60-70 African American youth march in Peoria, shouting: "Kill All The White People"

Originally posted by kaiode1
reply to post by MiloNickels

 

The problem is racial. Blacks have smaller brains, lower IQ's, thicker skulls, differing skeletal structure, lower impulse control, more aggression, and a higher propensity to violence.

First of all, you do realize that the first (and most prevalent) gang activity in American history stems from the Irish, Italian, and Polish populations of the early 20th century? Groups like "the black panthers" only even came into existence because of violence at the hands of groups like the KKK. It's funny how retaliation gets labled as downright violence. So yeah, black people today are #ing up big time, but whites have done just as badly when put into the same social, and economical strains that blacks face today. You ever wonder why "projects" are called projects?

edit on 28-6-2011 by kaiode1 because: (no reason given)

who is talking about gangs or organized crime? it wasn't gangs or organized crime syndicates that terrorized various cities throughout our nation on memorial day. it's not gangs or organized crime syndicates that have communities living in fear of "beat whitey night", "kill all the whites", flash mobs, "happy slapping" attacks, "knock out king", or just random violent attacks/muggings.

I'm talking about the recent reality of urban America, where (black) "youths" are acting like violent, lawless savages--on a rapidly increasing scale and frequency. I challenge you to find me a news story from the last decade where white mobs have acted like this--random racially motivated violence. For every news story you can find from the last DECADE... I will find you 10 similar stories of blacks doing this from the last 6 months.

Can you deny there is a real problem and there is a strong racial component?

reply to post by kaiode1


Don't know?

Did Queen Elizabeth I only wear monstorous royal robes?

Was her face actually bone white?

Probably not, but that is how she is depicted in all of her paintings and statues.

Was Hatsheput a man? No, but that is how she is depicted in the vast majority of the statues and paintings.

You have to remember, images (specifically sanctioned images) of royalty never show the truth. They show the image that is trying to be portrayed.

You are correct, however, that I have strayed too far off topic.

Originally posted by Gorman91
nt peoples.

And if you want to insult my religion, it's quite amusing, considering it was essentially Christianity that enabled Northern Europe to become civilized and invent things. Without Christianity Northern Europe would still be sacrificing Chickens to Thor.

Bullslip.

Christianity didnt invent civilization. Pagans did. The fact that Christianity marched up with Rome doesnt mean that Christians were responsible for spreading "civilization." It came second. The model for civilization spread by the Romans was developed when Rome was pagan. And the technology and math spread by that upward movement into Europe was likewise not a Christian invention.

Originally posted by peck420


Did Queen Elizabeth I only wear monstorous royal robes?

Was her face actually bone white?

It was when she had makeup on. It was customary at that time to wear a very white lead based face makeup, males and females alike, and wigs. A very unhealthy habit, but one which persisted in many countries for centuries.

en.wikipedia.org...

Throughout the 17th century and the Elizabethan era, women wore ceruse, a lethal mixture of vinegar and white lead. They also applied egg whites to their faces to create a shiny complexion.[6] Many men and women died from wearing lead based make-up.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

Christianity didnt invent civilization

I did not claim this. Christians just improved what civilization was.

Pagans did.

Actually atheists invented civilization. Because they didn't have the burden of religion in their war. Pagans never did much.

The stoics, the atheists, the scholars. Those whom threw away the laughable religions of their peers. They created civilization.

The fact that Christianity marched up with Rome doesnt mean that Christians were responsible for spreading "civilization."

Once again I said they aided in its improvement and gave birth to the culture to which we continue to live in and enjoy today. Pagans never had a significant culture other than dancing drunk at Stonehenge.

The model for civilization spread by the Romans was developed when Rome was pagan

Nope, it came from Godless heathens whom adopted the teachings of the republic found in Greece, invented by other godless atheists like Solon and the lot. They let the masses keep their gods because it really wasn't worth much to bother with.

Later on some believed in stoicism. IE, there is a single supreme God above all these silly ones and he is silent. When the Christians came by, as recorded in Acts, they contacted the Stoics and told them that it is their hearts that had led them to the truth, we now bring you the name of your unknown God. And the two somewhat merged, before the imperialistic church shut down stoicism some centuries later.

Point is this. No great man of Rome or Greece really seriously considered the multiplicity of gods as something to seriously fathom. idk, maybe there's a few examples like the King of Sparta. But if you can think of a name from the period, chances are he was either a stoic or an atheist.

