It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Why the Elites hate white culture more than any other.

page: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 10:12 PM

Originally posted by poet1b
White culture has a historically established practice of overthrowing the elites in power, and restoring order and liberty for the masses.

I suppose the French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution and the USA PATRIOT Act were restoring order and liberty.

First they will tell you there is no such thing as white culture, it is a race, and nothing ties the various cultures together, but they are wrong. From Pols to Irish, there are traits that are shared.

Really? What traits are those?

This is how the elites bastardize history. They give all the credit for accomplishment to a few people, when in fact all of the great accomplishments that have advanced human beings have came from cultures, not superior individuals. All great discoveries and new developments came from periods where everyone was asking the same questions and looking for the same answers. Numerous people contributed to the developments, most of them anonymously. The elites always want to give all the credit to one or two people. Without this transfer of the accomplishment of the many to the few, the elites can not justify their position in society, and this is why they seek to downplay culture, except when it suits them to promote one group over another.

Funny how those 1 or 2 people usually lived in ancient Greece or a sprawling estate during a more "chivalrous" time in history.

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

George Washington Carver invented peanut butter ... WOW! :O and when was the last time a Latino or Asian-American invented something?

This is how they paint average working class whites as undeserving of their success, that they are lucky to be born in a rich nation. For the elites to admit that white culture, not the elites, is responsible for most of the success of the first world nations, would reveal that the elites do not deserve their lofty positions.

That is racist neo-Nazis filling your head with garbage. If you go to any middle-class town in America, the black people are more likely to complain of racial discrimination, than to complain that white people are privileged.

posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 11:19 PM

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by squandered

Now mainly what we are getting as immigrants are the elite minded, the middle management of the third world, who seek to establish themselves as elites here in the U.S.. The thing is, that the elite minded, more than anything, make great slaves.

Gee, nice job - that's exactly 100% correct. (Your description of Muslims was good too).

I'm still working through the concept of Elites and how it fits in the context of PC.

I thought about PC. I hope you can follow me. I've gone over the concepts in my mind and I found most of the descriptions for Elites to fit. Of course they all do. I tried to frame PC with JR's notions - focusing on the, "they exist in front of your face", inconspicuous by being so familiar type...

I never put any faith into PC. I believe in the power of the spirit and with that our innate ability to be individuals who are born with the ability to get along just fine without social engineering. The indications in the thread are that I'm not alone in this thinking, so I'll forgo a deeper analysis at this point and try to describe why I saw.

Political correctness serves white people. The anti-racism ideal is the product of racism from Elite white people, for their 'connected' white people at the expense of those who are supposed to benefit. The Elites are white people (according to the the usage of the term here). The modern world is a white world created, say 200 years ago and it's enough that people from other races go along with our way of thinking. Even the girl here who argues away any successes attributed to white people is fighting a white argument in a white world. If you hold onto PC, this is what you endorse. This is how the 'nobles' operate - it simply stems from the notion that they're inherently superior.

Minorities are oppressed by PC victimisation. History is re-written to maintain that white people are the oppressors. Normal happy (raceless) people are never written about, even though their story is 99% of what makes us tick. The PC that's endorsed is allowed to go off on any tangent including anti-white propaganda because it doesn't hurt the people at the top. It always pushes the same superiority complex, or it's not PC. The only people who are spared are those that are secure in who they are. People with race based insecurities grab onto PC and allow it to destroy them - whilst thinking that they're fighting for their rights.

Why are white people being bred out of existence? The Elites are parasites and don't care about the long term. 3rd world countries are breeding as fast as they can because it's a source of pride for them, a cultural imperative. It has made them feel strong. I can only conclude that white people are dispensable. I agree that the Elites believe we need them rather than they need us, but that's based on some wannabe Elite's that I've known. Small e elite's are the easiest to manage. Cultures that promote individualism are a threat and get dealt with.

It was much clearer in my head, but I hope you can read into my comments and hopefully we can use a clearer perspective of how PC works to understand who it benefits, as well as where us normal happy people fit into the scheme. It really others me. All we do swap rights from one party to another and everyone is being placated while their actual rights are being stripped away from them.

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 10:58 AM
reply to post by RRokkyy

All it takes is a few rich elite people with political connections to create this immigration policy; no nobles going back centuries are required.

