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

page: 16
50
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 13 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
1) Well...can anybody refute this?

2) And what about this? Note that ethnic pride doesn't count; I am speaking of racial pride - they're two different things. And as for response "It's because White Pride is racist" - nonsense. There is good and bad in every movement; in case you didn't know, Black Pride is no exception.....yet nobody has a problem with Black Pride. Why's that?

3) Admit it: This is true. Just what explains it anyway?

4) I do think I summed it up in the OP pretty well. As for whoever asked what I meant regarding non-Whites in crime statistics, I mean just what I asked - why are obviously non-White people often classified as White when they commit a crime? This all goes into the official stats, thus making Whites look considerably worse than they are.

5) Basically what I'm asking is this: Where is White History Month? Oh, would that be too racist?

6) It seems as if I haven't gotten a good answer regarding this either. Indeed, you may hear about evils committed by non-Whites (perhaps, once in a while), but what I mean is, why is it that only Whites are taught to feel guilty about such things (things that they had absolutely nothing to do with, no less)? Why are young White kids brainwashed to hate themselves just because of what a handful of people did hundreds of years ago? Think about it.

As for those of you asking me why I care.....seriously, do I really need to explain why? Sheesh....



reply to post by Lysergic
 

Now as for you, please stop trolling this thread.




posted on May, 13 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by AngryOne
Note that ethnic pride doesn't count; I am speaking of racial pride - they're two different things. And as for response "It's because White Pride is racist" - nonsense. There is good and bad in every movement; in case you didn't know, Black Pride is no exception.....yet nobody has a problem with Black Pride. Why's that?

Basically what I'm asking is this: Where is White History Month? Oh, would that be too racist?


How convenient to exclude ethnic celebrations. Of course you don't want to include them because they blow your proposition out of the water.

White History month doesn't exist because most of the history classes already focus on white history. It doesn't exist because it would be redundant.

The problem with White Pride is that the term was highjacked by racist groups. The words themselves have nothing wrong with them but the association with white supremisists groups does exist. Blame them. Also many do have a problem with Black Pride even some blacks when they specifically mean hate groups like the Nation of Islam and the Balck Panthers for the same reason.
edit on 13-5-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
How convenient to exclude ethnic celebrations. Of course you don't want to include them because they blow your proposition out of the water.


I think you're referring to cultural celebrations which happen to have a close connection to a race/ethnicity.


White History month doesn't exist because most of the history classes already focus on white history. It doesn't exist because it would be redundant.


Not really, most history I've ever been taught covers European, American, North African, and Asian history. THat covers all races, not just white. It is just coincidence that Europeans tend to be predominantly white due to the environment causing the genetic alteration in melanin levels.


The problem with White Pride is that the term was highjacked by racist groups. The words themselves have nothing wrong with them but the association with white supremisists groups does exist. Blame them. Also many do have a problem with Black Pride even some blacks when they specifically mean hate groups like the Nation of Islam and the Balck Panthers for the same reason.
edit on 13-5-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)


I do agree that white pride has been hijacked by groups such as the Neo Nazis and the KKK, but there is still nothing wrong with being happy about being born the color that you are.

I do think that perhaps this shouldn't be looked at as "white" pride, since white is a color that can and will change over time as the environment alters genetics. Focusing on the way someone looks as a means of discrimination is wrong. Really, it's more like European/Northern Human pride.

Eh, all this separation based on places of origin is all silly, who am I kidding. We should simply stop caring about nationality and appearance. History should be remembered, but not used to separate humans from fellow humans. Be proud of being alive and being able to make a difference, in my opinion.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Right on the cultural celebrations. Actually I have been thinking about AngryOnes point and if one takes these types of celebrations out the only one that is left is any black celebration. I mean most celebrations that some may hold in the US are this same type of celebrations.