And the technology and math spread by that upward movement into Europe was likewise not a Christian invention.

Never claimed it was. But it wasn't a European invention either. It wasn't a white person invention. So to go back to your original claims, white people are not the inventors of the modern world.

Originally posted by Gorman91

Actually atheists invented civilization. Because they didn't have the burden of religion in their war. Pagans never did much.

The stoics, the atheists, the scholars. Those whom threw away the laughable religions of their peers. They created civilization.

Where do you get this? Obviously not from history. While they were not dogmatically religious, like Christians tend to be, the Stoics and many of the ancient philosophers and scientists definitively WERE pagans. There is commentary about "not being too superstitious" from Marcus Aurelius, right alongside commentary on having a proper religious sense.

Originally posted by Gorman91
Pagans never had a significant culture other than dancing drunk at Stonehenge.

Well, you are just wrong. The Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Mayans, all had a "significant culture" and they were all pagans.

Originally posted by Gorman91
Nope, it came from Godless heathens whom adopted the teachings of the republic found in Greece, invented by other godless atheists like Solon and the lot. They let the masses keep their gods because it really wasn't worth much to bother with.

Not exactly, "Gods" meant something different to them than it does to those who worship the God of Abraham, and many of them did believe in "gods" they just werent as superstitious and literal as the mass of people were. I dont know who you have been reading, but it sure as hell isnt Plato, or most of the philosophers/scientists I had to study.

Originally posted by Gorman91
Later on some believed in stoicism. IE, there is a single supreme God above all these silly ones and he is silent. When the Christians came by, as recorded in Acts, they contacted the Stoics and told them that it is their hearts that had led them to the truth, we now bring you the name of your unknown God. And the two somewhat merged, before the imperialistic church shut down stoicism some centuries later.

Ok, its crystal clear now that you really dont have a clue. Stoicism is not a religion, and many Stoics were pagan.

Originally posted by Gorman91
Point is this. No great man of Rome or Greece really seriously considered the multiplicity of gods as something to seriously fathom. idk, maybe there's a few examples like the King of Sparta. But if you can think of a name from the period, chances are he was either a stoic or an atheist.

Again, Stoicism is not a religion, and many (if not most) Stoics were pagan.

Originally posted by Gorman91
So to go back to your original claims, white people are not the inventors of the modern world.

Actually, its not my original claim, at all. I never claimed "white people" are the inventors of the modern world, and you cant find anywhere on ATS, even in other threads, any place I said that. I actually know history, particularly, the history of science, and I would never make that claim. I have just been arguing against YOUR claim that Christians are responsible for civilizing the world. They arent. And if Christianity had not taken off in Rome, Europe would have been civilized by your standards at some point anyway. Christianity is a correlate to the spread of civilization, its absolutely NOT in any way, the cause of it.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

the Stoics and many of the ancient philosophers and scientists definitively WERE pagans

How? They effectively rejected the world they were in. They rallied a rejection of the ways people viewed things. Many were killed by the state for their rally.

There is commentary about "not being too superstitious" from Marcus Aurelius, right alongside commentary on having a proper religious sense.

And I suppose virgins for the gods and the lot are definable proper sense? As far as I've read, most of those ancient people wrote significantly on the fallacy of the religions of their days, pointing out the now agreed on fact that most of those gods were just personality cults of dead civilizations and kings.

Well, you are just wrong. The Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Mayans, all had a "significant culture" and they were all pagans.

Don't add in other cultures to add straws to your argument. We're talking about Europeans here. But if you want to add in the human sacrificing Maya go right ahead. and Egypt, for your own information, was a constructed religion based off the idea that everyone had the right to worship god as they saw fit. This eventually became polytheism and then pretty much a personality cult of the best kings and architects. By the time the Greeks took Egypt, Egypt was having fewer and fewer gods and their culture becoming something else entirely.

Romans and Greeks had paganism for their civilians mainly. The best and brightest rejected it, and as these were the inventors and creators, it's safe to say atheists and stoics built the classical world. Inevitably even the gods were forgotten as the worship of the Roman Emperor became more important. The decreased care, and in some places complete rejection, in gods by the common man opened up Christianity and other small religions to quickly become the new religion.

Not exactly, "Gods" meant something different to them than it does to those who worship the God of Abraham, and many of them did believe in "gods" they just werent as superstitious and literal as the mass of people were. I dont know who you have been reading, but it sure as hell isnt Plato, or most of the philosophers/scientists I had to study.

