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: 6
31
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by JR MacBeth
 


You said a lot, thanks.

I wanted to hope that your reference to "our masters" and "massa" was sarcastic. In a way it is, but you're describing the hands behind the ongoing politically correct rhetoric...

I would be wary about granting them an accepted position as elites. I fundamentally believe that we are the controllers of our own destiny, despite the plantation. We can evolve past any structure of their devise. The key is to make sure it's noted: They "want", they "hope" and not "they are". We define for ourselves what is and isn't. We have no less power and we never will. What we accept as true, is 'true'.

How reality is created is the subject for another topic - just how much we can dictate the realities in our universe. I'll be backing the concept that "with our thoughts we create the world".




posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JR MacBeth
 


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



My feeling is that they have to eventually pop their heads up and declare themselves and their intentions. At whatever stage this occurs there can only be two outcomes - they win or lose. I'm guessing all-out war will frustrate the process before they lose completely.

From a semi-religious perspective I don't see how we can evolve past our worldly societal norms, without seeing the beast for what it is...



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by tiger5
reply to post by poet1b
 


What kind of a statement is that. "why the elites hate white culture more than any other"? In the west the elite is white. So you are arguing that they are riven by self loathing?? May be they dislike the white working class culture but hey they are part of the team.. They may have even encourage certain aspects like sports just to keep the "dummies" quiet!


edit on 19-1-2011 by tiger5 because: (no reason given)


I don't think it's self loathing (although I'm sure that's part of it for some) as much as "sibling rivalry" but on a bigger more ominous scale.

We are programmed from a very young age to be competitive.
To be fair in our competitiveness, we are brainwashed into only competing with those of similiar weight, similiar height etc, in other words someone as similiar to ourselves as possible.
Once that physical level playing field is established, then mental agility comes into play.
Who can get one over the other, who can twist rules for an advantage etc.
That's when cheating comes into play (and the Elites do cheat and twist rules to gain advantages all the time) , once the common ground and similarity have been set.

So if the agreement is that most of the elite are white, then it doesn't take much of a leap to say that the Elite view other whites as their competition. It's who they most identify with. A potential rival who could rise up and create havoc to their position of authority. It would also explain why our education system has been dumbed down. A good education was a good leveller once upon a time as it made us as clever as they are.

So yeah, IMO it's more about hating the competition than hating white culture.
Cause these guys really hate to lose.

Also Sibling rivalry can be pretty destructive, especially when Big Brother is a psychopath.








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



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by squandered
reply to post by JR MacBeth
 


You said a lot, thanks.

I wanted to hope that your reference to "our masters" and "massa" was sarcastic. In a way it is, but you're describing the hands behind the ongoing politically correct rhetoric...

I would be wary about granting them an accepted position as elites. I fundamentally believe that we are the controllers of our own destiny, despite the plantation. We can evolve past any structure of their devise. The key is to make sure it's noted: They "want", they "hope" and not "they are". We define for ourselves what is and isn't. We have no less power and we never will. What we accept as true, is 'true'.

How reality is created is the subject for another topic - just how much we can dictate the realities in our universe. I'll be backing the concept that "with our thoughts we create the world".


It's funny, but I get such a mixed response when I go into the "Massa" thing.

One of my earliest posts on ATS as a matter of fact, caused one fellow ATS member to read me the riot act, "how dare" I use such terminology, she apparently did not bother to read some context into it. She gave it to me with both barrels, said that she was certainly no slave, she has no master, etc.

Of course, it's supposed to be a bit inflammatory, perhaps getting people to "think" a bit, an attempt to get us out of our comfort zones.

So, while there is certainly sarcasm, because I do not accept their ultimate rule as a forgone conclusion by any means (otherwise, why fight them?), I do have a different view of "who" the elite are, who "our (would be) masters" are, and that makes me look at things differently than what I have seen discussed in this thread so far.

Actually, the elite control so much even at this stage, by all appearances, we could simply say "our masters", and not be too far off the mark, as devastating as that could be for some. But, it could also be "motivating" for others, in fact, the very kind of people who would be more motivated, instead of bothered, would be the kind of people I would prefer to reach anyway.

