"Racism" is 100% natural, and is not evil. Homogenization is.

page: 22
59
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by petrus4
I wonder what the odds are, of the author of this thread, being a white male.

I'm just curious.


It's strange you should bring that up.

I had a look at race attacks in the multicultural city of Bradford in the UK.

What I discovered, after some calcualtions, was that a black person in Bradford was 3 times as likely, as an individual, to carry out a race attack while 'Asians' are 4 times as likely to carry out a race attack than a white person.

Most race attack victims `are white'

Wilipedia - Bradford Demogrphics

What is going on?

Why are Blacks and 'Asians' in Bradford x3 and x4, respectively, more likely to carry out a violent racist attack than a white person?

Why is that not the impression I get from the media?




posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Scope and a Beam
I understand what you mean I just feel that it's more of a total incompetence in the media in general of treating incidents equally without looking at the skin colour.


Kriss Donald was abducted by a gang of 'Asians' from a Glasgow street in 2004. His eyes were gouged out while alive. He was castrated while alive. He was set on fire and suffered 70% burns while alive.

Yet the media felt such an attack was not newsworthy.

You can blame the news black out on 'incompetence'. I however suspect that there is more to it than that.

For instance, five times as many white people are wounded in racist attacks (in the UK) as ethnic minorities.

BBC - Racism and race crime redefined
Wikipedia - UK Demographics

In other words, an ehtnic minority person in the UK is 35 times as likely, as an individual, to wound someone in a racially motivated attack as a white person is (15% of the UK population is some sort of minority, yet, using the BBC figures, as a group they carried out 20,000 racially motivated woundings, while 85% of the UK population is white British and carried 4,000 racially motivated woundings).

So a non white British person is 35 times as likely to wound someone in a racially motivated attack!

Wow.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 07:38 AM
link   
It is natural but what it often brings about called fear and hatred is the problem.

Simply look at what happened to the Native Americans....they were sequestered on "Reservations" with no way to feed themselves any longer....becoming reliant upon the Govt.

If we spent more time understanding that when it comes to our owners it matters not which Race we are.

We are all feeders to them and as to why the owners have a plan in place to reduce our numbers....

If people understood more about how we are being played like a fiddle and as to how the owners continue using Race to continually divide us our Nation wouldn't be in the trouble that it is now in.

Peace



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by nh_ee
 



I can see both sides of the issue. However, people don't seem to understand that racism is NOTHING MORE than an excuse to abuse people of differing ethnicity. Racism first began with the intolerance of dark-skinned people, and every instance of racism from that point has simply supported that principle that one particular race is better than one or more other races. White Supremacy, the Nazi regime, Malcom X...all of these were examples of racist supremacy.

And that's what it is: racist supremacy. Because every racist or group thereof has one or more races that they consider themselves better than.

Instead of looking at the benefits of (so-called) "unbiased and impartial" racism...look at how it will inevitably lead to the abuse and mistreatment of members of various races. While people may believe there is positive potential in racism, ask yourself: will it come to fruition? Or will human nature - that is to say, the need to dominate and control - dictate the perversion of such a principle?

There is no hope for racism, and no overall benefit. We have proved this time and again. What evidence do you have to that unfettered racism won't prove a monumental grievance?



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Yes, it happens on both sides of the fence because the native English people did a good job of teaching the generations how to hate.

Equally the ethnic minorities did a poor job of trying to integrate into British life (some, some families like my own made a contribution to society and we carry on doing so).

As someone mentioned earlier, it is one thing to discriminate, it's quite natural actually, but its another thing to vent racial hatred. I received this hatred most of my earlier life, with one incident that very nearly ended my life but thankfully I was in the right environment to grow up out of it and become a better person eventually.

But you have cases like Stephen Lawrence.

We are talking back before things like Black-on-White crime existed or was at the very least to far and few between to be noticed.

Stephen Lawrence was a victim of racial hatred, don't even try to think it was something else. It was a big thing, it shook many peoples lives, including my own and things were not the same for a while but at least he finally has some justice.

So in answer to the OP:

It's quite normal to be a bastard, we do it all the time here in the UK. We "Pick and Choose".

It's not normal (excuse my English) to be a c**t going around acting like a Neanderthal venting your hatred on one target because your whole personal life is pretty #ty.

I am so far from all that now though, and I am glad. My crowd of close personal friends come from all backgrounds and colours, and that leaves no room for any kind of prejudice.