Of course it meant something different, and to many of the leading thinkers, it means nothing at all. Many of them were wither Stoics or atheists. That doesn't mean they didn't believe in spirits, it meant they rejected the paganism of their peers.

Ok, its crystal clear now that you really dont have a clue. Stoicism is not a religion, and many Stoics were pagan.

Stoicism was a philosophy, a religion, a social contract, a way to live. It was many things. But it definable was a religion. And few Stoics agreed to the paganism of their peers.

Again, Stoicism is not a religion, and many (if not most) Stoics were pagan.

Nope, it is a religion, and a rejection of paganism.

Actually, its not my original claim, at all. I never claimed "white people" are the inventors of the modern world, and you cant find anywhere on ATS, even in other threads, any place I said that. I actually know history, particularly, the history of science, and I would never make that claim. I have just been arguing against YOUR claim that Christians are responsible for civilizing the world. They arent. And if Christianity had not taken off in Rome, Europe would have been civilized by your standards at some point anyway. Christianity is a correlate to the spread of civilization, its absolutely NOT in any way, the cause of it.

Correct, I thought you were someone else.

Now I never said they wouldn't get there eventually, but logic has to be in there somewhere. Europe was pagan for thousands of years. Then it became Christian and within 1500 years it was in the enlightenment and suddenly ruling the world as the industry and cultural capital of Earth.

reply to post by MiloNickels

who is talking about gangs or organized crime? it wasn't gangs or organized crime syndicates that terrorized various cities throughout our nation on memorial day. it's not gangs or organized crime syndicates that have communities living in fear of "beat whitey night", "kill all the whites", flash mobs, "happy slapping" attacks, "knock out king", or just random violent attacks/muggings.

I'm talking about the recent reality of urban America, where (black) "youths" are acting like violent, lawless savages--on a rapidly increasing scale and frequency. I challenge you to find me a news story from the last decade where white mobs have acted like this--random racially motivated violence. For every news story you can find from the last DECADE... I will find you 10 similar stories of blacks doing this from the last 6 months.

Can you deny there is a real problem and there is a strong racial component?

No sir. You said that blacks generally have a higher propensity than whites to be violent. Well that can't be true if whites were the first people here with gangs, and were beating and killing the hell out of each other. I addressed your claim, and invalidated it. And you can't really speak about whites living in fear (although I'm not condoning the behavior) and feel as though your racist sentiments are justified. What about the linch-mobs that a lot of whites used to organize to murder black people. Are you going to try to tell me that black people living in these times weren't afraid of white people? The (for the most part) violent, unruly, and irrational white people? What about the thousands of blacks that have been murdered in the past by your people? Are you gonna talk about the countless blacks that have been killed in cold blood by whites? I don't think so. Your bitterness and deep-rooted hatred for black people is unjustified especially when crimes committed today are pretty much reflections of the unspeakable things that their ancestors have had to endure while living in a country that doesn't give a damn about them. But alas, I won't allow your ignorance to incite anymore anger from me.

P.S. The Ku Klux Klan is a "gang" and they're responsible for many people living in fear (not just blacks), and they're generally considered to be the most violent activist group that this country has ever seen. Once again these are white people that by your logic, couldn't possibly do anything wrong.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


Thanks Illusion, the point I was trying to make is that we can not judge ancient (or even semi recent) rulers based on depictions like paintings and statues.

Although, I was so far off topic, it is more or less irrelevant .

Originally posted by MiloNickels
who is talking about gangs or organized crime? it wasn't gangs or organized crime syndicates that terrorized various cities throughout our nation on memorial day. it's not gangs or organized crime syndicates that have communities living in fear of "beat whitey night", "kill all the whites", flash mobs, "happy slapping" attacks, "knock out king", or just random violent attacks/muggings.

I'm talking about the recent reality of urban America, where (black) "youths" are acting like violent, lawless savages--on a rapidly increasing scale and frequency. I challenge you to find me a news story from the last decade where white mobs have acted like this--random racially motivated violence. For every news story you can find from the last DECADE... I will find you 10 similar stories of blacks doing this from the last 6 months.

Can you deny there is a real problem and there is a strong racial component?

These sorts of actions have happened across the globe, and through out history, whenever there is two or more ethnicities and two or more societal casts.

It is not specific to any one race. It never will be.