Where wealth is hereditary,power is hereditary.-John Locke
Wealth is merely materialized insecurity.-Kafka

You make some good points, although anytime "IQ" comes up, you're obviously asking for trouble.

Is a powerful nobility "required" to explain immigration policy changes? Certainly not, and I think that a few rich elite can indeed succeed in pushing their own agendas, regardless of the system they may be working out of.

But because a thing is possible, sometimes even likely, doesn't mean that's the explanation of course.

I'm not saying I have "the" explanation, as in there is "one" that fits for everything, no, far from it. Everything we see in this complex world is a result of many forces coming into play. Some of these forces oppose each other, some seemingly work well together, still others apparently derive from more or less "natural" forces, that have nothing to do with "elites", of whatever variety. In each particular case we may examine, we would likely find a mix of forces that have been at work, with some playing greater, or lesser roles, in comparison to others.

Let's look at your example of immigration policy. For whatever reasons, there was indeed a shift dating back to the 1960's in the US that resulted in a dramatic change in the nation. This goes beyond "mere" birthrates, more properly speaking, big policy changes such as you brought up, can result in a very pronounced change, in a relatively short time period. Add to this an "unexpected" catastrophe, such as the Vietnamese "boat people" emergency of the late '70's, and you could even get something as close to an "instant" change, as we can possibly imagine.

This is the way it did in fact go down, for better or worse, and given the magnitude and relative suddenness of your particular example, people should certainly try to explain exactly why such a thing occurred.

We can also turn things around a bit, with the idea that it only takes a few elites to cause such gigantic change. It would also be just as likely that if this was the case, that only a few (perhaps "less" than a few?) "elites" could easily prevent such a change, if it went against their interests. We can't accept the one, without the other.

Since what we see then, as historical fact so-to-speak, is what actually came to pass, given all the relevant factors and factions playing out during the period in question, then we might easily conclude that "whoever" was the "most powerful" player(s) at minimum sanctioned what took place, and more likely, started it, or helped to ensure that the plan went through as desired.

This isn't such a bad way to look at any historical issue, IMO. In a world where people begin to see "intention" lurking behind even "natural" things, like Hurricane Katrina (for example), we do need to adopt a more useful approach to analyzing the events that seem to keep coming at us, causing so much grief.

Great quotes by the way, Locke and Kafka. Something to think about.


posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 11:49 AM

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JR MacBeth

I recognize that the Roman Catholic Church and the Royals of Europe still have considerable power, but I think the odds are long that they are controlling everything behind the scenes.

No, I don't think it's possible quite frankly for anyone to be controlling "everything" from behind the scenes. That's a bit radical, although as I've mentioned before, there are others who do in fact see the world that way. The truth is probably less sensational that that.

I rather prefer to characterize my approach as much more moderate, a "middle road" perhaps, where on one end of the spectrum the "road" may indeed lead all the way to Rome, and on the other, Rome is but a memory, a virtual non-issue. There is a lot of room in between these extremes of course.

While the catholic church has been around for over a thousand years, they are also tied down by bureaucracy, and lack of imagination. While the royal blood lines might go back a thousand years, they haven't been calling the shots for half of that time. They certainly haven't been the driving force behind the influences that have shaped our world for that much time. If they had more power, they would exert it. For the last thousand years, the reins of power have changed hands regularly. The odds that a single group has remained in control behind the scenes are extremely slim.

I'm pretty sure you aren't going to agree with me here, but if you look at what you mention, much of it could be put under the heading of "appearances", which we all know can be deceiving.

The view that the past 500 years has been mostly a story of freedom somehow finding it's legs, at least within Europe, and then spreading out, has been sort of one of your themes. Obviously, you are going to encounter some who don't read history quite that way, and yet, there's enough "truth" there to sustain an entire paradigm, one that I'm sure will continue to gain adherents as time goes on, even if humanity should eventually find itself in a cage. After all, we won't even recognize the cage for what it is.

Poet, I think you are too casual about sweeping away that older power structure...

They haven't been calling the shots for five centuries? They aren't a force that has shaped out world during this time period? If they had more power, they would exert it?