It's a sad state of affairs, and as I've admitted before, I'm not greatly optimistic when it comes to where humanity seems to be headed. It's nice that you and Poet can remain mostly positive!

Yes, this elite crowd certainly would be behind Political Correctness, a tool directed at the enslavement of our minds, a tool that can be used against any target, with potent results, given enough time. It is not mere "rhetoric" by the way, it is very much a psy-ops level "weapon" that should not be underestimated. Just look at some of Poet's observations about the insidious application of PC in the corporate workplace. This is something that isn't ever even going to be considered by any court room, as unjust as it is, and that should give us all pause. This is something very real being deployed right now, it's not our imagination.

You mention being wary of granting the elite power, and I hear what you're saying, we should indeed be careful of allowing ourselves to submit to our very natural "defeatist" tendencies, especially when confronted by such an overwhelmingly powerful force.

And yet, we already HAVE granted them tremendous power, over every facet of our lives, over what we are allowed to say, and not allowed to even think. This may sound like a huge exaggeration, but the more we look at everything we have come to "accept", the more we should become alarmed at how much it all plays so well into the hands of those in power. Certainly what Flighty is saying about how we are "programmed" at an early age should ring true to some extent, I certainly think so.

Clearly on this thread I will be in the minority when I admit that I do not believe in "evolution" in the sense that you mention, with Poet seemingly in agreement. I'm not talking about biology here, although even here the scientists may side with me, reminding us that the evolution they speak of is a thing that happens over a very long period of time.

I myself don't see any "evolution" of our species evident in all human history, so not surprisingly I wouldn't be able to project anything into the future, and would not indulge in any false hope that we will one day be "better" than the beasts we have always been. Sure, technology may grant us marvelous advancement, perhaps greater longevity and strength, even greater intelligence, and yet, how exactly is science to grant us a corresponding increase in "virtue", or perhaps the modern person would rather hear, the "wise application" of these advancements? I already taste the ashes in my mouth, even before our science hands us their next shiny two-edged sword.

On the other hand, you certainly seem to think that the power we enjoy now, to make our own destiny, isn't something that will fade, which should give us all something to keep our hope alive, no matter what happens.

I agree, "how reality is created" would be a big topic unto itself, and yet your seemingly positive statement about what we accept as true, being true, would lead someone like me to worry, if such a thing were true!

Of course, this may sound paradoxical, but I also believe that our attitudes determine much about the life that unfolds around us. Certainly true at our particular individual micro level, it would have to also hold true for the macro, that is, society as a whole.

However, what you and I see in these "truths", does not go unnoticed by Massa I'm afraid. These things can, and will be actually used against us, if the past is any indication.

Perhaps our thoughts really do create the world, our reality. And yet, who gave us our thoughts? Who told us what to think in the first place? There may not be "one" source obviously, we don't have to get too wild here, but when it comes to certain thoughts, ways of thinking, then we may find that Massa has already been there, done that. In fact, we might be shocked to learn that Massa has done many critical things in regards to making sure his slave's minds are "right", and is perhaps not just one step ahead of us, but two or three, as scary as the implications may be for our future.

JR



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by JR MacBeth
 


Interesting thought about the paradox of free thinking and sovereignty in a universe where we each create reality. Can't we all be original and a means to our own ends...?

I actually think, yes. If we are as powerful in our ability to create reality to have already created 'what is' then we have no limitation - the scope is boundless.

The shared ideas are all well trodden hum drum. Nothing about social conformity is original and free thinking is absent. We don't rely on conformity.

Perhaps the answer as to why lies in your response. Part of our belief system is self limiting. The thoughts that make us, as you addressed are shared ideas, understood and accepted. They all pertain to worldly survival patterns. If the elites can manipulate us upon these grounds it can only mean that that they are thinking on a higher level.