Originally posted by kaiode1
reply to post by MiloNickels

 

who is talking about gangs or organized crime? it wasn't gangs or organized crime syndicates that terrorized various cities throughout our nation on memorial day. it's not gangs or organized crime syndicates that have communities living in fear of "beat whitey night", "kill all the whites", flash mobs, "happy slapping" attacks, "knock out king", or just random violent attacks/muggings.

I'm talking about the recent reality of urban America, where (black) "youths" are acting like violent, lawless savages--on a rapidly increasing scale and frequency. I challenge you to find me a news story from the last decade where white mobs have acted like this--random racially motivated violence. For every news story you can find from the last DECADE... I will find you 10 similar stories of blacks doing this from the last 6 months.

Can you deny there is a real problem and there is a strong racial component?

No sir. You said that blacks generally have a higher propensity than whites to be violent. Well that can't be true if whites were the first people here with gangs, and were beating and killing the hell out of each other. I addressed your claim, and invalidated it. And you can't really speak about whites living in fear (although I'm not condoning the behavior) and feel as though your racist sentiments are justified. What about the linch-mobs that a lot of whites used to organize to murder black people. Are you going to try to tell me that black people living in these times weren't afraid of white people? The (for the most part) violent, unruly, and irrational white people? What about the thousands of blacks that have been murdered in the past by your people? Are you gonna talk about the countless blacks that have been killed in cold blood by whites? I don't think so. Your bitterness and deep-rooted hatred for black people is unjustified especially when crimes committed today are pretty much reflections of the unspeakable things that their ancestors have had to endure while living in a country that doesn't give a damn about them. But alas, I won't allow your ignorance to incite anymore anger from me.

P.S. The Ku Klux Klan is a "gang" and they're responsible for many people living in fear (not just blacks), and they're generally considered to be the most violent activist group that this country has ever seen. Once again these are white people that by your logic, couldn't possibly do anything wrong.

edit on 28-6-2011 by kaiode1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-6-2011 by kaiode1 because: (no reason given)

Why is it that I'm talking about the realities of modern life, and you keep having to refer to things from the past? It's like I'm saying how loose pitbulls are potentially dangerous, and you keep replying that "dinosaurs were pretty bad too". You can cite the KKK all day long, but let's be honest. When was the last time you saw a recent news reports (let alone on a DAILY basis--often multiple reports in multiple cities) where the KKK is actively robbing people, assaulting people, terrorizing communities, causing public beaches and water parks to be closed down, etc??? You are talking about problems from the past (as if they are relevant or actually justify this horrifying trend) and IGNORING the societal cancer that is actively destroying America today (because you don't want to sound intolerant).

It disgusts me that, by simply discussing the realities of the world, I am so quickly labeled a RACIST (apparently the most evil thing anyone can be). As if calling me a racist, somehow negates the facts. If these acts were being committed exclusively by white males, I'd be decrying them publicly and shouting from the mountain tops how very ashamed I am. Why is it wrong for me to do the same thing in this case? I'm not condemning the color, I'm condemning the acts (and pointing out that keep being perpetrated by that color).

That's what you do when you spot a trend that could lead to trouble. You heed the warnings. Not every rattle snake will bite you, not every prostitute will give you aids, not every car will explode if you smoke while you fill up your tank, and not every group of "youths" will attack you... but why take your chances?

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see the one characteristic shared by all of these violent "youths", violent mobs of "urban teens", or "flash mobs". Why on earth should we be expected to ignore the one glaringly obvious similarity shared by all of them?

If, every time the news reported on a car accident for the last few years, the car was ALWAYS (like 95% of the time), without fail, a red Ford Escort would you spend so much time pointing out that other cars have crashed in the past, and we must not rush to judgement about red Ford Escorts? Wouldn't you expect the news to report the make and model of the car as a public service so people can take safety precautions (especially once the trend started becoming glaringly obvious)? Would you buy a red Ford Escort? Would you let your child go for rides in their friend's red Ford Escort? Of course not... Not because EVERY red Ford Escort crashes (it may only be a small percentage of Ford Escorts involved in these crashes), but because every crash happens to be a red Ford Escort. It's just common sense.

This willful ignorance, whereby you idiots CHOOSE to ignore facts--simply because you've been brainwashed that you absolutely cannot say something negative about black people (even if it's true) or else you're a racist--is staggering. Man up. Galileo was persecuted when he correctly said the sun was the center of the universe. I'll gladly be persecuted for saying that the behavior exhibited by these "youths" (violence, criminality, disruptiveness, and destruction) is becoming a REAL problem in America and demands a real solution. Because, just like Galileo, I'm 10000% right--and you know it.

