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.

 

The System Hates Whites.....And I Can Prove It

page: 11
50
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


You realize Africa isn't a country? Why is Europe this land of divided peoples, but to you Africa has one identity, Africa isn't this blob of singular culture you seem to be deluded to thinking it is.




reply to post by Q2IN2Y
 


If I told you you're great great grandfather was a murderer and a rapist, would you be cool if I put you in jail? You've clearly fallen for a classic failure in logic, and a common but failed racist argument. I'll just assume your answer.
edit on 30-4-2011 by Tephra because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aceofclubs

Originally posted by Cuervo
The main difference that you missed is that "black" ancestry come from Africa which is very homogeneous, culturally. So black people are of "African" descent. White folks are extremely varied and are not of the same ethnicities. To say that all lighter skinned people are under one "white" racial umbrella is kind of insulting. I am what I am, I'm not every other white ethnicity out there.
really? because here in england our job application forms you only get to choose white unless you from some mid east country or africa then you can put you country of origin. it so thay can give more racial quota spots to non-whites


That very well could be the case. I'm not going to argue that it is not fair because it is not. Heck, even "Caucasian" is a specific ethnic bio-region yet they like to statistically bunch up all white people in that category. I don't know any light-skinned people from the Caucus region yet they have to mark that on forms. I agree, it's crap.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by Tephra

Originally posted by Cuervo

The main difference that you missed is that "black" ancestry come from Africa which is very homogeneous, culturally. So black people are of "African" descent. White folks are extremely varied and are not of the same ethnicities. To say that all lighter skinned people are under one "white" racial umbrella is kind of insulting. I am what I am, I'm not every other white ethnicity out there.


So let me get this straight, is Europe some kind of second rate continent? From which Whites cannot claim ancestral background? Is that only a privilege people descended from Africa can claim?

Just make some sense please.


Why don't you ask a Norwegian and a Swedish person that same question. You are missing the key word: "homogeneous" which is what Africa is (or was). Europeans are not "second rate" just because they are varied. I always thought that made them pretty cool. You are taking offense over something that should be celebrated: diversity. Europe has tons of it.


ps - to answer your edit: I don't think that all genocide was by white people. I keep saying that. I'm simply answering why the rest of it is not in day-to-day conversation. The other cultures you mention are, in fact, in history text books, genocide and all. It's not hidden.
edit on 30-4-2011 by Cuervo because: Response to his edit.


an africa doesn't have celebrated diversity. what you said is that black is considered a race because they come from africa which is full of countries, and white isn't a race because they are not homogenous. i said it once already but the romans and greeks pretty closely related in architecture wise and philosphy, german and french gothic also pretty close the enlightenment age pretty much brought europe together for the arts and sciences. you say black people are homogenous, what about asians are they not a race? they don't all share the same traits just like white people don't and black people don't.

how is one a race and the other not a race? your ethnicity has nothing to do with your race, what about a black person whose parents always lived in say sweden, are they not black but swedish because they don't come from africa? no they are still black but they are not african, people from eygpt are more middle easten then black but isn't eygpt in the continent of africa? what are they considered then?




The African continent is home to many different ethnic and racial groups, with wide-ranging phenotypical traits, both indigenous and foreign to the continent.[3] Many of these populations have diverse origins, with differing cultural, linguistic and social traits and mores. Distinctions within Africa's geography, such as the varying climates across the continent, have also served to nurture diverse lifestyles among its various populations. The continent's inhabitants live amidst deserts and jungles, as well as in modern cities across the continent


en.wikipedia.org...

also europeans were not the only people to "invade" africa a but the islams did and the indians also

what i just qouted says that africans have very differing cultural, linquistic, and social traits...that sounds like people from europe who have differing cultural traits also


edit on 30-4-2011 by caf1550 because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-4-2011 by caf1550 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tephra
reply to post by Cuervo
 


You realize Africa isn't a country? Why is Europe this land of divided peoples, but to you Africa has one identity, Africa isn't this blob of singular culture you seem to be deluded to thinking it is.


Actually it has very much to do with the resources that are indigenous there. There were many African nations before Europe invaded but they were (to be blunt) pretty similar in cultural advancements (Ethiopia is an exception but their an exception to a lot of rules).