I remember having learned many types of history as well but American History which was a class all by itself was mostly white history with a bit about the french, mexicans, african slaves and native americans. You can't deny that the bulk of the contents was about whites. Not saying theres anything wrong with that but it is the reason there isn't a need to give it its own month.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Just checking back in, this thread has proven to be a very good social experiment piece so far. I see that people are still very polarized over this thread.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by AngryOne
 


Your premise is absurd and a lot of your statements in your op are false.

First, white people control the media. Do you think they want to destroy themselves?

Black people are often labeled as criminals in the media, that’s why a racist like PANDA X is deceived that all blacks are criminals. He gets that from the way the WHITE media portrays blacks.

There are many movies that have racist blacks in them. Check out the TV movie of 12 Angry Men.

The reason 98 percent of villains are white males is because in movies about 98 percent of the actors are white.

Up until very recently just about all of serial killers were white. Just recently more blacks have become serial killers. Though the vast majority of serial killers are still white.

And as for history, well they rarely teach in schools anything but white history therefore we learn practically only white history whether its them doing good or bad.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   
"White People" do not control or own the media.
This is important to realize this.
Films, TV, are not controlled by "white people", and they do not have any intent to uplift or promote "white people".



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by tom502
 


Completely untrue. Who owns the media? The fact is that it's corporations and corporations don't have a race. Many of these are publicly traded so the owners are shareholders.

So who runs them? Well of the top of my head Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner pop up as two important players in the media that are white and I'm sure the board of directors of many of these corps. include many people that are white.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by tom502
 


Completely untrue. Who owns the media? The fact is that it's corporations and corporations don't have a race. Many of these are publicly traded so the owners are shareholders.

So who runs them? Well of the top of my head Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner pop up as two important players in the media that are white and I'm sure the board of directors of many of these corps. include many people that are white.



It's pretty well known that Jews run the "show" so-to-speak, when it comes to entertainment, and the media.

You can probably call them "white", but that might not help much. Neither does invoking modern corporate ownership. We still have to look to "who" is at the controls.

The fact is, Jews don't consider themselves merely "white". Their own writings confirm what anyone should recognize as a very "supremacist" attitude. They're literally "above" white, in the mindset I'm talking about.

Of course, not all Jews feel that way, but most seem to, by all appearances, based on articles from their publications, things issued for their own consumption.

Something to factor in to the discussion maybe.

JR



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by inforeal
 

The problem is not about who "owns" the media, but on what ideology people who run the media are infused with.
Despite exceptions in film and series, the postmodern construction of reality holds power.
That ideology (which most Arts and humanities' students are exposed to in higher learning) still views non-white races as "othered" and in opposition to what they assume is white, male power.
But, as David Icke and many others point out, the black and minority elites are long since a part of the system and Illuminati
So what we get is deflection, that really serves nobody, except the upper class elite who produce these "turkeys".

In cop-series like CSI or Law and Order they do have mixed acting (it is not 98% white) and I'm still looking out for black serial killers on screen.
The problem with serial killers is that they are evil, but also highly intelligent.
So avoiding them is really racist both ways.
The absence is really saying black criminals don't have the intelligence to be serial killers.
Black crime is more like a sudden loss of impulse control - it's not clever or classy crime.
It's just like black, regular gay men are avoided, going back to ideas of black hypermasculinity in the slave trade (the idea that blacks are closest to nature, and therefore essentially heterosexual).
We have several gay characters on Desperate Housewives - none of them black men.

So we have movies made for particular markets (mostly comedies and romantic movies) where most of the cast is indeed one race.
Then we have more "complex" material which supposedly reflects the complications of a melting pot in US cities.
Here the cast is mixed, but the main, responsible culprit is usually white. This is supposed to be the "intelligent" stuff.
Then we have mainstream movies, which are hard-pressed to be politically correct, usually with ridiculous results.
I saw "Clash of the Titans "(2010 version) last night.
Usually a European story, suddenly a bunch of scorpion-riding Bedouin-like "Arabs" appear, whose sole contribution to the script is a constipated line: "To-ge-ther".
Now that is just forced.
edit on 15-5-2011 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by JR MacBeth
It's pretty well known that Jews run the "show" so-to-speak, when it comes to entertainment, and the media.