I think that considering the church and nobility as virtually unimportant (that's sort of the way you have been making it sound, IMO), puts you at an extreme end of that spectrum I mentioned. I'm not sure if there is "bias" there, could be, but one thing I notice in what you've been writing is something of a misuse of the "church" side of the equation.

Is it really "just" the Roman Catholic Church that wears the black hat, in your world of how you see churches? So, the Church of England, a virtual duplicate of the RC system, with only a different head, they are exempt from scorn somehow? Well, we all suffer from bias in various ways, but we don't want to become blinded by it.

As an agnostic, I suppose I'll be considered a boaster to say that I try and get a bigger picture when it comes to religion. The very old Protestant vs. Catholic duality seems to be alive and well, as tired as it is. I guess it doesn't matter that much, since in the long run we'll be debating Jesus vs. Mohamed!

What is that theory, the most obvious explanation is usually the most probably explanation. The oil industry conglomerate is most probably controlled U.S. and British corporation in conglomeration with OPEC. These are the people at the top of the current world power structure.

Sorry, that's just way too simple, IMO. And I really don't think this would be the proper application of Occam's Razor. Just sayin'.

I am not a devotee of peak oil, I am a realist that sees the writing on the wall. Iran's oil production peaked before the turn of the century, The Saudis have been pumping water in their wells for well over a decade. Saudi high grade crude production peaked in 2005, they made up for it by increasing low grade production, and their total production peaked in 2007, as was predicted long ago. They are running out of oil. No large reserves of oil have been found for decades, and increasingly, oil companies are refining crude they wouldn't have bother with a little over a decade ago.

There is a very slight chance that peak oil is being faked by the PTB, but it is a very slim chance.

Whether "peak oil" is true or not, my point is that you buy it. You obviously have good reasons for believing it, but because it is so foundational when it comes to your outlook, it deserves more attention, I would think. I only even mention it at all because your paradigm happens to also be the popular one, which means that there is an extra burden of proof required, considering we live in a world of engineered paradigms, that are specifically sold to the masses for the benefit of those pushing these "popular" notions.

Oil isn't a new player, big oil has been running things for almost a century now.

Here we just have a difference in perspective, that's all. In many of your posts, you prefer to focus more on the "now", which isn't a crime by any means, but I tend to look further back.

In this sense, a century is hardly ancient history. Yes, from my perspective, oil is a very new kid on the block.

Up until the seventies, wealth was steadily becoming less and less concentrated in the U.S., since the introduction of the free market con job, that trend has reversed in the U.S., while it has continued in the rest of the first world nations. Most people have a great deal more freedom then you seem willing to recognize.

In Europe, the serfs were not slaves! Or were they?

"Let us contrive to have our slaves imagine that they are free!" The concept is called "free range slavery", and sad to say, it is alive and well. Of course, the very nature of this insidious form of slavery prevents the slaves from knowing their true status.

Controversial, I know, but Massa ain't foolin' 'round, so why should I mince words?

The choice isn't between a free market economy and socialism, it is between a market economy, a free market economy, and socialism, the latter two being very ineffective systems. When people wake up to this reality, we will all be far better off. The free market concept is just a con job.

Some semantics here, IMO. We don't actually have a true "free market" economy at all, anywhere in the world. That is an idealistic concept, you may find it at one end of a spectrum, but it's only going to work on small islands, with few people, and only until someone figures out how to screw over his fellow islanders.

What we actually experience, all over the world, is various degrees of governmental involvement in the economy. This could be in the form of simple regulation of industry, to actual participation in industry, all the way to ownership of the means of production, as more in the socialist frameworks.

I'm actually not quite sure what distinctions you are attempting, but I'm certainly open to hearing about it.

I am not advocating any solution for high birth rates, I am just pointing out the facts. Nature has its way of correcting things. That is all I am saying.

Fair enough, and I wish I could agree more. I see nature not quite as the goddess most imagine her to be. She is a whore, and one that bends to those with knowledge, and the will to use it. In this sense, I am perhaps more progressive than I am generally perceived. And yet, if enough time goes by, she will certainly have her revenge. But that's actually a perspective that goes far beyond human history, as we generally think of it, so it's probably not worth getting into.


posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 11:51 AM
reply to post by vcwxvwligen

What a surprise, not all revolutions create stable democracies. The patriot act was for and by elites, and I can only wonder what made you put it with two historical revolutions.

