain feeling "destiny" comes into the picture in a very concrete way.

While I'm agnostic myself, religion is one of my specialties, and in reading some of the "Lives of the Saints" of that time, you can get a feeling for that period, and the conclusion is that these people really believed that God had "favored" them specifically to spread the gospel, through them. To "preserve" the Faith, in spite of a massive cleaving of the (formerly) "seamless Robe of Christ". Yes there was Gold, and Glory, but there was certainly also God, when it came to the Spanish "mission".

At least in the Catholic world, there was some humility that went along with this fortuitous set of circumstances. They saw Northern Europe "losing" the Faith, and yet could look to a New World, where those Protestant "loses", would be replaced by new native gains to the faith, "converts".

Of course, there was a predictable "jealousy" that seized the competition in Europe, and Spain's loaded ships would be seen as a legitimate target by practically everyone, no one seemed to think that taking Spain's treasure was wrong, and an inglorious age of piracy bloomed, entering it's most "romantic" age.

But then we have this "different" view from the Protestant side. Not even 20 years after Lepanto, the Spanish Armada was destroyed (1588), and since the victory was (again) due to weather mainly, we could say "luck" (universally considered to be Divine Providence in those times), we would now see something perhaps almost "predictable" out of the "victors".

Of course the English interpreted this event, in their favor, as proof that God was on "their" side! Eventually, this initial "humility" would degenerate into an almost palpable "English Pride", so potent, that the English would one day find themselves at the helm of the largest Empire ever known.

Well, we could go on, but I hope that I made my point here. The people's of the time most often looked at turns of what we might call "luck", as an indication that they were on God's side or whatever.

Today however, we can look back on those same events, see how things played out, have the benefit of knowing what later took place, and we might draw more "naturalistic" conclusions.

Was it as "simple" as merely hitting the lottery? NO.

A big part of this has a lot to do with "who" hit the lottery. If we put "God's Will" aside for a moment, we can see clearly that this particular people, the Spanish, were almost "ideal" for a "mission" (if I can use that term!) in the New World.

They were hugely successful, and today a very large percentage of the New World still uses their language, Spanish.

Would the English have faired similarly? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

What we do find is that in comparing the two, as they rolled across the New World, the English had a very different approach. They were not so interested in "converting" the natives. They certainly were not as interested in "mixing" with the natives. As it turns out, they preferred "replacing" the natives! As in, what we call today, "genocide".

This contrasted with the Spanish approach, so often misconstrued, IMO, which history shows was far more "humane" than typical English-language presentations of it, in spite of everyone finding themselves in such a harsh era.

The Spanish did actually encourage intermarriage with the natives! The mostly male soldiers initially in place certainly needed something. They really did succeed in "converting" the natives! Here again, a mis-characterization that natives faced the sword, or baptism. Not true, and if we read even native accounts of those days, we will see why someone like Juan Diego, an Indian, who get's to "meet the Virgin Mary", and MILLIONS of Indians voluntarily submit to baptism in the decade decade following the Guadalupe event.

A trick of the priests? Who knows! The bottom line is that it worked, and no one was butchered in the process. Some might simply call it "wise". Today, Mexico is one of the world's most "Catholic" nations, far surpassing even modern Spain.

I suppose we could write entertaining fiction about the many "what if's", not merely if the South had won, but what if the English had loaded up on New World gold ahead of Spain? Or as you point out, what if the Chinese had their act together first?

And so, the other thing to emphasize here is again the very critical "who" that wins the lottery. It certainly isn't as simple as just winning, as we know, most winners of modern lotteries tend to go broke soon afterward. It think that in it's full context, the Spanish actually measure up quite admirably when it comes to a "success" that endures to this day, and will likely endure far into the future.

Obviously, this finally could lead us back to speaking of the present Anglo-American domination of the world. Indeed many DO look at this historical, "factual" success as being itself an "indication" of something. Perhaps modern religionists will still choose to credit "God" for the way things unfolded. But as we should expect, those ideas are rather old-fashioned by today's standards.

What should we expect to come in as the "default" once God is put aside, when it comes to interpreting this huge Anglo-American success story? Well, this brings us back to the "who", although the lines between "luck", and the ability to effectively make good use of that luck, will no-doubt be fuel for a debate that will go on for many years to come.