In contrast, Europe's natural resources varied drastically from one nation to the next. This created severely different nation-states. Top that off with a unique and rich string of theocracies of opposing faiths and you end up with extremely different cultures.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Q2IN2Y
reply to post by caf1550
 


Public TV vilification for a few decades is ok. Wouldn't you say that's a good trade off considering your past? LOL
thanks for confirming that you are a supporter of anti-white media because you think we diserve it. man real racists are DUMB lol. why should whites not riot over blatant racism but its ok for blacks to riot
edit on 30/4/11 by Aceofclubs because: rouge letter



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cuervo
That very well could be the case. I'm not going to argue that it is not fair because it is not. Heck, even "Caucasian" is a specific ethnic bio-region yet they like to statistically bunch up all white people in that category. I don't know any light-skinned people from the Caucus region yet they have to mark that on forms. I agree, it's crap.
so you agree the system is against whites? because job application forms are a big part of the system.

so the op is right



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Aceofclubs
 


Lmao, I was joking.. jesus. You ignore everything else and take the sentence that I purposely put an LOL to signify a joke and use it against me?

Smh.

And I am far from racist... stop that LMAO.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aceofclubs

Originally posted by Cuervo
That very well could be the case. I'm not going to argue that it is not fair because it is not. Heck, even "Caucasian" is a specific ethnic bio-region yet they like to statistically bunch up all white people in that category. I don't know any light-skinned people from the Caucus region yet they have to mark that on forms. I agree, it's crap.
so you agree the system is against whites? because job application forms are a big part of the system.

so the op is right


The system is against any who are not "in the funds". Yes, what you are talking about is a definite valid argument of potential racism towards lighter-skinned people. There are examples of the system working against every demographic, especially if you don't confuse socio-economic standing with race.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Before this gets further down the spiral, I would like to concede my point. I think I see what you are getting at with the thread. I keep arguing that "white" is not a race but, in regards to this topic, it doesn't really matter. People see white and base their acceptance and/or racism on that image.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by NadaCambia
I must say from reading start to finish that this is an absolutely disgusting thread. So much hatred and ignorance from all sides.


You think?

I was under the impression that some people on here were merely pointing out the double standards applied to them by the media.

Racism against anyone not white - very bad.

Racisim against whites - they deserve it!

Funnily enough, this is an attitude displayed by quite a few posters on here.

Surely racism is evil whether it is directed by a white against another race or by another race against whites?

Or do whites just deserve it?



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Q2IN2YWhen slavery was abolished, and AA's had to endure another 100 years of lynching segregation, social oppression, acerbic legislation, and complete degradation... where were the whites who were slaves with us?


Let me ask you something. With all the money, jobs, educations and territory that have been given out to blacks, what have they done with it? I know, because up until last August I lived in a 97%+ black area for almost five years. There were reasons, mostly I was doing research on inventions and rarely went outside. And it was cheap. I saw a continuous rapid decline in every way. It was almost a war zone when I left.
And what about the formerly White-ruled black countries that have since been taken over by the blacks. How are they doing? Are they safe places to live?



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by grizzle2
And what about the formerly White-ruled black countries that have since been taken over by the blacks. How are they doing? Are they safe places to live?



You do not get to imply that imperialism somehow helped them and that their absence is what made many African nations into the violent powder kegs you see today. Please, grab a history book about the industrial revolution and what it caused in Africa.

Each nation was streamlined to produce a small number of things and the resources (that were previously grown or made locally) were shipped in from the host European nations. They were at war during occupation, as well. For example, an African Dutch colony would war with a African French colony. When the European nations left, they left them with artificial borders and no means to sustain themselves any longer since all of the previous means to do so were abandoned in the effort to make things for the European nations. So they started killing each other over a limited and uneven resource table and the new borders were supported by the people it favored and not by the people it hurt.

And this isn't even considering the modern diamond trade or weapons dealing.

edit on 30-4-2011 by Cuervo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


what about zimbabwe throwing out productive white zimbabwean farmers to replace them with uneducated black farmes. it was the bread basket of africa when the british ruled it and even after thay left for a time. then the anti whites destroyed there own country just to get at the whites who stayed behind

now that is racist, takeing yourself out just to take the whites with you....thats pure hate

the infastructure was left intact when europeans left most of africa then the africans destroyed it



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Aceofclubs
 


You are talking about the Rhodesians. Yes, those guys were rad. They actually enriched the land because they were actual immigrants, not imperialists. What happened to them was an act of racism in the midst of a very racist era on both sides. The white Rhodesians go down in my book as martyrs who were further casualties of northern imperialism.