Traits of white people, ok I will name a few, we like to eat bread, as opposed to rice, we also tend to drink a lot of milk. While religions do flourish among us, we tend over all to not be all that religious. We don't have ancient civilizations who worshiped their rulers as gods, and over all we tend to embrace democratic styles of government. The age of Catholic induced divine rights of kings was a relatively short period in European history.

I could go on, but either you get it or you don't. Probably you will cite a few bad examples and throw in some strange third and pretend you said something intelligent.

Funny how those 1 or 2 people usually lived in ancient Greece or a sprawling estate during a more "chivalrous" time in history.

What in the world ever gave you this idea? Oh ya, the place where you were brain washed, er, eduamacated. Look up a biography of Newton, he wasn't an aristocrat.

Civilizations have sprang up all over the world and done great things, and created great philosophies, built by people of all colors and many cultures.

Belittle George Washington Carver all you want, he made some great contributions to science. A black man developed the cotton gin, which was also a major contribution.

Dr. Alejandro Zaffaroni, born in Uruguay, pioneered the drug delivery market, given special entrepreneur award by Clinton.

When is the last time an Asian American invented anything? Are you kidding? What planet do you live on? Look up the list of latest Nobel prize winners.

Seriously, you need to do something to erase your programming, because clearly you have been programmed by the PC crowd.

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 11:57 AM
Until racists get the idea that "it" is a class thing not a race thing the elites don't have to hate anyone they just laugh at you, the oppressive nature of the world has nowt to do with race it's class war pure and simple and it has been for over 4000 years.

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 12:35 PM

Originally posted by Thepreye
Until racists get the idea that "it" is a class thing not a race thing the elites don't have to hate anyone they just laugh at you, the oppressive nature of the world has nowt to do with race it's class war pure and simple and it has been for over 4000 years.

EXCELLENT contribution, IMO.

No, I wouldn't completely dispense with "race", it is a concept held very dear to the majority of the world's population, and yet you raise a very important distinction.

I'm not actually sure people are going to get it, but I tried to hint at that very thing a few of my posts ago, when I half-jokingly speculated about a "royal family of the future", who might hyphenate their name as something like "Chang-Windsor". Not sure if everyone is going to even get it, but as "racist" as the blue bloods appear to be, they are in fact "beyond" the typical low-brow "racism" we usually think of, IMO.

I think tiger5 mentioned this a page back as well.

If you've read some of my posts here, I personally tend to focus a bit more on the nobility, and their true role in today's world, even though it is not such a popular way to see things.

History seems to indicate that those who enjoy power seek to forge blood-alliances, to further strengthen their power. Probably the best example of this is the Hapsburgs, who preferred to conquer through marriage, rather than through war.

It's perhaps counter-intuitive to many, but I don't see this really changing, even in the more global world that is coming. Yes, we certainly see a very ugly kind of "noble racism" coming out of the closet when we observe Diana's murder, seemingly because she had become pregnant, and the royal family was not prepared to deal with "arab" blood getting too close. A despicable thing, especially considering that the mother of children was terminated, although this is probably getting too far afield for this thread. But obviously, the bigger picture was not seen to include at least those particular Arabs, at this point in time.

As I said, in spite of some of these indications that the blue bloods consider themselves a class unto themselves, I can see a time not too far off when the increasingly Asian world population, with a corresponding China in the ascendent, there will come a time when the old-fashioned blood-alliance will perhaps play a role in East meeting West, in a profound sense.

Speculation of course, but I think that when we study the royals, and nobility, a very different picture begins to emerge.

This idea also plays well into the increase in Muslim populations that we observe today. I actually think that if it were not for the religious divide, "East" would have already long ago met "West", back when the Ottoman Empire was a force to be reckoned with. If not for the religious "incompatibility", no doubt that some noble clan would have seen advantage in courting an alliance, regardless of our more modern notions of "race" today.

Certainly the Jews might be an excellent example of what I'm speaking of, a people who tend to make advantageous alliances, even in spite of an apparent religious incompatibility. Already in China, the Jews are way ahead of the curve, trailblazers for a future perhaps not quite expected by the average prole today.