Good Day.
edit on 14-1-2012 by old_god because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-1-2012 by old_god because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-1-2012 by old_god because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Starchild23
 


Sorry just to correct you, it was/is the Nation of Islam (a cult) that stigmatised white Americans as the devil. Malcom X separated himself from NOI for this reason (and many more), becoming a Sunni Muslim (the majority tolerant Muslims around the world)...which also led to his eventual death at the hands of NOI.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by old_god
reply to post by Starchild23
 


Sorry just to correct you, it was/is the Nation of Islam (a cult) that stigmatised white Americans as the devil. Malcom X separated himself from NOI for this reason (and many more), becoming a Sunni Muslim (the majority tolerant Muslims around the world)...which also led to his eventual death at the hands of NOI.


I appreciate the correction. My point still stands, however.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity

Originally posted by ButterCookie

Originally posted by intelligenthoodlum33
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


You came off very courteous and I appreciate that. With so much screaming being done around here it was a pleasure seeing someone disagree without being disagreeable, if that makes any sense. I asked about any other disagreements as a genuine way to share ideas as you seem to be levelheaded in your discussions. I too believe in ET's, by the way and wonder how they fit into our history.

Thanks for replying.



No problem!


When carefully examined, the DNA of humans is at least 96% a match with chimpanzees....but then we have that mysterious 4%, labeled 'mystery' DNA or 'junk' DNA. Primates never evolved into modern humans....we were quantum leaped...we haven't been here long enough to have evolved to our current state.

Your statement tho, is valid when you discussed how us humans don't embrace all of the cultures on our planet. I thought about that, and decided that maybe, just maybe, what we consider 'evil' will always be subjective....

for example: do we consider the lion who eats the lamb 'evil'? or is it just his nature?

something to ponder......

Question...what proof do you present that Modern Humans were a Quantum Leap in development?
I ask this since CroMagnon...the precurser to Homo Sapiens...were almost identical in what we look like. In fact...a person would probably not be able to pick out the one CroMagnon out of a line up of Homosapiens.

Split Infinity


Glad you asked!!

After finding mankind’s apes fossils dated back at least 25,000,000 years ago, new discoveries have placed hominid fossils in Africa dating 14,000,000 years ago. Comparing the two, it is calculated that the mills of evolution grind much, much slower than previously thought. For example, the first being considered to be truly man-like (called Advanced Australopithecus) existed in East Africa. It took another one million years to produce Homo erectus, or “upright human”. They were also called Neanderthal.

This species was very successful in creating different technologies that enabled them to adapt to their new surroundings and geography. Then roughly about 800,000 to 700,000 years ago there were obvious evolutionary type of changes taken place; their skulls began to precisely resemble those of modern humans. Not only had a leap in cultural technologies begin to exist, but also an advanced intelligence as well. This development became labeled the Cro-Magnon man.

This quantum leap in the hominid intelligence is not in line with the evolution of the Homo erectus. In other words, cavemen did not create advanced knowledge and technology out of thin air. Going at the original rate of evolution, mankind should still, in 2012, be in its Cro-Magnon stage. As the notable anthropologists and author Zechariah Sitchin suggested, “The appearance of modern man a mere 700,000 years after Homo Erectus and some 200,000 years before Neanderthal Man is absolutely implausible. It is also clear that Homo Sapiens (modern man) represent such an extreme departure from the slow evolutionary process that many of our features, such as the ability to speak, are totally unrelated to the earlier primates.” (Sitchin, 1976.)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by intelligenthoodlum33
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


I am reading your thread, "The case for Satan", right now with the replies....very interesting read.


Thanks!!

I think I presented a fair valid argument for Satan, who has never had his say, and was the victim of propaganda by the winner.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   
I agree, as well evil and maleficence, very natural to human race.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ButterCookie

Originally posted by SplitInfinity

Originally posted by ButterCookie

Originally posted by intelligenthoodlum33
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


You came off very courteous and I appreciate that. With so much screaming being done around here it was a pleasure seeing someone disagree without being disagreeable, if that makes any sense. I asked about any other disagreements as a genuine way to share ideas as you seem to be levelheaded in your discussions. I too believe in ET's, by the way and wonder how they fit into our history.

Thanks for replying.



No problem!


When carefully examined, the DNA of humans is at least 96% a match with chimpanzees....but then we have that mysterious 4%, labeled 'mystery' DNA or 'junk' DNA. Primates never evolved into modern humans....we were quantum leaped...we haven't been here long enough to have evolved to our current state.

Your statement tho, is valid when you discussed how us humans don't embrace all of the cultures on our planet. I thought about that, and decided that maybe, just maybe, what we consider 'evil' will always be subjective....

for example: do we consider the lion who eats the lamb 'evil'? or is it just his nature?

something to ponder......