JR


edit on 26-1-2011 by JR MacBeth because: silly spelling mistakes, like usual



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


I am not going to bother to go through all of your mischaracterizations of history, but I will hit a couple of the big zingers.

The British beheaded a King almost two centuries before the French Revolution. European's began fighting against monarchies as early as the 12th century. Ever hear of the Magna Carta?

Alexander Graham Bell did not invent WireLess communication.

As far your quotes of my posts, they are taken out of context, and you provide no links, and none of them state anything that is racist.

Here is an example of a racist remark by you.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Europeans happened to hit the financial jackpot first. pretty much everything you see in Europe past 1500 is a result of that Jed Clampett-style lucky strike.


Here you are taking a cheap shot at all of Europe. According to you, Europeans deserve credit for nothing, just a bunch of hillbillys that got lucky, REALLY??? You don't see how offensive that statement is? Only a hater would write a racist comment like this. It makes me wonder if I am being kind when I state that you have been programmed by the elites to hate whites. Makes me want to say FOAD.

By the way, I never claimed the Germans were the same as the Vikings.

Here is another statement, which again shows you can't get beyond your racist view of the world.


Well, when I'm posting in threads about "Why the elites hate white culture more than any other" or "Why is white pride a bad thing?" then the binary equation, white and non-white, was already present before I showed up.


What makes it whites verse non-whites, except for the posters like you who can only see things in this way. Why is it that when we talk about the accomplishments of other cultures and races, besides whites, it doesn't become a story of their culture verses the rest of the world, but when we talk about white culture, it must be whites verses everyone else for people like you. I point out the contributions Europeans/whites have made to technology, and immediately you accuse me of claiming that whites invented everything, which I never claimed. It is a ridiculous exaggeration on your part. If someone talks about China's contributions to technology, it would be just as racist for someone to jump in and say, "so you think the Chinese invented everything!"

Recognizing the accomplishment of whites does not mean that all other cultures did not contribute as well. Why would anyone assume this?

Your kind, being a racist hater, comes from all cultures and races.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by JR MacBeth
 


The only thing the Ottoman Empire had going for it, in its numerous attempt to conquer Europe, was that is was an empire, and as such, could assemble large armies. However, when it came to fighting battles, their larger forces were completely ineffective against the smaller European armies they fought. When the Turks tried to invade Europe in the 14th century, they succeeded in defeating the Serbs, but at heavy losses, and were subsequently defeated by the Germans. This began the decline of the Ottoman Empire. These are the historical facts that so many want to rewrite, or ignore. It is too bad that the Serbs do not get the credit they deserve for stopping the advance of the Ottoman Empire.

It is because the Europeans revolted against the Catholic Church, that they they became a far stronger and richer culture, and that is what brought them to world dominance. This is where European culture succeeded where all others failed. This is a major point of this thread.

As far as the Spanish are concerned, if any nation could be called lucky, it would be the Spanish, when they took a chance on an Italian map maker, and funded his expedition, looking for a route to the spice rich Indies.

The Spanish Armada was not defeated by bad weather, they were defeated by the superior British Navy, in spite of the massive fleet they had assembled to attack Briton. The Spanish Armada was forced to sail around the British Isles by the British fleet, knowing full well the treacherous seas they sent the Spanish Armada through. It would have been extremely lucky if the Spanish Armada had not ran into a storm in the long voyage they were forced to take in treacherous seas at that time of season. The Brits knew exactly what they were doing in forcing the Spanish to take that sea voyage.

If you were to take an honest look at the Spanish Missionaries, then you would know that they were always more about enslaving the natives of America than they were of converting them. Their intentions, and their actions were very different things.

While you say that "The Spanish did actually encourage intermarriage with the natives! " is in reality the enslavement and rape of the natives. Spanish women for the most part refused to go to the new world. Spanish men raped Native women at will. Yes, they intermingled, but it was hardly humane, and to claim that is was is a gross injustice to what Native Americans were forced to endure. The first Native Americans Columbus encountered, the indigenous Arawak people in the Bahamas, were literally wiped out, genocided to the point where there no longer exist as a people.