In the future, we will see Islam continue to spread, and I don't see the nobility being left too far behind. They have endured, and likely will endure, no matter what the future brings.

Of course, much of this is because it is they who are intentionally molding the future, but that would be for another topic.


posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 12:48 PM
reply to post by bowtomonkey

Excellent summation and some great insights.

A point you make, and then I think you contradict is this.

Political correctness serves white people.

I would say that PC serves all elites of all cultures, and I would also add that whites are not the only elites. All nations have their elites.

You then follow up with this statement, which I think is very insightful.

The modern world is a white world created, say 200 years ago and it's enough that people from other races go along with our way of thinking. Even the girl here who argues away any successes attributed to white people is fighting a white argument in a white world. If you hold onto PC, this is what you endorse. This is how the 'nobles' operate - it simply stems from the notion that they're inherently superior.

Yepper, the very root of PC propaganda is to tell the people of the world that white people in first world nations are simply lucky to be born in a country where they could ride the tailcoats of the elites who made everything happen.

Never mind that most of the greatest contributors were not born into the power structure, but were commoners who achieved great things. Classless societies do far better than societies with a strict status quo, but the PC crowd wants to re-establish a class system by demanding extreme conformity.

People who refuse the extreme conformity, who dare to stand up for their rights, are put down as spoiled, lazy, and wreckless.

You really nailed it with this statement.

The PC that's endorsed is allowed to go off on any tangent including anti-white propaganda because it doesn't hurt the people at the top. It always pushes the same superiority complex, or it's not PC. The only people who are spared are those that are secure in who they are. People with race based insecurities grab onto PC and allow it to destroy them - whilst thinking that they're fighting for their rights.

And I think this is an excellent conclusion.

All we do swap rights from one party to another and everyone is being placated while their actual rights are being stripped away from them.

People see that there is something wrong with PC, but they can't figure out what that is, so they continue to follow the program.

edit on 30-1-2011 by poet1b because: correct error

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 01:41 PM
reply to post by JR MacBeth

I think many of our views are close, just on opposite sides of a very thin line.

I don't consider

the church and nobility as virtually unimportant

My view isn't that extreme. As I have stated, they still have considerable influence, but I will add that I see their influence is continuing to decline.

Honestly, I see many organized religions as wearing the black hat. This would be a different discussion.

When it comes to peak oil, I see the "engineered paradigm" as being the one that claims we are not running out of easy to get cheap crude. It's like standing on the tracks, and refusing to see the train coming at you. The evidence that we reached peak oil is overwhelming. It is the elephant in the room that everybody is ignoring. Throw in the effects we are seeing from global warming which people continue to ignore, and you have a planet that is mainly in denial.

I think you concentrate too much on the past, and do not look nearly enough at recent history. The other fundamental thing I am covering in this book that I am trying to finish, or polish is a better word, is that the technological advancements of the last century, or last 135 years, has change humanity probably more than any other event in human history. The rate of change we have been going through is actually continuing to accelerate. Numerous huge forces are coming together. We are reaching a point where major decisions about our future as a species will be decided.

No, the serfs were not slaves, they were a great deal more free than our history books are willing to admit. Those walls and moat the Nobility kept themselves behind weren't just for invading forces. Realize this, elites and Elites, want you to think they have always been in charge.

Interesting that you should say this.

That is an idealistic concept, you may find it at one end of a spectrum, but it's only going to work on small islands, with few people, and only until someone figures out how to screw over his fellow islanders.

This is the same thing people point out about communism. Isolated tribes tend to live as communists, where the resources are shared amongst each other. The men hunt together, and share in the kill, the women gather together, and work the same fields. In my opinion, the communist ideal and the free market idea, are practically the same. I don't care for either.

Government has a necessary function in all market systems. It is governments job to regulate commerce. A business should not be allowed to pollute the communal water supply any more that an individual, or do reckless things. If you claim to be selling a gallon of milk, it had best be a gallon as established by the governments standards of such measurements.

I see these things as realities we must deal with.

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 01:51 PM
reply to post by cenpuppie

True, the technological advances of Europe were either based on Greek discoveries from pre-Roman times or from the Arabs who furthered the research through the Middle Ages, or from the Chinese and their technological advances.