Question...what proof do you present that Modern Humans were a Quantum Leap in development?
I ask this since CroMagnon...the precurser to Homo Sapiens...were almost identical in what we look like. In fact...a person would probably not be able to pick out the one CroMagnon out of a line up of Homosapiens.

Split Infinity


Glad you asked!!

After finding mankind’s apes fossils dated back at least 25,000,000 years ago, new discoveries have placed hominid fossils in Africa dating 14,000,000 years ago. Comparing the two, it is calculated that the mills of evolution grind much, much slower than previously thought. For example, the first being considered to be truly man-like (called Advanced Australopithecus) existed in East Africa. It took another one million years to produce Homo erectus, or “upright human”. They were also called Neanderthal.

This species was very successful in creating different technologies that enabled them to adapt to their new surroundings and geography. Then roughly about 800,000 to 700,000 years ago there were obvious evolutionary type of changes taken place; their skulls began to precisely resemble those of modern humans. Not only had a leap in cultural technologies begin to exist, but also an advanced intelligence as well. This development became labeled the Cro-Magnon man.

This quantum leap in the hominid intelligence is not in line with the evolution of the Homo erectus. In other words, cavemen did not create advanced knowledge and technology out of thin air. Going at the original rate of evolution, mankind should still, in 2012, be in its Cro-Magnon stage. As the notable anthropologists and author Zechariah Sitchin suggested, “The appearance of modern man a mere 700,000 years after Homo Erectus and some 200,000 years before Neanderthal Man is absolutely implausible. It is also clear that Homo Sapiens (modern man) represent such an extreme departure from the slow evolutionary process that many of our features, such as the ability to speak, are totally unrelated to the earlier primates.” (Sitchin, 1976.)




I apologize for continuing this off-topic discussion, but this completely blows my mind as a fan of evolution. For a while, I have suspect that evolution may not have been a purely natural process (I am a fan of Div-Intel guided evolution), but to have it confirmed like this is staggering.

Are you saying that man's so-called evolution was completely impossible?



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Correct which is why you never see a liontiger or a blue robin or an alligator that gives milk. And when eugenics is successfully messed with by mankind you get things like mules which look normal but are incomplete entities that cannot reproduce.
However man is man, there are not different species of man we are all man. SOOOOO, black skin, white skin, blond hair brown eyes tall skinny fat short are all variables that we are capable of. Like dogs if you will, you see big dogs and small dogs, black dogs and white dogs dogs with long hair and dogs with short hair and yet they are all dogs and we dont consider one dog as better than another. (well aside from those dog show people that is lol) Breeders want purity of bloodline for appearances but mixing a shepard and a collie will still get you a dog and that dog will be whole and will be able to reproduce .
The proof that races are irrevelant is in that fact alone. We can reproduce ourselves over and over again. Mixing of colors does not mess with the results you will still get man no matter what color the mother or father is. ( by man I mean human and not males )



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by karen61057
Correct which is why you never see a liontiger or a blue robin or an alligator that gives milk. And when eugenics is successfully messed with by mankind you get things like mules which look normal but are incomplete entities that cannot reproduce.
However man is man, there are not different species of man we are all man. SOOOOO, black skin, white skin, blond hair brown eyes tall skinny fat short are all variables that we are capable of. Like dogs if you will, you see big dogs and small dogs, black dogs and white dogs dogs with long hair and dogs with short hair and yet they are all dogs and we dont consider one dog as better than another. (well aside from those dog show people that is lol) Breeders want purity of bloodline for appearances but mixing a shepard and a collie will still get you a dog and that dog will be whole and will be able to reproduce .
The proof that races are irrevelant is in that fact alone. We can reproduce ourselves over and over again. Mixing of colors does not mess with the results you will still get man no matter what color the mother or father is. ( by man I mean human and not males )



Man's evolution debunked. Mind = BLOWN



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by old_god
Yes, it happens on both sides of the fence because the native English people did a good job of teaching the generations how to hate.

Equally the ethnic minorities did a poor job of trying to integrate into British life (some, some families like my own made a contribution to society and we carry on doing so).


(i) An 'Asian' in Bradford is 4 times as likely to make a racially motivated attack as a white person.

(iii) A black Bradford person is three times as likely to launch physcial racially motivated attack as a white person.

(iii) A person who is from an ethnic minority in the UK is 35 times more likely to wound someone in a racially motivated attack than a white person.