Originally posted by MiloNickels
Why is it that I'm talking about the realities of modern life, and you keep having to refer to things from the past? It's like I'm saying how loose pitbulls are potentially dangerous, and you keep replying that "dinosaurs were pretty bad too". You can cite the KKK all day long, but let's be honest. When was the last time you saw a recent news reports (let alone on a DAILY basis--often multiple reports in multiple cities) where the KKK is actively robbing people, assaulting people, terrorizing communities, causing public beaches and water parks to be closed down, etc??? You are talking about problems from the past (as if they are relevant or actually justify this horrifying trend) and IGNORING the societal cancer that is actively destroying America today (because you don't want to sound intolerant).

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. This is not the first time that ignorant labels and "facts" have been used to distort the truth of a subject. Learn the history, know what the future might hold.

It disgusts me that, by simply discussing the realities of the world, I am so quickly labeled a RACIST (apparently the most evil thing anyone can be). As if calling me a racist, somehow negates the facts. If these acts were being committed exclusively by white males, I'd be decrying them publicly and shouting from the mountain tops how very ashamed I am. Why is it wrong for me to do the same thing in this case? I'm not condemning the color, I'm condemning the acts (and pointing out that keep being perpetrated by that color).

These very same actions are being replicated by every ethnicity, culture, religion, some where on the planet this very instant. Do you care about them? Or only when it is affecting your backyard?

That's what you do when you spot a trend that could lead to trouble. You heed the warnings. Not every rattle snake will bite you, not every prostitute will give you aids, not every car will explode if you smoke while you fill up your tank, and not every group of "youths" will attack you... but why take your chances?

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see the one characteristic shared by all of these violent "youths", violent mobs of "urban teens", or "flash mobs". Why on earth should we be expected to ignore the one glaringly obvious similarity shared by all of them?

Sure, let's look at the similarities...globaly.
Disenfranchised youth? Check
Lower socio-economic standing? Check
Black? Uh-oh. No check. If I look I can find these acts perpetrated by whites, blacks, asians...damn Native American's...good work! Can't find anything there right now.

The similarity is not the race. The similarity is the circumstances.

If, every time the news reported on a car accident for the last few years, the car was ALWAYS (like 95% of the time), without fail, a red Ford Escort would you spend so much time pointing out that other cars have crashed in the past, and we must not rush to judgement about red Ford Escorts? Wouldn't you expect the news to report the make and model of the car as a public service so people can take safety precautions (especially once the trend started becoming glaringly obvious)? Would you buy a red Ford Escort? Would you let your child go for rides in their friend's red Ford Escort? Of course not... Not because EVERY red Ford Escort crashes (it may only be a small percentage of Ford Escorts involved in these crashes), but because every crash happens to be a red Ford Escort. It's just common sense.

Already happens and caused one major manufacturer to re-evaluate their entire line up based on multiple faulty claims...cough...Toyota...cough. Of course, we are discussing a manufactured product, which can have all sorts of problems if not thoroughly tested and vetted. The similarities between this example and the incident would be like this. I will give one manufacturer the best of everything and be amazed and impressed when they succeed. I will give another, equally qualified, manufacturer the scraps and be shocked and dissappointed when they fail.

You can not expect equal outcomes unless you start with equal inputs. And that doesn't even start to address all the proccess' in between.

This willful ignorance, whereby you idiots CHOOSE to ignore facts--simply because you've been brainwashed that you absolutely cannot say something negative about black people (even if it's true) or else you're a racist--is staggering. Man up. Galileo was persecuted when he correctly said the sun was the center of the universe. I'll gladly be persecuted for saying that the behavior exhibited by these "youths" (violence, criminality, disruptiveness, and destruction) is becoming a REAL problem in America and demands a real solution. Because, just like Galileo, I'm 10000% right--and you know it.

Who's the idiot? The guy that thinks that all blacks are violent, or the guy that sees that disenfranchised youth, mixed with lower socio-economic standing, is a breeding ground for trouble.

I would tell you, but you have already made up your mind.

kaiode1,

Sorry for replying to that post before you as it was directed to you.