The truth about technology is that its potential exists everywhere, but only under certain environmental circumstances will any relevant contributions be furthered. (Relevant contributions meaning evolutionary changes per environmental specifications. Jared Diamond is a proponent of environmental determinism in that the very orientation of the continents (Eurasia [horizontal] vs. The Americas/Africa [vertical]).

Basically, in an agriculturally based lifestyle, the ability to spread east to west is superior to the ability to spread north to south, because plants can generally survive on the same latitude, but require evolutionary changes to travel into new extremes, north or south. Of course this is a generalization, but with the trading of food based technologies comes the trading of farm tools (which are interchangeable with weapons) and so forth.

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 02:05 PM
reply to post by squandered

There's not going to be a credible leadership for the middle class and definitely not for the benefit of white society because the Elites won't let that happen. When you have leaders like Palin you know that something is awry.

What the middle classes need to do is to stop sucking up to the elites and realise that they are a few paychecks away from joining the working classes. The elites are vulnerable and need the middle classes to look up to them.

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 02:06 PM
reply to post by Sphota

Yep and Jared Diamond has also provided an excellent explanation of the role that sleeping sickness in domestic horse prevented African technological development.


posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 02:23 PM
reply to post by Sphota

Technology didn't just move into Europe, Europe helped to develop ancient technology as much as the other cultures. A great deal of Arab culture came from India, it you want to complete the story. The Romans also sent their nobility to Briton to be educated. Too bad the Catholics erased much of European technology as witchcraft.

posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:53 AM
A small 'e' elites goes down. Well this may be off topic but I mentioned some wealthy people. I had a customer that I had an affair with who was reportedly worth billions as her father owns a major Asian hotel chain. She's crazy and I dumped her, and a year on she started a campaign against my business, almost ruining me and causing untold stress. She spent maybe $100k on thugs harassing me (I'm a bit unhinged, so no amount of money is worth it if you're going to harass me) and I could go on.

Well, as of last Friday she is in jail for embezzling over $1 million and though she has paid it all back, she is claiming to be 'not mentally sound' to avoid prison and her husband may like to take the kids... well after I'm done he should.

Poet what were you saying about power being a liability? JR, what were you saying about elites having set rules to stay on top? Her whole world was set up to engage people to accept her as royalty. She wore the façade of a big E Elite without a single thing to back herself up.

posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 07:36 AM
reply to post by squandered

Did we come to an end game already?

The Muslims are attacking all and sundry. Not yet, but the guy here with a prophetic dream hit upon the future where his dream involved mobs of fanatics. Nothing in such a prophesy will be changed. Me. I have prophetic dreams and I know about the other forces which can overpower me and they see the same dreams. Not him.

Rather than seem impassive I'll hazard a guess at the Elite's right now. They don't care. It's planned. Please let me take this thread on a tangent. It's all connected.

The events are unfolding in a way I'm totally unaware about and I seek the minds of the posters who have contributed because I want to learn from you. I don't want any ideas, except those from calm minds, and if you go haywire I know that you party to some ideas that I might be able to guess about based on your demeanour. That should inspire a reaction.

White racism - anti racism, is something that won't make it to the future history books because it was a game of enterprise by American nationals, copied and furthered by the Brits and given as much impetus from my own country, as wanted. Most people here want more white people, because they look good and are honest, despite racism.. The racism from black Americans is enough of disrespect to put people off and blacks here were inclined at culturally accept have none of that. It was constructed by white people and hit the media like a tool.

Like wiki leaks it's a tool, so is Americanised PC. How obvious is that? Rights aren't being dissolved. It's a plan that kills people so more of the anti-white rhetoric hit's home. We are blessed by our colour and that's not a racist statement. We are the culture that bends masses. CIA is at the fore. The Church is pissed. The opposing groups like the Muslim Brotherhood are dead as the Jews are. Talk about about an obsidian bowel.

Right now, I'm lucid. My Coptic mate just gave his approval for the idea that the Muslims can enact the Shari law, a law destroy Israel and become an homogenised group ready for total annihilation. You see, they will start killing the non-adherents in a war of religion which is a powerful thing. Islam is anti-God. We are all Gods - not just each of us, but akin to another post I read here, we are the same thing. Too many people realise this. It's now. Even the Jews understand that Christ is real. Oops I talked from a book, like he has evidence of God. Some of you understand.