While the British approach was also disastrous for the Native Americans, they did trade with the Natives Americans they encountered, and engaged in treaties, sadly, the intentions and the results did not match up. Still, the descendants of a great many of the Native Americans continue on today, and many of us have their blood in our veins, more so than people want to recognize.

I don't see it as luck or faith at all, but a drive for freedom from tyranny, that the Europeans (whites) succeeded at.

All of humanity should learn from the example they set, that tyranny can be overcame by a people determined to win their freedom.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JR MacBeth
 



It is because the Europeans revolted against the Catholic Church, that they they became a far stronger and richer culture, and that is what brought them to world dominance. This is where European culture succeeded where all others failed. This is a major point of this thread.

As far as the Spanish are concerned, if any nation could be called lucky, it would be the Spanish, when they took a chance on an Italian map maker, and funded his expedition, looking for a route to the spice rich Indies.

The Spanish Armada was not defeated by bad weather, they were defeated by the superior British Navy, in spite of the massive fleet they had assembled to attack Briton. The Spanish Armada was forced to sail around the British Isles by the British fleet, knowing full well the treacherous seas they sent the Spanish Armada through. It would have been extremely lucky if the Spanish Armada had not ran into a storm in the long voyage they were forced to take in treacherous seas at that time of season. The Brits knew exactly what they were doing in forcing the Spanish to take that sea voyage.

If you were to take an honest look at the Spanish Missionaries, then you would know that they were always more about enslaving the natives of America than they were of converting them. Their intentions, and their actions were very different things.

While you say that "The Spanish did actually encourage intermarriage with the natives! " is in reality the enslavement and rape of the natives. Spanish women for the most part refused to go to the new world. Spanish men raped Native women at will. Yes, they intermingled, but it was hardly humane, and to claim that is was is a gross injustice to what Native Americans were forced to endure. The first Native Americans Columbus encountered, the indigenous Arawak people in the Bahamas, were literally wiped out, genocided to the point where there no longer exist as a people.

While the British approach was also disastrous for the Native Americans, they did trade with the Natives Americans they encountered, and engaged in treaties, sadly, the intentions and the results did not match up. Still, the descendants of a great many of the Native Americans continue on today, and many of us have their blood in our veins, more so than people want to recognize.

I don't see it as luck or faith at all, but a drive for freedom from tyranny, that the Europeans (whites) succeeded at.

All of humanity should learn from the example they set, that tyranny can be overcame by a people determined to win their freedom.


I sort of thought that might be the way you looked at it Poet!

You're certainly not alone, I actually think that the majority of the English-speaking world would tend to look at things similarly.

And if you go South, as in way down into Latin America, or over to Spain, and read some history according to them, you get another idea.

The thing is, where exactly is the truth here, when you encounter two versions that seem to disagree in many important particulars?

If for some reason we find ourselves really believing that which our culture handed to us, then we might decide one day to question that.

This goes for everyone.

Should the Spaniard growing up and going to school under Franco believe the history they are taught, as favorable as it might be to the Spanish, or might they prefer to step back, and take in a bigger picture?

In my post, I sort of felt the need to add the disclaimer that I was agnostic. Apparently it doesn't always help. I'm one of those who has been "labeled" as just about anything under the sun (thank you Poet for not quite slamming a label on me!). I'm "liberal", or conservative, Jewish, or atheist, Christian or Muslim, "racist" too, depending upon the views I happen to express at the time. A bit frustrating, but it just underscores one of these difficulties we're all up against, as we all tend to want to label those around us.

I suppose this time I get to be the "Latino", or Pope's stooge


Well, I'm certainly no fan of the pope, I actually am personally revolted for some reason, every time I see a picture of the current guy, Benedict.

But because of my personal dislike, should I then imagine that everything the guy does is "evil", or that everything he has to say is suspect? If I did get to that point, I would have to question how objective I could be about anything, not to mention, I might also inadvertently cut-off perhaps fruitful discourse with a Catholic, who might be sensitive about their leader. Have you ever insulted Joseph Smith when speaking to a Mormon? They may maintain their steady smile, but you have just hit a nerve, whether you know it or not.

The thing is, the truth often lies somewhere between the various bits of propaganda that we are immersed in.