It was so full of crap, I had to post something now.

reply to post by MiloNickels

If these acts were being committed exclusively by white males, I'd be decrying them publicly and shouting from the mountain tops how very ashamed I am. Why is it wrong for me to do the same thing in this case?

because of statements like these:

You can call me racist all day long. The fact is when I'm walking down the street at night, and see a group of (black) "youths" in front of me, I'm gonna go a different way--because I see the recent trends in the news realistically for what they are. You can chose to keep walking because you aren't a racist. Then when you get beat down, stomped out, mugged, and hospitalized--you can call me a racist again when I say "told you so".

and this statement where you compare black people to "pit-bulls"

Sure...you can probably tell me all about pit bulls that make great family pets too, or maybe the poodle that viciously attacked someone... but I'm not gonna let my kids pet the random pitbull that wanders into my neighborhood... it's common sense.

Oh and you mustn't forget...

It's not poverty (even if that is a part of it--poor whites don't act like this). It's not slavery (there hasn't been slaves for hundreds of years). The problem is racial. Blacks have smaller brains, lower IQ's, thicker skulls, differing skeletal structure, lower impulse control, more aggression, and a higher propensity to violence.

I mean, I've met some racist folks in my lifetime, but damn you take the cake. I've never seen so much ignorance spew out of one person (besides our former president bush, and maybe the special kids at my school that we all try to be nice to). The bottom line is; you're a racist. And no, I'm not defending black people out of guilt because I'm white, or because it's the "politically-correct" thing to do. I'm black, eighteen, and offended at the ridiculous assertions that you've made today (ya know the ones where ya said that black teenagers are generally violent, stupid, ignorant, and undesirable). But there isn't really much more for us to say to one another seeing as you've already made a complete ass of yourself. So I'm gonna take my black, ignorant ass in my room and finish reading this 800 page book.

reply to post by peck420


It's okay man. This dude is a bigot and you're attempting to talk some sense into him

Originally posted by kaiode1


I mean, I've met some racist folks in my lifetime, but damn you take the cake. I've never seen so much ignorance spew out of one person (besides our former president bush, and maybe the special kids at my school that we all try to be nice to). The bottom line is; you're a racist. And no, I'm not defending black people out of guilt because I'm white, or because it's the "politically-correct" thing to do. I'm black, eighteen, and offended at the ridiculous assertions that you've made today (ya know the ones where ya said that black teenagers are generally violent, stupid, ignorant, and undesirable). But there isn't really much more for us to say to one another seeing as you've already made a complete ass of yourself. So I'm gonna take my black, ignorant ass in my room and finish reading this 800 page book.

edit on 28-6-2011 by kaiode1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-6-2011 by kaiode1 because: (no reason given)

Agreed, fellow ATSer. MiloNickels does come off as quite the jerk, especially with that last sentence.

reply to post by MiloNickels

It's not poverty (even if that is a part of it--poor whites don't act like this). It's not slavery (there hasn't been slaves for hundreds of years). The problem is racial. Blacks have smaller brains, lower IQ's, thicker skulls, differing skeletal structure, lower impulse control, more aggression, and a higher propensity to violence.

I don't mind pulling a Godwin and saying you are a Nazi.

You do know your bullcrap conclusions stem from eugenics ploys and propaganda from the 2nd world war, researched and made by Nazi Germany. and some of it was thought up by slave owners even before that?

I mean wow, way to put yourself forward as the racist you are! How does it feel to be living in the past? Did you know that time is going to be moving forward exponentially? You'll practically turn to dust in front of your own eyes!

Originally posted by MiloNickels

It disgusts me that, by simply discussing the realities of the world, I am so quickly labeled a RACIST (apparently the most evil thing anyone can be). As if calling me a racist, somehow negates the facts. If these acts were being committed exclusively by white males, I'd be decrying them publicly and shouting from the mountain tops how very ashamed I am. Why is it wrong for me to do the same thing in this case? I'm not condemning the color, I'm condemning the acts (and pointing out that keep being perpetrated by that color).

You sir are wrong and are too (censored) to realize it. You are generalizing and basically saying all blacks are violent. You do not seem to understand that it is these certain blacks....and they do not represent the entire race. It is like saying that the Klu Klux Klan is the representatives of the white people.

Every race has it's stupid and violent people but it also has it's share of good ones. Your will disagree but your statement on the size of their brains and intellectuals abilities are blatant racism at it's best. You cry when someone calls you racist...well stop making generalized statement about an entire race and focus on the few who are actually doing this.