This is the first and last time I'll flip out. In reality it doesn't matter. Nothing matters much. I'm aware but getting sober. Is this what it takes? It's not enough. Where are the Elites now with their racist dogma.

If you accept 1% of what I've said, do you care? Fly away on your jets and survive us all. I'm sure some have some inventive plans. I often wonder who is the first and the last in Jesus' parable. Oh what a great legacy you'll live when you are the last. Your own children will eat you.

Sorry for this stream of consciousness post. I have my bets on a more reasonable outcome and don't see the escalations that were foretold. While calm heads prevail I don't see any of that. The prescribed Elites are weakened again. They only hope to prevail as they were, seeing all their kin die off.

Nope the end of days are still ahead - long past you and me. We are ready for a time of common sense. Muslims will die thick and fast and if we care they won't die in vein.

Muslims object to what they are. There were never any rules and they die knowing that, logically.

Damn hard to fit this into anti-white racism. It does impact the Elites as expressed here. I might conclude that white racism is a placating devise, where this is an overarching (yet to fail) plan.

Whilst all this is allowed to happen, we cant think of whiteness. Good luck.

Straighten me out.

Lets see who is targeted. Annoying rag-heads are never victims.
Get back in your box. It's a Christian thing, but...
Who are these people?

Please contribute to kill religion,
We control our destiny!

posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 10:52 AM
reply to post by bowtomonkey

Bukowski is my fav.

Something For The Touts, The Nuns, The Grocery Clerks, And You . . .

Charles Bukowski

We have everything and we have nothing
and some men do it in churches
and some men do it by tearing butterflies
in half
and some men do it in Palm Springs
laying it into butterblondes
with Cadillac souls
Cadillacs and butterflies
nothing and everything,
the face melting down to the last puff
in a cellar in Corpus Christi.
there's something for the touts, the nuns,
the grocery clerks and you . . .
something at 8 a.m., something in the library
something in the river,
everything and nothing.
in the slaughterhouse it comes running along
the ceiling on a hook, and you swing it --
and then you've got it, $200 worth of dead
meat, its bones against your bones
something and nothing.
it's always early enough to die and
it's always too late,
and the drill of blood in the basin white
it tells you nothing at all
and the gravediggers playing poker over
5 a.m. coffee, waiting for the grass
to dismiss the frost . . .
they tell you nothing at all.

we have everything and we have nothing --
days with glass edges and the impossible stink
of river moss -- worse than #;
checkerboard days of moves and countermoves,
fagged interest, with as much sense in defeat as
in victory; slow days like mules
humping it slagged and sullen and sun-glazed
up a road where a madman sits waiting among
bluejays and wrens netted in and sucked a flakey

Sorry for the long quote
edit on 31-1-2011 by poet1b because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 10:57 AM
reply to post by squandered

Poet what were you saying about power being a liability?

I think I said power has gravity, and that it corrupts.

Which is why wise people use it only when they have to.

It is always a bad idea to have an affair with a married woman.

posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:10 AM
A word of warning to all of you chaps on here. Your posts are too interesting but are too long. It is eating a very high protein diet. The net effect is that we are likey to get the literary equivalent of gout as some good stuff will be lost via the equivalent to metabolic excretion.

There is so much to reply to.
edit on 31-1-2011 by tiger5 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:24 AM
reply to post by JR MacBeth

JR I friended you back. We will have heated moments of debate but it will end cordially as that is grown up friendship IMHO.

I got to wondering about the basis of the friendship. Is it recognition of similar thinking or is it middleclass recognising middle class?? There is no answer but just hold that thought and read below.

How can white culture be a basis for bonding without unity against a mythical "other"? To date white cultures have been used as a basis for a united front against the mythical other.

How can a white collar in say middle management bond with a blue collar manual worker? Especially when the office is such a segregated and class-ridden place. Assuming both parties are not snobs I still cannot see it. Or would it be like sport buddies or bar regulars?? The problem is that the days of the manual intellectual have gone.

Just thoughts without answers.

posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:29 AM
The Elites hates whites, because they stand in their way for total world control. They feel the darker people are dumber and easier to control, so they have all these anti-white agendas.

new topics

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in