I wouldn't say that the Spanish were "kind" to the natives! Honestly, that would be ludicrous. But were they the "devils" the English-speaking world has agreed that they were? The evidence doesn't actually show that, just as you point out, not all North American Indians were merely killed, there were treaties
well, such as they were, and certainly many very virtuous Christians in Protestant America also cared for "souls", taking the gospel to natives, and even giving that message to their slaves. Many of these people's today are very staunch Christians as a result.

It was a long time ago, but some of us may remember a very popular song that came out shortly after the Kent State "massacre" (propaganda word, but whatever). Buffalo Springfield wrote this awesome song as a tribute to the four who died that day, and it had this great line in it that said,

A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side
It's time we stop,
hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down


"Hooray for our side". Yeah, we do need to stop, and see what's "going down" as we used to say back then.

Well, anyway, something to consider.

I guess I should address your point that seems to suggest "luck" (or "Providence") is a non-issue. Maybe you didn't quite mean that, but that would be pretty radical, unless you could appeal to something else, like the supernatural, but then, that wouldn't exactly be luck.

Does "luck" play a part in the human experience? I always thought that it did, but I can totally see how the religionist might call it Providence, or maybe how the ancients called it "fate". We can call it a lot of things maybe, but whatever name we give it, it is far from a non-issue. Could be it's one of the main issues, but as I initially pointed out, there is also the issue of what we "make of" that luck.

Finally, your last statement that I quoted above here, it isn't something that a person can really argue too much about. It is more or less a short summary of your paradigm, the way you look at life.

I personally don't see the evidence for the very English, "Onward and upward! Talley-ho!" success story as being due primarily to a "white" constitution, but I can see why people are so attached to the notion of "progress", to the point where the concept is almost deified. (By the way, my grandfather was born in England, I certainly do not wish to slam the English), and yet when it comes to "culture" (a word that does get misused, IMO), it is language that should be regarded as occupying the primary position, from what I have learned. Obviously "culture" is much more complex, which is why we should be more careful with the term.

Let me put it this way, about the primacy of language. I've already discussed the very important issue of the particular version of history that comes to us, yes, through our native language (to the sad exclusion of other versions that might shed more light on the full truth), but let's look a bit more at how important the thing is, in comparison let's say, to something like "race" (for example).

I'm going to sound like an old fart again, but perhaps you recall the "I Love Lucy" show that ran for so many years on TV's around the world. Take a look at Desi Arnaz...Does he "look" more "white", than "latino"? Well, considering that he was probably mostly of European (Spanish) decent, this should be no surprise, and certainly no one was offended 60 years ago by his marriage with red-haired Lucy. Do you follow me? And yet, in spite of his "appearance", it would be his language that would have the most to do with how closely you might eventually "relate" to the person.

In other words, regardless of "color", what we have most in common is our ability to communicate, which in a broader sense includes many cultural components as well, such as the many things we "agree" on, without having to be said. SO, the black person from Cuba might find that he would actually be much more "understood" by Ricky, than by Malcolm X. It's more complicated than just that, but I hope I made my point.

Some of these fine distinctions aren't always apparent, unless we really focus on them, but they become more relevant as we try to narrow things down.

I guess this is long enough, but I should say one last thing. While it may appear that today's Anglo-American dominance is virtual proof of a kind of "supremacy" enjoyed by it's creators, we are perhaps not (yet) in the best position to judge. We are hampered by very short life-spans, besides all these other things already mentioned, that can so cloud our judgment, and so even if something looks so "correct" at this point in time, the bigger picture may turn today's "truth", into tomorrow's falsehood.

No, the world isn't exactly flat as we know, but I also know, given my interest in demographics, that tomorrow's world will be decidedly "darker", and more Asian.

Birthrates. "God's revenge", whatever we want to call it! But it will perhaps have the "final word", regardless of how sure we are of anything.

JR



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Is ATS taking kind to [hate-site-nolink] type posts?



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by JR MacBeth
 


My religious beliefs tend to be more Gnostic than anything, but through in some Wiccan and Zoroastrianism.

I am not trying to say that whites, or white culture is superior, only that is has succeeded over the last millennium where others have failed, and the evidence for this is very strong.

If you win a battle, you have the right to claim victory when there was a clear victory. The losing side is better off admitting they lost. Saying the victorious side was lucky is being foolish.