The OP opened a thread about race...when it was a few youths(who also do not represent the entire youth generation) and not only that the story may not even be true and then has not even commented on her thread. She basically trolled this site...start a topic that would gain flags from her fellow racists and never even bothered to post again to defend her thoughts when they were questioned. She just was looking for attention and flags.


It is also fair to bring up the past as that is what affects today's people, some people just cannot let go of the past. Some whites in the past acted the way these youth did and even acted out their violence...now they are older or their spawn come on here, see that this is happening back to their fellow whites ...they do not enjoy it and will come on here declaring it a travesty ...well how many Klan members and racists have gotten away with a crime in the past when it concerned violence against colors?

What about crimes against colors where the white perpetrator gets a light sentence and same crime committed against white person, the color gets a harsh sentence. Those are also the facts....same is also for the rich and poor.

reply to post by MiloNickels

I'm talking about the recent reality of urban America, where (black) "youths" are acting like violent, lawless savages--on a rapidly increasing scale and frequency. I challenge you to find me a news story from the last decade where white mobs have acted like this--random racially motivated violence. For every news story you can find from the last DECADE... I will find you 10 similar stories of blacks doing this from the last 6 months.

Can you deny there is a real problem and there is a strong racial component?

You're catching a lot of flak here with your assertions, but don't you wonder about "what" might be "behind" this "recent reality in urban America"?

On page one, muzzleflash hit this one on the head, IMO. Someone, somewhere, is manipulating things. Maybe go back and read the post, you might find something of value.

So, assuming you are correct, that blacks are becoming more and more violent, as you put it, there is a "rapidly increasing scale and frequency".

Do you have a "theory" that I missed here, as to why exactly things are heating up? Yes, I see you believe that blacks have genetic characteristics that make them prone to this sort of thing, but what exactly accounts for this upsurge then?

Can we have it both ways? Can we say that blacks, or any other group, has "always" been a certain way, and then complain about how things have "recently" (as in only the last decade, according to your posts) gotten really bad?

Assuming that what you're saying is true, that things are getting rapidly worse, doesn't it almost make more sense that "someone", perhaps someone with something to gain by inciting violence, and ensuring continued instability, doesn't it make more sense that blacks (in this case) are possibly being used, to push some agenda?

There was some evidence that the Los Angeles riots of 1993 possibly involved the CIA. Having been in the drug business for a long time now, it made sense that they had (long ago) infiltrated the gangs, who are heavily used to deliver the "product", so-to-speak. Apparently, perhaps as an "experiment", these infiltrators were called upon to fan some serious flames.

Somewhere, someone may have asked the question: "How long would it take to incite a violent riot, given the deployment of our assets? How bad could it get, would lives be taken, how many? Could we 'focus' violence, inflict damage on targeted areas?"

I'm not sure it takes a lot of imagination here, but probably someone on the other side of that conversation joked about the "upside" too: "How many of these gangsters will end up in jail for a good long while when it's all over?" Answer: "Who cares? Let's do it! We'll learn a lot, and there's no downside!"

Now, multiply this diabolical situation in ALL the big cities where there is a critical mass of a young black population, that is almost by default, connected to gangs, at least beneath a certain socio-economic level.

Whether blacks, or Mexicans, or the other usual groups are, or are not, more violent "naturally", may be entirely beside the point. If someone has an established network that effectively "shepherds" segments of these groups (such as the gangs), then all you have to do is add a vicious media, who is also part of the plan, to push whatever agenda is being pushed.

Something people should really think about. This may not be fantasy, it may be exactly what is going on (in spite of this particular case being mostly bogus, since things didn't likely happen the way PartyGirl's article said.)

JR

reply to post by JR MacBeth


It isn't that big of a deal in the long run. I know it isn't polite to say, but as legal/illegal Hispanic immigrants move across the country they either push out or quietly wipe out African American's. It makes me wonder if the reason behind these flash mobs is to create popular disdain for African American's? So people won't pay attention to the silent genocide of African Americans by Hispanic American's?

Because it does seem the current culture being hoisted upon most African American's is almost like a sad characterization of what people said would happen if segregation ended. Really makes one wonder what the heck is going on.

The most one should do is just buy gun's to defend themselves if you live in regions where this can happen and mind your own, let things attend to themselves. Maybe they will grow up, maybe they won't. Either way the problem they face is mostly internal and nothing we do can help them at all except giving them some time/room to sort it all out.