You can probably call them "white", but that might not help much. Neither does invoking modern corporate ownership. We still have to look to "who" is at the controls.

The fact is, Jews don't consider themselves merely "white". Their own writings confirm what anyone should recognize as a very "supremacist" attitude. They're literally "above" white, in the mindset I'm talking about.

Of course, not all Jews feel that way, but most seem to, by all appearances, based on articles from their publications, things issued for their own consumption.

Something to factor in to the discussion maybe.


Actually already mentioned earlier in the thread.

Jewish isn't a race. They may consider themselves above the rest but many are still white so I don't see how they stand to gain from demeaning the white race as the OP proposes.

I think I gave 2 good examples of "who" is at the controls that are white male christians.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


Danny Glover plays a serial killer in the movie Switchback. Also saw the last bit of a movie where Halle Berry stabs a character played by Giovanni Ribisi (the medic in Saving Private Ryan). She is the "bad guy" in that movie.
edit on 15-5-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by inforeal
reply to post by AngryOne
 


Your premise is absurd and a lot of your statements in your op are false.

First, white people control the media. Do you think they want to destroy themselves?

Black people are often labeled as criminals in the media, that’s why a racist like PANDA X is deceived that all blacks are criminals. He gets that from the way the WHITE media portrays blacks.

There are many movies that have racist blacks in them. Check out the TV movie of 12 Angry Men.

The reason 98 percent of villains are white males is because in movies about 98 percent of the actors are white.

Up until very recently just about all of serial killers were white. Just recently more blacks have become serial killers. Though the vast majority of serial killers are still white.

And as for history, well they rarely teach in schools anything but white history therefore we learn practically only white history whether its them doing good or bad.


NO, my statements are NOT false.

First of all, the media is controlled not by Whites, but by Jews. Contrary to your belief (EDIT: Or daskakik's belief, rather), "Jewish" IS a race, and Jews are not White.

Regarding stereotypes and overall demographics in the media, I'm serious when I say that I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. At all. You are simply not being truthful.

As far as serial killers go, did you see the video that I posted in this thread? Interesting stuff.

And "White history".....well, teaching White kids to hate themselves because of the actions of some English settlers is really not what I would have in mind.
edit on 15-5-2011 by AngryOne because: Altered a couple of words.
edit on 15-5-2011 by AngryOne because: Got member mixed up with someone else.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 

Yes, there are exceptions (as I always said).
Some are quite clever reactions and self-aware ironies on the mainstream production of reality.
But not that many.
I've never really looked into that Jewish/Hollywood conspiracy, and I know Judaism is a religion too, but ultimately the Jews want to be called "Semites", and they regard intolerance against them as "anti-Semitic".
Semites are not white people.
So from their side, they do not align with us.

Ultimately looking at the cop-series, they leave everyone in state of "let's except the status quo".
Justice is possible through the system (is it really?).
As a white person in this thread, I just find it alienating (although the whole genre deserves more discussion).
Although whites may be the guilty minds, it provides no salvation for the other-race characters, except that it confirms that whites are responsible for their endlessly down-trodden gang existence.

edit on 15-5-2011 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by AngryOne
 

You are wrong Jewish is not a race. They may consider themselves a race but genetically they are not. They are an ethincity and you have already said that it isn't the same thing. I agree.

You are using color for race so there are five races: White, Black, Red, Yellow and Brown.

Here are pictures of a few early moguls of Hollywood. They look white to me.





The question about white history was, where is the month dedicated to it not, if the content is biased or not. I don't remember anyone telling white students that they had to feel shame. I remember being taught how great it was to be an American and how the US of A was the greatest nation on the face of the planet.
edit on 15-5-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 

In postmodernism it's not what you look like, it's how you identify.
I could find pics of people accepted as Native American, Hispanic or Black in the US, and they look white.
Now that there's casinos, and cash to be made from affirmative action a lot of people bring out their one-eighth baggage. So identity often follows the cash.
Those photos are selective, but ultimately the Jews choose to call themselves "Semites".
So I suppose one should take it up with them - why should it be up to whites to say: this is a Jew, and this is not a Jew?