I have an example of an elite in mind. She is worth billions and knows how to manipulate the system. This lady is good company, I know, but her morality is nix. The doors are all open for her because there is no overarching morality superimposed on anything she does. The world is as fake as you like, to her. I guess there's just no sense to finding a deeper understanding to her. This is the enemy, but all she does is take what's going easy - like minded individuals are her allies. Spend time with her and her friends and you'll get a strong feeling that there are no mysteries in life. They are born apex predators, nothing more. The problems start if you mess with them.

Maybe she needs a few more zero's to really fit the bill... Interestingly, on business in Africa she went to a slave museum and was startled at how racist the the blacks were when talking about white people, so much so that she found herself trying to vanish in the corner.

This is my view of the elite's. I was very interested in this area of politics at Uni' but I've never really gone deep into it. I tend to think that the elites are as confounding to us as we are to some simple tribes-people. In fact I'll go one more step and suggest that we are the elites to the anti-white brigade. Yes, I think I have my conclusion now. Look at the angst pointed at white people in You Tube vlogs by aboriginals (granted they have a higher level of political acumen than us whites), but it's all the same - the evil overlord... that's the underlying factor.

I have to respectfully disagree with the main points of this discussion. Although there is also truth in each par:

1. The elites aren't coordinated as such. They are a class of people who think alike. In every case, their morality is set to think beyond societal norms and as such they see more opportunity and don't get held back.

We can all be like that. If you rise above the hum drum that forces us into sheeple mode, you can become like they are. (A second friend, a merchant banker, just slipped into mind. She's off to Tibet for a month of meditation. This girls has an obedient nature and uses her perfected brain to find herself in the most profitable position, always.) The overwriting rule is that you become what you perceive yourself to be - your position in life is what you want it to be.

2. We aren't coordinated as such, but we are elites to people from 3rd world societies and they view us just like we view our concept of elites. They are wrong and so are we.

The anti-white racism is the by-product of the stability we fostered. As we seek to stabilise our neighbouring countries and they grow prosperous the same people rise up with the same elitism angst that we are directing to the misunderstood massa. The focus' is on white people because the last 200 years belong to us and that's more than earth entire recorded history as far as group consciousness is concerned.

If our thoughts create the world, we limit ourself and begrudge those that don't.

3. Racism is fostered by many things. The biggest cause of racism is PC. Focussing on racism is the cause of racism. I saw a segment of "the View" discussing racism... Ugly racist panel, *shudders*. Equal opportunity, my arse. The catalyst is greed mixed with the wrong-thinking that some races are far superior. That is, whilst victimising the poor minorities - to enable them, we underestimate them and have created an industry of welfare, where personal responsibility has been removed (ignored and legislated).

So...

I'm left with a question for another thread. If 1 billion people are praying for the same thing enforcing a reality, does that impinge on the one person who thinks differently... nah.. there's room.

One last thing. Thoughts are created by our spirit via feelings and realised by our experience then understood in our brain. Base thoughts are shared realities that are already understood. Confidence is backing your own thoughts.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   
I guess that's why the elites tend to bomb all the brown and black people..because they hate the white culture.


makes sense to me



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
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.


But that's just it, it's not "another story." You presented this as proof that "white culture has been trying to do away with monarchy" but the actual history is almost the exact opposite.

Charles I did not lose his head because of "white culture's opposition to monarchy." He lost his head because he made a really dumb move and paid a penalty for it. Cromwell - who, if I'm reading you, is a shining hallmark of "white culture" because of his part in "overthrowing the monarchy" then violently disbanded parliament, re-created his own with himself as dictator over a "Republic" - similar to what Caesar did after Pompey fled Rome. When he dropped dead (Malaria, wasn't it?) there was no effort made at all to retain any semblance of a republican, representative government - the English basically went "screw that, kings work alright."


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.


If I recall correctly, I did say pioneered. And "wireless communication" is a pretty broad spectrum, don't you think? Are we going all the way back to radio, or are we restricting this to wireless modems and cell phone technology? Hell, we could count smoke signals or homing pigeons, if you want to get vague enough.