That does not detract from the point that European imperialism contributed heavily to their current state.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 
i'm talking about Robert Mugabe's land reforms i don't know what the people called thereself but i remember our gov would not lift a finger to help them. thay said it would stir up ill feeling about past colonization

it came across as its ok to do this to whites africa is for blacks

it was revenge against the wrong people based on colour the UN did nothing because the system hates the white man

edit on 30/4/11 by Aceofclubs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aceofclubs
reply to post by Cuervo
 
i'm talking about Robert Mugabe's land reforms i don't know what the people called thereself but i remember our gov would not lift a finger to help them. thay said it would stir up ill feeling about past colonization

it came across as its ok to do this to whites africa is for blacks

it was revenge against the wrong people based on colour the UN did nothing because the system hates the white man

edit on 30/4/11 by Aceofclubs because: (no reason given)


Therein lies the differences in our two viewpoints:

We both can look at a situation like the Rhodesians vs Mugabe scenario and both agree that it is, indeed, an unfair and racially motivated thing. However, our conclusions are vastly different. You conclude that this proves that the world hates whitey and I conclude that this proves that the world is racist and still full of backwards nationalists.

I will probably agree with you about just every example you can bring up about racism versus lighter-skinned people but that's because I agree that all racism is bad.
edit on 30-4-2011 by Cuervo because: Spelling



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by LargeFries

Originally posted by AngryOne
Here I would like to talk about something that has been on my mind for a while now. Put simply, it has to do with the blantantly anti-White nature of the media (as well as the education system).
Let us not waste time and let us not mince words -- I'm just going to get straight to the point and ask a few very simple questions; hopefully I can provoke some thought.
Okay.....

1) Why is it that whenever "racism" is explored in a movie or on TV, the culprit is always, ALWAYS portrayed as White (generally a White male)?

ALWAYS? Your repeated use of mass generalities throughout your post reveals the ignorance and personal bias that is the true impetus for your writing. You are doing a dis-service to yourself when you make sweeping blanket statements.

2) Why is it that White Pride is always VICIOUSLY attacked on the media, while all other forms of racial pride are left alone?

ALWAYS! Theres that word again. 2) is a double-header of personal paranoia, if one examines the sentence structure. If you actually used some real examples you may be able to sway my opinion. Instead, gross blanket statement claims, again.

3) Why is it that at least 98% of TV/movie villians are White males?

I commend you for breaking away from using ALWAYS to a mere 98%. Since 98% is a number you pulled out of your imagination it does nothing to provide fact to to your claim. We can all make up numbers all day long. It's fun, but boring.

4) Why is it that the media is so very biased when it comes to reporting - or not reporting - certain crimes? Just do a search on these words: "Black Serial Killers".
Furthermore, why is it that very many non-Whites are actually classified as White in crime statistics?
BTW, hate crimes are committed against Whites regularly....you just never hear about it.

"Why is it that the media is so very biased when it comes to reporting" - that is where the sentence should have had a question mark.

5) why is it that White achievement (including that computer you're using now) is always downplayed and ignored?

ALWAYS! Sadly, this statement is so far from reality that I openly laugh in your face. You are trolling and pandering in such an obvious fashion I don't know how anyone is supposed to answer you seriously.

6) Why is it that the media and education system are always bringing up well-known "atrocities" committed by Whites (as if ALL Whites are responsible for such things) while completely ignoring evils committed by non-White peoples?

ALWAYS! Every single time! LOL! 6) is so completely wrong in what you claim that I am left in high spirits. I thank you for the good laugh. I ALWAYS appreciate a good lol.

I do think that this is all much, MUCH too frequent and consistent to be a mere coincidence.
So.....has anybody else noticed it?
Just what is behind this?


Goodness. This OP is a high-water mark, one to be remembered. If optimal trolling was your goal, you've definitely outed several racist bigots in your thread. If you really feel these things you have claimed in your heart, you have my deepest sympathy, my friend. Please get out of Mom's basement and visit all the wonderful towns full of real people across America. Exposing oneself to reality, to the big scary world, will be a wonderful learning opportunity for you. Safe travels, bon voyage!


Liberals: They talk, talk and talk, all the while saying NOTHING.
How about actually addressing the post? I mean, AM I RIGHT OR AM I WRONG?



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Q2IN2Y
DISCLAIMER: More of a rant in response to a lot replies in here.
---
-
-
-

I want to get this straight. You're upset because whites in your view are portrayed in a negative light?

Hmm, whites (not you) but your ancestors raped, and made slaves out of blacks for nearly 300 years and considered them to be 3/5ths of a human in a COUNTRY that was popularly known as 'THE LAND OF THE FREE"

After the whites 'freed' the slaves (even though they didn't really want to), they still had legislation in place to impede the black mans' growth.