In SA there's a big movement now for all whites to fill in "black" or "colored" on employment forms.
The ANC kept old apartheid qualifications, to remove competent whites from their jobs, but there is no legal compulsion to fill them in based on any criteria.
So next time I'll just say I'm colored.
Prove me wrong - in postmodernism anyone can be an opportunist.
Joke - I'll never say I'm anything but white.
I never want to be responsible for a slowly sinking ship caused by anti-white racism, and the absolute decadence and incompetence of others.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by daskakik
 

In postmodernism it's not what you look like, it's how you identify.
I could find pics of people accepted as Native American, Hispanic or Black in the US, and they look white.
Now that there's casinos, and cash to be made from affirmative action a lot of people bring out their one-eighth baggage. So identity often follows the cash.
Those photos are selective, but ultimately the Jews choose to call themselves "Semites".
So I suppose one should take it up with them - why should it be up to whites to say: this is a Jew, and this is not a Jew?


I could agree with much of this but the OP is based on what one looks like. The photos are of those who controlled hollywood back in the day. Semites may not be white but the men in those pictures were and many controlling things are also white "by looks" so why would they project a negative image of those that look like them?
edit on 15-5-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 

I cannot say completely why Jewish people do certain things.
I can only recall that not all immigrants to the US were welcomed with opened arms.
Some of them like the Chinese faced open exclusion acts, and Jews faced certain social restrictions.
But this was before World War II, closer to 1900.
I read their paper here, and there was a debate on whether it was ethical for one company to take them to Australia, or whether all Jews should go to Israel.
On almost every campus there's a debate now between the Zionists and Islamists - and we are so tired of it.

As a white SA male, I'm more concerned about issues as this guy puts them:

edit on 15-5-2011 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 




Actually already mentioned earlier in the thread.

Jewish isn't a race. They may consider themselves above the rest but many are still white so I don't see how they stand to gain from demeaning the white race as the OP proposes.

I think I gave 2 good examples of "who" is at the controls that are white male christians.


Mentioning the Jews, again, isn't exactly redundant, when you clearly don't get it.

Whether today's scientists count the Jews as a "race" is entirely moot, considering that Jews consider themselves exactly that, and then some. Identity is key, read what halfholdman has been saying.

If you even have to ask what the Jews have to gain by denigrating white people, then you still have a long ways to go, and need to hit the books. In short, one preliminary theory you might explore posits that white people amount to their major "competition". They apparently do not consider blacks, or other groups much competition, so we see a focus based on the fact that they have cast whites as their "enemy". A lot more to it, but good for starters.

As far as your two examples, Turner is pretty far from being Christian, although he's of European extraction, from anything I've ever seen.

Not so for Mr. Murdoch. His mother, Elisabeth Joy Greene, is the whole reason his family was elevated to the wealth and status that little Rupert came to enjoy.

His mother, said to be a "devout" Jew, would have betrayed her heritage if she had not raised her child as a Jew. As most know, "Jewishness" comes through the mother, so Rupert would be considered entirely Jewish by Talmudic standards.

Does he try to hide the fact? Of course, and there is a very long "tradition" you might say when it comes to this kind of thing. Might seem strange, until you realize there's a war on, ya know.

JR



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 

Why Jewish people do certain things? To start with not everyone in a position of influence over the media is Jewish so I think we can throw that out.

I think I know why the media puts certain things out or goes overboard with being PC. It sells better. Some don't like it and as you posted above it looks forced and therefore fake. Don't matter only the bottom line matters.

Immigrants are never welcomed with open arms. Every wave of immigrants has faced opposition by those already here including the English. They just happened to have better weapons.





new topics
top topics
 
50
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join