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


It posits that whites are specifically targeted by "the elites," does it not? Why are they targeting whites? According to your first post here,

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

By omission, non-whites are not being targeted by the "elites," presumably because, according to you, nonwhites have no notion of "overthrowing the elites" or "restoring order and liberty."

Ergo whites are separate on two levels; first, they are the only ones who have any cultural notion of liberty, and two, the "elites" hate them and ONLY them because of this, and target them specially


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.


Actually because it would take too damn long. Are you going to try to tell me that those many quotes of yours I gave, two posts prior were in fact NOT said by you?

What I have to go on regarding your opinion of nonwhites is your posts; I don't know you personally, after all. And your posts are, well, white supremacist garbage. Maybe you honestly, truly don't intend that, but that is how they come out. I'm trying to help you understand why.

See, your sole mention of nonwhites comes off as very dismissive. Not only were they all "centuries behind Europe," but they have "done nothing to be proud of." You attribute them no credit at all for anything in any of your posts, but you DO actively attribute stuff they come up with to white people. Again, maybe you just really, truly don't know what you're doing, but what your posts are saying is "only white people have done anything worthwhile."


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.


Shifting goalposts You didn't say "mass production of steel on an industrial scale," you said "steel." Similarly, you did not mention something like, oh, "international electrical grids," you simply said "harnessing electricity. Now that you're being more specific, I can easily say, sure, white people invented that stuff.

I can't really say "these are products of white culture," though, since you have still failed to provide a working definition of what, precisely, "white culture" is.

Last on this part, could Henry Bessemer have developed mass production of steel if someone hadn't come up with steel in the first place? Obviously not, right? Further, the Bessemer process relies on blast furnace technology, which was developed in India, transported to Africa and probably perfected (until Bessemer, that is) during the Song dynasty of China. What you are trying to pin solely to "white culture" is in fact a many-layered technology with multiple parent sources. it's certainly not inconceivable that tomorrow, some dude in Indonesia might come up with another improvement to the mass-production of steel; does "steel" then become "developed primarily by Javanese culture"?

As newton said, "If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."


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


Well, I'm not the one starting threads that center around how persecuted I am because "the elites" allow colored people into the history books these days.

Speaking of history books, pick up a copy of Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel." If you don't have the patience for reading such a tome, National Geographic made a video documentary from it. I'm sure you'd find it educational.
edit on 27-1-2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 02:48 AM
link   
Lot of ignorance in the first two posts on this thread.

Oppression does not create culture.

Culture is not linked to race:

Compare Xinjian people of western China (part white) and their Turkic Culture and language vs. African Americans and their partial white ancestry and mixed language and culture. Or perhaps Bulgarians, being Turkic people, speaking a Slavic Language, practicing Christianity and using the Cyrillic (Russian) Alphabet. Wow....

Or...we could consider the Basques, who do not share a language with their neighboring white, Indo-Europeans, the Spanish, Catalans, and French.

Or, we could discuss the indigenous tribes of the Americas that had culture prior to European oppression, and to a large extent in Central America and South America, have retained at least some aspects of their cultures overall, despite Spanish, Portuguese, French, English or Dutch influence.

Or, we could think about the Hungarians and Finns, who share a common ancestor and who speak languages that are not originally from where they currently live, surrounded by Indo-Europeans.

Or how about Iranians, who in reality are "white" by its broadest referent, look more closely related to South Asians and Arabs, but whose language is not too far off from Slavic languages like Polish...and even our own (case in point: Farsi doxtir - pronounced doH-teer, meaning girl and English daughter - formerly pronounced dowH-ter).

And on and on and on...