But according to you, 'native English people' teach other white people to hate while immigrants just do a bad job of integrating!

Wow.

Don't let the facts get in the way of your predjudices.



edit on 14-1-2012 by ollncasino because: fix formatting



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by NeoVain
Don´t even have to read your post to know this to be true.
S+F for having the balls to post it. Prepare to get hammered though.


Really? This is how you form opinions? You do not even need to read the information? And a star and a flag too eh!
While I agree this thread deserves a star and flag, I think maybe you should read the content before adopting the idea.
Anything else just makes you a Sheep



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   
What a well-written post. I've come to the same conclusion as you. I find that being proud in your culture is only considered "racist" if you're white. Has anyone else noticed this? It's perfectly fine to wear traditional African garb during Black History Month, and decorate your classroom with African trinkets and color schemes (several of my teachers throughout grade school did this). And just to clarify, I thoroughly enjoyed the cultural diversity, learning about the history of African peoples. It's perfectly fine to wear a Mexican-flag themed poncho and don a sombrero on Cinco de Mayo. All of these are fine and they should be. I'm not arguing against them. Unfortunately, the only time white people can celebrate being white is probably Saint Patrick's Day. And that still only represents one tiny island that counts for an extremely small percentage of what's considered "white".

Anyway, I believe Caucasians in America are slowly being phased out of existence. It may take a couple hundred years (if America and our society in general even lasts that long), but eventually everyone who has white ancestry will no longer be actually white. It's happened multiple times in my family. I have two cousins who are sisters, and they each have half-black/half-white children. My sister is married to a Mexican guy, and she's pregnant with another daughter. At least he treats her better than her ex-husband did, a white POS who walked out on her and her first daughter. Anyhow, my point is, whites are getting phased out, because when you mix light and dark, dark is more dominant. White genetic traits aren't as dominant as non-white traits, I guess.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   
You give too much credit to some of these savages. I understand what you mean. But I think there's a difference between someone expressing the problems with cultural identities being threatened and someone calling someone an unpleasant name, the n word for example.

I am half east Indian and half white/British. Despite this, when I was younger, I'd sometimes be called a 'paki' or a 'chink' by ignorant individuals. This is NOT acceptable no matter which way it's defended. We are all human and should have the brains to treat eachother with respect.

Again, I do understand and agree with you to an extent. But some 'racists' do not have your intelligence and do not think of the situation in as balanced a way as you do



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   
By the way, savage = people who are racist without using their brain. Not anybody here



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ButterCookie
Glad you asked!!

After finding mankind’s apes fossils dated back at least 25,000,000 years ago, new discoveries have placed hominid fossils in Africa dating 14,000,000 years ago. Comparing the two, it is calculated that the mills of evolution grind much, much slower than previously thought. For example, the first being considered to be truly man-like (called Advanced Australopithecus) existed in East Africa. It took another one million years to produce Homo erectus, or “upright human”. They were also called Neanderthal.

This species was very successful in creating different technologies that enabled them to adapt to their new surroundings and geography. Then roughly about 800,000 to 700,000 years ago there were obvious evolutionary type of changes taken place; their skulls began to precisely resemble those of modern humans. Not only had a leap in cultural technologies begin to exist, but also an advanced intelligence as well. This development became labeled the Cro-Magnon man.

This quantum leap in the hominid intelligence is not in line with the evolution of the Homo erectus. In other words, cavemen did not create advanced knowledge and technology out of thin air. Going at the original rate of evolution, mankind should still, in 2012, be in its Cro-Magnon stage. As the notable anthropologists and author Zechariah Sitchin suggested, “The appearance of modern man a mere 700,000 years after Homo Erectus and some 200,000 years before Neanderthal Man is absolutely implausible. It is also clear that Homo Sapiens (modern man) represent such an extreme departure from the slow evolutionary process that many of our features, such as the ability to speak, are totally unrelated to the earlier primates.” (Sitchin, 1976.)


No. Homo erectus is Homo erectus... which evolved into Homo heidelbergensis, which actually branched into 2 separate species: Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens. These two species are exclusive species that evolved separately, from the same ancestor. Homo heidelbergensis became isolated into two separate populations by the last glacial period, resulting in two different, but similar species.
edit on 1/14/2012 by OrphenFire because: fixed word



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ButterCookie

Originally posted by intelligenthoodlum33
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


I am reading your thread, "The case for Satan", right now with the replies....very interesting read.


Thanks!!

I think I presented a fair valid argument for Satan, who has never had his say, and was the victim of propaganda by the winner.


link please?





new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join