Is there such a thing as luck, or fate, yes, I think so to a degree, but a consistent and continuous string of victories tends to put the just lucky claimer as foolish pride.

Does this mean that whites or British or Europeans are superior, no, just that they had a better game plan.

Is it smart to learn from those who succeed?

For some reason, our current PC culture doesn't want people to look at what made the Brits, and the Europeans in general, so successful. Is this a conspiracy, that elites would rather hide the facts that the people who broke away from a class system, that fought and won their freedoms were the same people who wound up conquering the world, and developing our current first world nations? Considering that the reality that people free from class structure are more successful than those who don't pretty much eliminates the need for elites, then yes, the idea that our poor education on history is part of a conspiracy is not out of line.

The whole PC line helps the elites stay elite.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


I am not going to bother to go through all of your mischaracterizations of history, but I will hit a couple of the big zingers.


I'm sure you won't, given your awesome track record of atrocious history.


The British beheaded a King almost two centuries before the French Revolution.


That they did. However, they did not do so to "win liberty" or "topple tyranny." Charles I was tried and executed for fomenting a second English civil war; that is, in modern parlance, he was executed for war crimes. There was then about a decade of rule under Oliver Cromwell - who, if you know your history, was certainly no sort of "liberator" for anyone - who was in turn replaced by Charles II when the monarchy was restored.

A king was beheaded, only to be replaced with a tyrant, who was then replaced by another king. This is why I draw the distinction at the French Revolution (though ultimately, that one ended up under a tyrannical monarch as well; it's the ideals that counted for the argument)


European's began fighting against monarchies as early as the 12th century. Ever hear of the Magna Carta?


Which transplanted a good portion of the king's power into the hands of hte landed nobility of England - the "Elite" of their time.


Alexander Graham Bell did not invent WireLess communication.


It's called a photophone. It transmitted sound by means of light. Seriously, if you're going to crow over the achievements of "white culture," you could at least give some props to one of your guys when he came up with something neat like that, in freakin' 1880.


As far your quotes of my posts, they are taken out of context, and you provide no links, and none of them state anything that is racist.


Actually a few of them do, in fact, state racist things (Spanish people aren't really white?) But my point in quoting them all is simply to point out the overall message of your posts. You do very obviously believe whites to be "superior," by dint of accrediting them with, well, basically everything.

Well, you actually credit the rest of us for having tasty food, which is something, I guess.


Here is an example of a racist remark by you.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Europeans happened to hit the financial jackpot first. pretty much everything you see in Europe past 1500 is a result of that Jed Clampett-style lucky strike.


Here you are taking a cheap shot at all of Europe. According to you, Europeans deserve credit for nothing, just a bunch of hillbillys that got lucky, REALLY??? You don't see how offensive that statement is? Only a hater would write a racist comment like this. It makes me wonder if I am being kind when I state that you have been programmed by the elites to hate whites. Makes me want to say FOAD.


They deserve credit for good fortune. I'm not saying that Columbus was sailing around in big loopy circles and just happened to fall off the boat and land on one of the Antilles. I'm saying that Europe got lucky in getting there first, is all. Sort of like how the US got lucky in getting to the moon first. Of course the people involved busted butt to get there, but with all the facts assembled, it's still clear that it could have gone either way.

Really, do you think it's more offensive to credit Columbus with having the fortune of a head start, than it is to credit him with achievement based solely on the color of his skin?


By the way, I never claimed the Germans were the same as the Vikings.


You claimed that the Vikings took black slaves from north Africa (probably true) and that explained Schwarzenegger's name. My mistake on one thing; Ahnuld is Austrian, not German, but the point remains


Here is another statement, which again shows you can't get beyond your racist view of the world.


Well, when I'm posting in threads about "Why the elites hate white culture more than any other" or "Why is white pride a bad thing?" then the binary equation, white and non-white, was already present before I showed up.


What makes it whites verse non-whites, except for the posters like you who can only see things in this way.


I dunno, you're the one who started this thread about how whites are separate from everyone else and are a "special target," so why don't you tell me?


Why is it that when we talk about the accomplishments of other cultures and races, besides whites, it doesn't become a story of their culture verses the rest of the world, but when we talk about white culture, it must be whites verses everyone else for people like you.