White culture, whatever you assume that may be, is not any more likely to fight oppression than Black culture. However, at least with Black Culture, we know we are referring to African Americans, who do share cultural and linguistic traits. If one were to apply "Black Culture" to the whole of Subsaharan Africa, then of course it would be just as farcical as "white culture" being applied to the whole of Europe, albeit rather haphazardly.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Flighty
 




We are programmed from a very young age to be competitive. To be fair in our competitiveness, we are brainwashed into only competing with those of similiar weight, similiar height etc, in other words someone as similiar to ourselves as possible. Once that physical level playing field is established, then mental agility comes into play. Who can get one over the other, who can twist rules for an advantage etc. That's when cheating comes into play (and the Elites do cheat and twist rules to gain advantages all the time) , once the common ground and similarity have been set. So if the agreement is that most of the elite are white, then it doesn't take much of a leap to say that the Elite view other whites as their competition. It's who they most identify with. A potential rival who could rise up and create havoc to their position of authority. It would also explain why our education system has been dumbed down. A good education was a good leveller once upon a time as it made us as clever as they are. So yeah, IMO it's more about hating the competition than hating white culture. Cause these guys really hate to lose. Also Sibling rivalry can be pretty destructive, especially when Big Brother is a psychopath.


Great post, excellent points.

You laid out a nice "hierarchy", framing the game like this. Our early multifaceted "programming" should indeed be taken into account.

I like the way you put a title on it too, "Sibling Rivalry". Not bad!

I think a lot of people should agree with you, and looking at things with the Law of the Jungle in mind is certainly very useful. There is "competition" at various levels, and today with a more global playground, this competition will continue to narrow the effective players down, as the weak end up road-kill along the way.

Are white people, as a group, seen as "competition" by the people who are very serious about this game?

My answer would probably be "yes", and "no".

I think that any group that has a basis for self-identification could be seen as a threat, depending upon the part of the game being considered, and the particular time-frame involved.

I mentioned the Jews earlier. Now there is a group that maintains a strong identity, and based on the various considerations being discussed on this thread, they "should" be considered "competition", as you put it, and further, they probably should be considered a potential "threat" to anyone who is dedicated to this game. Of course, you also have some that seem to imagine that the Jews ARE the elite!

It's funny how we see something very similar when speaking of these things, between Jews and whites. Jews are often criticized for perhaps boasting too much, taking credit where it really belongs to more than just their "chosen" poster-child. They also seem to prefer interpreting "antisemitism" primarily as a "jealousy thing". Sound familiar? To me, it doesn't sound all that different than what we see in this thread, to some extent, just switch-out "Jew", for "white".

SO, back to this "rivalry" as you put it, yes, there would have to be some of that, although ultimately we may end up having to set aside both whites and Jews, these "contenders", as we continue to narrow down exactly "who" the elite are, the big players in the game. While they may be mostly whites and Jews, to the extent that they consider themselves "above" their brethren, they may not worry as much as we imagine about this "competition", in spite of the fact that we seem to see evidence of neutralizing actions (such as today's lower-quality education, as you point out).

I guess we could get into "bloodlines", and what not, but much of this approach can take us far into dark corridors that may eventually dead-end. Perhaps we don't quite need to go that far, because enough of the evidence for "who" the true elite are, has been staring us in the face for a very long time.

And yet, I seldom see anyone discussing the "true" elite, certainly not in this thread. Some seem to be quite content thinking it's the Mexicans "invading" the country who are the problem, or the Democrats! Most seem to prefer to paint "the elite" with their own colors, and remain mired in their own biases, which of course will continue to blind them from what I consider the "obvious". No, I don't want to sound condescending to anyone reading this who has their own ideas, which perhaps may be better than mine in some ways, but perhaps I'll share about exactly who I think is sitting at the top of this pyramid a bit later, since as I say, I haven't really seen anyone yet narrow it down to my satisfaction.

BTW, I can see why you've got the "Writer" status, you've got some poetry shining through your prose. Gotta love that psycho, "Big Brother"...

JR



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


I provided a link about Charles the 1st which proves you dead wrong, and you still insist you are right, that is some heavy denial. Then you post this nonsense.


If I recall correctly, I did say pioneered. And "wireless communication" is a pretty broad spectrum, don't you think? Are we going all the way back to radio, or are we restricting this to wireless modems and cell phone technology? Hell, we could count smoke signals or homing pigeons, if you want to get vague enough.


