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

Originally posted by JR MacBeth
reply to post by daskakik

 

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

I've hit the books but they didn't convince me. Even if jews don't consider themselves white the public does and we are the ones who they are sopposedly brainwashing so it doesn't help them in any way to make whites look bad.

reply to post by daskakik

Yeah, a lot of white immigrants came as virtual slaves (indentured labor), and not all of them were welcome at various times.
Just thinking of the Sacco&Vanzetti Trial around 1921, and the anti-Catholic, anti-Italian sentiment once widespread in the US.

reply to post by daskakik

Even if jews don't consider themselves white the public does and we are the ones who they are sopposedly brainwashing so it doesn't help them in any way to make whites look bad.

First, it's OK to capitalize, the proper term is Jew. You can even say it out loud (as long as no one is around to hear you).

Next time you're out taking a stroll, take a look around, and see if the brainwashing is working. See that white girl walking with her man? Oh, he's black? Just like they portray on TV? Interesting. Not saying it's good, or bad, but it is one thing that has increased dramatically in the past few decades, and seems to correlate with the media agenda.

Here's the important part. A century from now, there may not be a whole lot of "white" people left, if the scenario I mentioned above keeps going. Some might applaud the eradication of "race" (the Jews certainly seem to). But note well, the Jews themselves, with their ironclad identity, will still be here, long after their "competition" has disappeared, or perhaps "melted" into those others that the Jews don't seem to fear as much.

The next time you hit the books, start out with the idea that there might actually be a kind of "war" going on. Once that idea sets in, the things you read about might look different. This war is more of a cultural one, IMO. White, Christian, European you might say, on one side, and the Jews, and all who they can get to line up behind them, on the other. They want to tear down the old, European order, and replace it with their own. A secular one. One where might makes right. One where the one with the most money gets to practically be god.

Come to think of it, it seems like they're winning.

JR

reply to post by JR MacBeth

I actually saw interacial couples before they where common on the screen or TV.

Hollywood has been putting out films for a 100 years. For 70-75 years, even with Jews at the helm, they offered to the public mostly images of strong, honest, white christian men that stood up for what was right. Was that part of the war?

If the Jews who feel they are not white are still here a 100 years from know then to those that are not white there will still be white people.

They don't fear the others? Tell that to an Arab.

I believe there is a war between the elites and the rest of the world. The elites are of many races. halfoldman posted that a popular author states:

the black and minority elites are long since a part of the system

I have to disagree with your implication that the white, christian, european order was anything but one of might makes right.

reply to post by daskakik

Well, in socialist theory every society is like that.
It moves up from tribalism to feudalism, and then in modernism to capitalism - and then the "revolution".
There was a lot of truth to this, the more a society advances to capitalism the more people it leaves behind.
But ultimately, the socialist revolutions we got didn't work.
In fact, they led straight back to capitalism.

reply to post by halfoldman


I agree, all of them. But, in JR's opinion it would seem that he believes only the one the Jews want to implement is like this or that Europe never went through that.

1964: The de-colonilization of Tanzania, the Congo and Zanzibar.
Once beautiful cities, returned to rubble.
From "Africa Addio" (please see full film):

Pictures from white farmers in Zimbabwe - handed over as the breadbasket and "jewel" of Africa.


Famine in Zimababwe 2008:

A few decades back we still had the "white man's burden" in Africa.
There was some injustice, but nobody went hungry, and there were good hospitals.
Now, everything the white man once achieved is sold as broken and oppressive.
All the people who think colonialism and white feudalism was so bad are going to catch a nightmarish wake-up when they see the alternative.
So just carry on putting down white people ... we know the alternative.
To be blunt, the pre-colonial societies were hell on earth, and that's exactly what they will return to.

reply to post by daskakik

I believe there is a war between the elites and the rest of the world. The elites are of many races. halfoldman posted that a popular author states:

the black and minority elites are long since a part of the system


I have to disagree with your implication that the white, christian, european order was anything but one of might makes right.

Well, we can agree to a point. The "elites" may always turn out to be an enemy of humanity, and certainly some from every "race" will find themselves within their ranks, but they are still not the "real" enemy. Lots of threads I'm sure have speculated on exactly who the "PTB" are, which is more to the point, but while TPTB are elite, all the elite are not the PTB.

