Thread: Are whites racially oppressed?

One more reason why cultural diversity has a net negative impact on this country. Some of us can see it as clearly as day.

Originally Posted by AmericanElizabeth

sacredrage, I can agree, too many "white apologists" will willingly roll over and basically allow anything, so long as it makes them "feel good" and they think they can appease and weasel into the winning side. In my eyes, they are simply cowards, unwilling to step up to the plate and speak out.

VERY well put. They are cowards.....They are just trying to be "cool' and "fit in." I don't give a damn about being cool and fitting in if it involves the decline of an entire people of this earth. I am not affraid of their fear tactics, because I know they are factually incorrect which is why they resort to those tactics. If they were correct, they would not resort to name calling and intimidation -- they would just let the best ideas win. My sister insinuated that I was racist simply for caring about white demographic decline. I asked her how she would feel if Pugs (her dog's breed) were going extinct. I think it made her think, if just a little bit. You know things have gotten turned upside down if its more acceptable to care about a dog breed than a people.

My sister has also said things like "Most people don't agree with you." I don't care if my views are unpopular, I only care if they are correct or not. I will not censor myself from speaking the truth simply because most don't agree with me (or are too cowardy to agree). That is what cowards do, and I am not a coward. I don't even care if I am called a racist. The word has lost all meaning to me because of its overuse and mis-use. It is also only applicable to whites apparantly, which means the word itself carries anti-white undertones. If anyone calls you a racist, DO NOT try to convice them that you are not. That is exactly what they want you to do, as it puts you on the defensive, and detracts from the main topic. just ask them to define the word. They can not.....at least without exposing massive hypocrisy, and their own anti-white bias.

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

Originally Posted by AmericanElizabeth

sacredrage, I can agree, too many "white apologists" will willingly roll over and basically allow anything, so long as it makes them "feel good" and they think they can appease and weasel into the winning side. In my eyes, they are simply cowards, unwilling to step up to the plate and speak out.

VERY well put. They are cowards.....They are just trying to be "cool' and "fit in." I don't give a damn about being cool and fitting in if it involves the decline of an entire people of this earth. I am not affraid of their fear tactics, because I know they are factually incorrect which is why they resort to those tactics. If they were correct, they would not resort to name calling and intimidation -- they would just let the best ideas win. My sister insinuated that I was racist simply for caring about white demographic decline. I asked her how she would feel if Pugs (her dog's breed) were going extinct. I think it made her think, if just a little bit. You know things have gotten turned upside down if its more acceptable to care about a dog breed than a people.

My sister has also said things like "Most people don't agree with you." I don't care if my views are unpopular, I only care if they are correct or not. I will not censor myself from speaking the truth simply because most don't agree with me (or are too cowardy to agree). That is what cowards do, and I am not a coward. I don't even care if I am called a racist. The word has lost all meaning to me because of its overuse and mis-use. It is also only applicable to whites apparantly, which means the word itself carries anti-white undertones. If anyone calls you a racist, DO NOT try to convice them that you are not. That is exactly what they want you to do, as it puts you on the defensive, and detracts from the main topic. just ask them to define the word. They can not.....at least without exposing massive hypocrisy, and their own anti-white bias.

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner here!

Notice that with dog breeds, people will like "Labradoodles" but don't advocate getting rid of either purebred Poodles or Labrador Retrievers as distinct breeds in their entirety? But with humanity it's considered "progress" to totally wipe out ethnic groups...the poor Native Americans in the U.S. are down to only 2.5 mil now out of all their distinct nationalities combined...I can only imagine how painful it would be to be the last of your nationality or total ethnic group because everyone else died off and leaving you with noone else left on earth who totally understands where you're coming from culturally or linguistically.... Nightmarish in my opinion. and they want whites to be next. I hope both ethnic groups will save themselves.

And I'm tired of all whites worldwide being lumped together as "guilty" including the ones who weren't around to take part in evils of the past nor participate in current-day evils...blame the ACTUALLY GUILTY ones ONLY, please!

Amen BearFlagRepublic!! Sacredrage, the issue with First Nations people is the uniqueness of each people. Have you ever read up on or seen videos (some were shown on OPB even) about where each "band" may have come from, and who actually may have been "first" to this continent? It is not as simple as they once assumed, and they are finding that a good portion of the "native" groups carry the Haplogroup X dna, which is only in European peoples..... There is a lot more out there that has made the native cultures what they are. I would hate to see this eliminated, once lost, we will lose some valuable pieces of this continents history.

http://www.pbs.org/saf/1406/features/dna2.htm

How did haplogroup X get to North America? Some X has been found in Mongolia, but it's definitely not common in modern Asia. It can, however, be found in about 4 percent of the present day European population. Genetic anthropologists suggest that the presence of X in North America points to an early migration westward from Europe. By looking at the various mutations within haplogroup X, scientists are able to use that "genetic clock" to estimate when those early Europeans would have arrived. Depending on how large a group they assume headed west, they come up with two time ranges - either between 36,000 and 23,000 years ago or between 17,000 and 12,000 years ago.

As well, discovery of the Clovis points, in which the technique to make were known to match those found in caves of coastal France (Solutrea). These points were found at soil levels at a depth before the arrival of Bering migrations happened.

I also found this interesting when you think of how the early European settlers thought when they came here. They felt they were facing savage peoples who were completely alien, but really, they were essentially face to face with "their own kind" and saying this...had they been successful in eliminating all tribes and their cultures and tongues, they would have eliminated so much information about human history altogether. Thank God they did not.

Originally Posted by stevetheroofer

• Fox talk-show host Glenn Beck led a march on Washington (attended primarily by white people) to "restore honor," and once called President Obama a racist with a "deep-seated hatred for white people and white culture." He later said he regretted making that comment.

google: deep-seated hatred for white people and white culture

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/bet ... te-culture


[Be prepared to want to throw up. Some of the lies in it are quite spectacular.]

AmericanElizabeth wrote:

Amen BearFlagRepublic!! Sacredrage, the issue with First Nations people is the uniqueness of each people. Have you ever read up on or seen videos (some were shown on OPB even) about where each "band" may have come from, and who actually may have been "first" to this continent?

Exacty, until I started following the leaf, I knew nothing about the Mandan Tribe, White Maddoc or so called White Indians.

MADOC, a Welsh prince, is reputed to have sailed across the Atlantic and reached America in 1170, over 300 years before Columbus. Myth or legend it was this Welsh prince and his first settlement that Queen Elizabeth used to in her arguement with Spain on the right of English to occupy settlements in the new world.

More and more research and evidence is being found to prove that this is not a legend, but a fact.

http://www.madoc1170.com/evidence_2.html

I feel everyone, whether full-blooded or mixed-ethnicity has a right to live in peace without someone trying to take away their civil rights or force another culture and language on them. What the Euro invaders did to the Native Americans was morally wrong. But what Latino invaders want to do to whites is wrong too.

Originally Posted by sacredrage

I feel everyone, whether full-blooded or mixed-ethnicity has a right to live in peace without someone trying to take away their civil rights or force another culture and language on them. What the Euro invaders did to the Native Americans was morally wrong. But what Latino invaders want to do to whites is wrong too.

I don't necessarily agree that what the first Europeans did was wrong accept for killing natives other than in self-defense. What irks me is when what happened in the past is used as an excuse to justify this invasion today. Those people of the past are all dead now and we have immigration laws just as every other country does today.