No, Bell did not pioneer wireless communication. You should be embarrassed by how far you are reaching for with this nonsense.


It posits that whites are specifically targeted by "the elites," does it not? Why are they targeting whites? According to your first post here,


Read the title of the thread. What part of "more than any other" don't you get? Clearly there is recognition that other cultures are hated by elites.

You don't post quotes to the things you claim I said, because I never said them. All you do is spin nonsense. It is old.

Yes, other cultures experimented with steel production, but Bessemer made it happen. I am not trying to take away from other cultures, just trying to give credit where credit is due. As far as your historical time line on the development of steel is concerned, it is not only not complete but filled with false conclusions, it is part of the racists rationalizing the people who produce this stuff put out. Various cultures experimented with steel productions without success.

Bessemer didn't get lucky, he made numerous major technical breakthroughs, but far be it for you to ever recognize a white person ever succeeding at anything, except through pure luck.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



Yes let us discuss Steel production. I learnt about Bessemer. the dolomites Boyles law, charles law, Rutherford's experiments. etc etc etc. Because I did the English O' level physics. I was also luckily enought to learn about Macbeth and loved Shakespeare. I did physics chemistry and biology. All in a country with black leadership.

Guess what? I consider that tobe a complete celebration of white history. So as has been pointed out before white achievement is the nrom in global terms and is celebrated via the sciences and the Arts.

Go figure



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by superluminal11
 


Oh, the elites bomb white people anytime it suits them.

Don't you remember what they did to the Serbs?



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Every elitist, in the end only works to serve himself.
(BIG EGO is the nature of the elitist mindset.)

One should strive instead for the rank of Bodhisattva - to liberate ALL from ignorance.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by superluminal11
 


Oh, the elites bomb white people anytime it suits them.

Don't you remember what they did to the Serbs?



Right on Poet.

And let's not forget 9/11...Yes, they do kill white people if it suits them.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by tiger5
 




...Because I did the English O' level physics. I was also luckily enought to learn about Macbeth and loved Shakespeare. I did physics chemistry and biology. All in a country with black leadership. Guess what? I consider that tobe a complete celebration of white history. So as has been pointed out before white achievement is the nrom in global terms and is celebrated via the sciences and the Arts.


A person who learned about Shakespeare in a nation with black leadership?

I hope no one will be surprised at your statement tiger5, of course within former English colonies, the school systems that remain would still tend to focus on the inherited traditions.

I guess we have to take the good with the bad, as they say. One of my roommates in college was from Pakistan, and he also "benefited" from the mostly "English" educational system that remained in his nation, at least to the benefit of their wealthier citizens.

It was a long time ago, and I do recall a little bit of shall we say residual post-colonial "resentment", and yet for him, he tended to focus more on the Islamic issues, which at the time I interpreted as a desire to take the high road, to his credit. Regardless of the English "cultural" components that remained in his education, he was also given a very solid mathematical foundation that I sorely lacked, since I had suffered an American "education" (such as it was). I can tell you that if my roomy Mohamed had not been there to help me get through calculus, I would not have passed.

So, sometimes we have to take the good with the bad. It sounds like you did get some scientific benefit, in addition to the arts, and those more "cultural" elements. I'll bet you were given excellent mathematical skills as well.

I wonder what your nation is planning in the future. If during your years in school you felt that there was an undue emphasis on "white achievement", are there any steps being taken to change that emphasis? Perhaps some achievements of people from your nation that have been brushed under the carpet, perhaps they could receive some increased attention?

Anyway, I do think that you bring up an important issue as it relates to the thread. The OP posits that "white culture" is hated by the elites, which is why we see some of the things we do, the PC nonsense for one, but also a seemingly "retreating" white world view, as other cultural views get more attention.

I think that your example, as well as that of my old roomy Mohamed, should probably tell us something. Perhaps our observation of a small "retreat" is only to be expected, since much of what we originally see in the recent past, was due to the former colonial historical context.