After slavery was abolished, whites still looked at ''n-word's' as 3/5ths a human and continued to treat them that way. Then black people endured 100 more years of segregation, murder, lynching, social oppression, and mental abuse.

Finally, two strong leaders, and I mention only these two because they were prominent in all classes of blacks. MLK and Malcolm X (pre-Nation of Islam and post) came along and instilled a sense of self worth in African Americans. Made AA's confident and happy to be what they are after hundreds of years of striping their very identities.

Black became beautiful, the majority of AA's wanted to model themselves after these leaders. Wanted to get off the streets and attend universities.... But guess what happened... the government killed these two prominent figureheads.

Two figure heads set the standard for what is to be a proud strong AA's, in their PRIME was gunned down by the government run by who? Take a guess. PROUD WHITES.

Ever since then the majority of Blacks lost their sense of self-worth, pride and it's been a downward spiral ever since.

That black man that may have robbed you might have become a Harvard grad, if his mother or father had that strong figurehead of the civil rights still paving the road for AAs back in their day. But no, his mother had to read about his accomplishments, instead of experiencing them alongside him because some whites couldn't stand the fact that these two figures were gaining power, and unifying the black race.

300+ years of vilification VS 30 years of Vilification? This is nothing but cause and effect.. an effect that is the result of your or the American white ancestors mistreating not only the blacks, but deceiving and completely exterminating the Native Americans.

I'm going to hear "Well they can still follow their footsteps".

No, you can say that to a race that has retain some form of their culture to an extent... you can't say that to a group of people who has NO identity whatsoever, and is completely separated from the customs of their homeland. Those types of people need active leadership. The way Moses led the people out of Egypt, blacks needed that and WHITES destroyed that.

White ancestors put blacks in this position. Enslaved, took away culture, raped, debased them, then you freed them, and still debased them, we finally decide to stand up for ourselves in the 50s and 60s, and you KILL our LEADERS, and try to tarnish their legacy... and now you have the audacity to tell AA's to suck it up and prove themselves.. after you killed the two leaders that served as a BLUEPRINT of the strong AA man?

Unbelievable.

So when you see that thug in the street, or hear these ridiculously mediocre soulja boy songs that even I loathe, just know this is a product of the American White ancestors.

Only way for the American white man to assuage their guilt is to rebuild this country on principles that serve all races. This country was built on deception ,slavery, corruption and downright extermination; that's why this country can only survive if it practices these customs. (it currently practices deception & corruption)

This country needs to be built on true freedom, truth, and integrity.. it is the only solution.



Before people jump to conclusions, I do not advocate any form of racism, or separation. This is merely an observation and my comments on it as a whole.







edit on 30-4-2011 by Q2IN2Y because: (no reason given)


This is quite possibly the most idiotic post that I have ever read on this site.
...Okay, let me make this short and sweet...

1) You should be advised that you are sounding extremely racist now. I mean, a handful of White folks, long ago, do some bad things and all of a sudden, I'M the one who's to blame?!
Hey, how about we start blaming all Black people for the extremely high rates of crimes that many Black people commit?

2) So MLK and Malcolm X were taken out by "the system"? Sounds like nothing more than a wacky theory to me. Can you back it up with anything?

3) This whole "I'm gonna blame Whitey because I'm a failure" thing is just pathetic. It's disgusting as hell, really.
And it's perhaps the best proof that those on your side of the argument are sick, sick, sick. I mean, Whites are robbed, raped and killed, and who do you blame? WHITE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!

edit on 30-4-2011 by AngryOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by AngryOne
 


I'm not convinced you read his post. He wasn't blaming white people. He was relaying a history to you with cause and effect. That's the same reaction I get when somebody asks me a question, I answer it with facts, and then I get accused of being biased.

Your inability to process fact and disseminate it in a healthy manner without applying a racist value to it is not anybody's issue but your own.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Backinthesaddle
reply to post by AngryOne
 


You’re kidding right? You do live on and come from the planet earth right? I can tell they have no history books where you come from. White people rule the world and have since forever. The oppressed, enslaved, killed, beat and tortured other races simply to be in control of their land and recourses for thousands of years. And you feel like whites are being treated unfairly? I’m sorry but anyone that says whites don’t have it the best isn’t living in reality.

Here listen to your theory down the drain.

www.youtube.com...


No, Jews run the world. I think that's pretty clear.
And the atrocities that you speak of were carried out by people of ALL races; that's just my point, I mean, just why is it that ONLY White people should have to feel guilty for things like these?
I mean, that sounds pretty.......racist.



new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join