Because you set the stage for "whites vs. everyone else" from post one? Seriously, pay attention to what you're doing, you'll be a lot less confused by the results you get that way.


I point out the contributions Europeans/whites have made to technology, and immediately you accuse me of claiming that whites invented everything, which I never claimed. It is a ridiculous exaggeration on your part. If someone talks about China's contributions to technology, it would be just as racist for someone to jump in and say, "so you think the Chinese invented everything!"


No, you never talked about contributions, you talked about achievements. And the when you list those achievements, it turns out that, in your reality, white people deserve total credit for everything from democracy to basic metallurgy and physics. You pair this with statements that other people have "done nothing" and twice point out that Europe as "centuries ahead" of everyone else in the 15th century.

In fact the overall approach to nonwhites in your posts is that they're deluded brainless twerps who irrationally hate white people, and even that is only because other white people tell them to hate white people.

If someone were doing this with the Chinese, I'd call them on it exactly as I'm doing with you. In fact I have done exactly that.


Recognizing the accomplishment of whites does not mean that all other cultures did not contribute as well. Why would anyone assume this?


Well, when your list of accomplishments is actually stuff achieved either by nonwhites, or as a collaborative and cumulative effort (say, steel and calculus, respectively) and assign it exclusively to whites, as you have done? What else should I assume about your posts?

If you believe something different, your own writings certainly don't convey it at all.


Your kind, being a racist hater, comes from all cultures and races.


'Cause telling you that white people didn't invent steel (but DID invent wireless communications!) is racist, huh?

You're projecting, friend.
edit on 26-1-2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by JR MacBeth
Well, I'm certainly no fan of the pope, I actually am personally revolted for some reason, every time I see a picture of the current guy, Benedict.


Off-topic, but do you think it could be because he looks like the pope portrayed in every Chick Tract ever?

Seriously, check out this frame from "Death Cookie"

That's totally Ratzinger, innit?



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by squandered
 


How is that any different?

I want control of your resources.

To add insult you will be a slave and collect the resource for me.

It has been the basis for human "civilization" going back as far as history knows.

We may not like to admit it, but we only get angry because we want the control someone else has.

After every change, what happens? New power takes over, new controller, new slave...still same game, same players...might have changed positions, but always the same.


Yes, and that explains the variances inn the personalities involved. The more secure a race is, the less antagonistic. The dogma is always a product of the particular environment. It's all just different methods of gaining position in the hierarchy.

Using Poets updated theory of the elites involved, accordingly we've always had a scapegoat. That said, it's very hard for me to use my own perspective and not put an American spin on this. The white guilt seems to spring from the comfort of being top dog. Australia's willingness to victimise aboriginals and ignore any positive interaction / cultural exchange, is more of the same. The ugly truth is that we like to feel empowered despite the guilt based rhetoric.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by JR MacBeth
Well, I'm certainly no fan of the pope, I actually am personally revolted for some reason, every time I see a picture of the current guy, Benedict.


Off-topic, but do you think it could be because he looks like the pope portrayed in every Chick Tract ever?

Seriously, check out this frame from "Death Cookie"

That's totally Ratzinger, innit?


Wow, that's the Rat alright! Not just his "evil" grin, but those eyes.

Amazing resemblance! And Chick tracts have been around for a very long time. Make's ya wonder...



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Charles the first was trying to undermine Parliament, and take England in the direction they did not want to go. This is why they had two wars. He was executed and a commonwealth was created. What happened afterward is another story.

Bell did not invent Wireless communication, even if he invented a device to transmit sound using light. You are reaching as usual, pretending that you know what you are talking about.

Thread isn't about whites being separate from everyone else, I guess you will never get it.

And my expressed opinions on non-whites is nothing like what you express. Of course you continue to refuse to post links to back up your accusations, because they are baseless.

And I didn't say that whites invented steel, once again, just another twist from what was actually said.

What I said

Calculus, physics, steel, the steam engine, the internal combustion engine, harnessing of electricity, wireless communication, all technologies developed primarily by white culture


The technology to mass produce high quality steel was developed by a Brit, look it up if you care to learn something. Whites didn't invent electricity either, but they developed the technology that made it useful.

If you weren't obsessed with race, you might recognize what I am trying to say.




top topics



 
31
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join