In other words, as we go down further into a post-colonial world, some of what may appear to be "anti-white", could better be explained as relatively simple natural forces, as native populations come to terms with their past. Obviously, this can be overdone, if the baby ends up getting thrown out with the bathwater, but there could easily be some positive changes that come from a shift in focus.

To me, there are so many factors that come into play, and while I do think there may be true "conspiratorial" aspects to much of the changes we are witnessing, there are plenty of other forces involved that are probably more productively seen as just the pendulum swinging back the other way.

Do the elite try and "harness" these natural forces that are already in place? Probably they do, since they seem to try and make use of everything, as they push us all in whatever direction benefits them the most.

JR



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Sphota
 


There is a lot of ignorance in your post.

Do you think you can define culture as strictly tribalism, which is what you describe?

Is white a race or a pigment created by living in a colder climate with less sun light for thousands of years?

Genetically speaking, there is more biodiversity between African tribes then there is between the Irish and the Japanese, or Nippon, as you will, or throughout Eurasia.

Do the Scots and the Welsh have more in common with the Basque and the people of the Atlas Mountains than they do with the English?

Where does brown end and white begin, is there a necessary transition through brown for black to white or white to black, or can you be black and white at the same time?

It sounds clever, but are just playing with semantics, in support of politically correct doctrine.

Do you realize this?



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by JR MacBeth
 


I thought this paragraph of yours should be emphasized.


I myself don't see any "evolution" of our species evident in all human history, so not surprisingly I wouldn't be able to project anything into the future, and would not indulge in any false hope that we will one day be "better" than the beasts we have always been. Sure, technology may grant us marvelous advancement, perhaps greater longevity and strength, even greater intelligence, and yet, how exactly is science to grant us a corresponding increase in "virtue", or perhaps the modern person would rather hear, the "wise application" of these advancements? I already taste the ashes in my mouth, even before our science hands us their next shiny two-edged sword.


I hear ya, everytime I think about the continent sized mass of plastic floating around in the Pacific, I feel a shot down into my very soul. Another thing people, including white people, like to blame on white people or white culture, then they pull out their ipads, get into their giant SUVs and drive off.

We are only slaves if we allow ourselves to be slaves.


edit on 27-1-2011 by poet1b because: add an 's'



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by squandered
 


I agree that the elites aren't coordinated, but are a class that think alike.

Have you ever read Nietzsche? I suspect you have, as you are basically describing his view of the super human. Elites are indeed people who choose, or at least they think they choose, to live by a different set of rules. Essentially they embrace hypocrisy, and choose to do what ever, irregardless of what they do to others. They believe they are better than others, and so can live by a different set of rules. They succeed because in advanced societies there is such a large disconnect between ones actions and consequences. Not all elites are successful. Most of them rule over tiny fiefdoms, that they have managed to secure. Not everyone who succeeds is an elite. There is a difference.

Elites desperately need to see themselves as Apex predators, but they are not, and that drives them crazy. They are really parasites, who must live off of a host. If the host dies, then they must find another host, or die.

They look at the success of the middle class in first world nations, and it drives them crazy, because envy is part of the whole hypocrisy package.

I don't want to be an elite, I see all the extra baggage that comes with it.

Off to Tibet?


Think she will succeed in saving her eternal soul?

People in third world countries have their own elites to deal with. They don't see whites, or people who live in the first world nations as elites, but as people lucky enough to be born in a country with such success and opportunity.

This is the crux of it. All too many people from third world countries see those of us living in first world countries as simply being lucky. The idea that the cultural norms and beliefs of the people in first world nations had anything to do with their success, is not something they are willing to accept. This is what elites want to promote. The biggest reason third world nations stay third world nations is the cultural conditioning that promotes the slave mentality, which is mainly the religious beliefs in which they have been indoctrinated.

I agree, PC is all about promoting racism. The people who embrace the PC ideals embrace racism, and elitism. They are elites disguised as liberals for the most part.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by tiger5
 


I see where you from coming from, and I can relate.

Often times the people given the credit were working on the same ideas with numerous other people, and while they didn't develop the ideas independently, or even made the critical breakthroughs, they are given all of the credit. It should be about the science, and not about the people who are given credit.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Sphota
 


There is a lot of ignorance in your post.

Do you think you can define culture as strictly tribalism, which is what you describe?


Culture can be defined as an assigning of meaning to arbitrary signs in the environment and the fetishization of certain material objects, structuring rituals around the objects and assigning abstract, yet very important in-group meaning to the rituals themselves.

I'm not sure why you think I believe culture is only "tribal", whatever you may mean by that word. I'm talking about culture with a little "c", not Culture with a capital C. Little c culture is inherent to all human societies, from the small fishing villages of Greenland to the streets of New York City. Culture overlaps and creates different levels of meaning out of one's surroundings. A seal does not have the same meaning to me as it does to an Eskimo. A pizza does not have the same meaning to you as someone in Naples, Italy. It goes on and on.



Is white a race or a pigment created by living in a colder climate with less sun light for thousands of years?


"White" is a term that has come to be applied to various groups of people. The strict usage has been applied to the colonial powers from mostly Northern and Western European powers that have conquered non-European lands. Caucasian includes everyone from Scotland to Iraq to Afghanistan to India and back up and over to Armenia and on up through Russia. In Russia, some people have Asian roots. In North Africa some people also have African roots. And so on. Skin color is purely ONE trait out of many which are all products of the environment in which people live.



Genetically speaking, there is more biodiversity between African tribes then there is between the Irish and the Japanese, or Nippon, as you will, or throughout Eurasia.


Yes, there is not one "Black" African. I'm not a geneticist, I'm a Linguistic Anthropologist, and just using language as a guide, we can see that there is much more diversity across Sub-Saharan Africa than merits the a total boiling down of all "Black" Africans into a group of hunter-gathers making clicking sounds on some distant savanna.

In Eurasia, the Turkish peoples are not connect by "race" but rather by culture and language. They straddle the continent and connect "Whiter-looking" peoples with "Asian-looking" peoples from Mongolia to the northeastern Slavic nations and south to modern day Turkey and Bulgaria.




Do the Scots and the Welsh have more in common with the Basque and the people of the Atlas Mountains than they do with the English?


I don't follow. No? The Basques speak a language isolate, not related to the other languages of Western Europe. The Spanish have some things in common with the Basques, but more in common with the Irish, at least from cultural and linguistic points-of-view Again, I can't tell you about genetics in this instance. I've heard the hypothesis that the Basques are related to the peoples of the Caucasus, but that that was discredited for lack of evidence. The people of the Atlas Mountains, as far as I understand, are the original inhabitants of North Africa before the various waves of invasions, from Rome, to the Goths to the Muslim invasions. In that respect, the people of Morocco have a lot in common with the Spanish, but as far as the Berbers or Touareg are concerned, I could not tell you.



Where does brown end and white begin, is there a necessary transition through brown for black to white or white to black, or can you be black and white at the same time?


Everything that exists exists on a continuum. This I understand very well. There is really no such thing as "different languages", insofar as they can only be identified when you compare two that are very different. There are different Language families, but within those language families all change is gradual over geographic distance, from region to region, village to village, tribe to tribe, family to family, person to person.




It sounds clever, but are just playing with semantics, in support of politically correct doctrine.

Do you realize this?


Please, explain how I was playing with semantics to support a politically correct doctrine. Political correctness can be just as ignorant as some of the things I've read here. As a professor put it once, and I paraphrase because this is eight years ago: Mexican is not a dirty word. It's not an insult. People obsessed with PC end up preferring "Spanish" or "Hispanic" and shy away from "Mexican".

Her point was that being PC is not necessarily combative against racial discrimination or prejudice, but rather it is usually a stripping of all possible language for fear of using the wrong one. This is the true semantic argument: a word can hurt in some contexts and help in others, why ignore the good in light of the bad. The word itself is neutral until we apply incorrect meaning through ignorance.





top topics



 
31
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join