This of course is probably too much for this particular thread, but I suppose I can address your other point regarding European culture.

I think you'll find that the notion of "might makes right" is something that has been very consistent throughout most of history, regardless of where, and when we may be speaking of.

But within the Western tradition, there was an evolution that dates all the way back to Hammurabi's code. From kings who were virtual gods wielding absolute power, came eventually what we usually call "democracy". Along the way, we had the classic Greek and Roman versions of it, and later Magna Charta, and still later a virtually omnipotent Church authority that also found itself within bounds, more and more respecting the "rights" of the common man.

I hope that didn't come off as too much of a history lesson, but the point is, compared to other world cultures, Europe led the way, even if at the same time her empires conquered the world. In a way, Europe may not have been able to conquer, as she did, if freedoms had not grown in accord with her growing global responsibility.

Compare this growth of freedom to other cultures. In China, the emperor was worshipped, and in Japan, people who are still alive recall their "divine" emperor asking his subjects to voluntarily sacrifice their lives. India, Africa (I will defer to halfholdman here), the Islamic world. Take an honest look at history, and realize what a precious gift Europe has given the world.

And yet, it was such a fragile thing, this new freedom, that too many "natural" forces might come in to play to finally reverse the trend. The pendulum is swinging back the other way, as TPTB deploy the many means to ensure that this "threat" remains in check.

I would not be too quick to write off Europe's smashing success at subjugating the world as a result of mere might, or even things like opportunity exploited, or superior technology. What they had in their favor was "superior" PEOPLE. And I don't necessarily mean that in any "racial" sense. It could be, but we don't even need to appeal to that. The fact is, European "culture", which was "Christian" (for lack of a better name), imbued their people with the characteristics that lent themselves quite well to conquest.

For better or worse, this European "culture", squeezed through the American "lens" if you will, did in fact become the defacto GLOBAL culture. Even from a Darwinian perspective, this culture is now so dominant, it seems there is little that could stop it. Even the Chinese, and East Indians, and the Islamic world...They all want to be part of this global culture, even if they have unique ways of tweaking it to their particular liking.

This global Westernized culture isn't anything one can stop, but it is perhaps something that can be manipulated. And this is exactly what we see, as we all march on to a NWO that got it's initial push from viril European roots.

As anyone can see, who believes that TPTB desire to control the world, anything European must be played down, if the intention is to craft something truly "global". And why not? If there was such strength when this monster was born, anyone wanting control would not want to allow that kind of strength to continue, perhaps one day rising up to challenge that which they have worked so hard for.

Well, that's long enough! I would encourage anyone to look past the surface. Dump your politically correct history books. There is more than meets the eye, in all that we're surrounded with.

JR

Originally posted by JR MacBeth
I think you'll find that the notion of "might makes right" is something that has been very consistent throughout most of history, regardless of where, and when we may be speaking of.

Right so why say it's something the Jews want to implement when it is pretty much universal.

I would not be too quick to write off Europe's smashing success at subjugating the world as a result of mere might, or even things like opportunity exploited, or superior technology. What they had in their favor was "superior" PEOPLE. And I don't necessarily mean that in any "racial" sense. It could be, but we don't even need to appeal to that. The fact is, European "culture", which was "Christian" (for lack of a better name), imbued their people with the characteristics that lent themselves quite well to conquest.

The mentality that they had the god given right to rule over the savages? Something else that you are blaming the Jews of but it seems that many are guilty of the same.

For better or worse, this European "culture", squeezed through the American "lens" if you will, did in fact become the defacto GLOBAL culture.

No argument there.

As anyone can see, who believes that TPTB desire to control the world, anything European must be played down, if the intention is to craft something truly "global". And why not?

Didn't you just say a couple lines above that the European culture is the Global culture and now your saying that that anything European must be played down? Which is it? Can't have it both ways.

Well, that's long enough! I would encourage anyone to look past the surface. Dump your politically correct history books. There is more than meets the eye, in all that we're surrounded with.

Funny I would say that it is this globalization that started in Europe that is pushing the PC history books. How else are you gonna control the whole world if you can't get the people to be polite with one another.

African women in my mind are always somewhat sturdy.
In our country they were always 'big", and even the thinnest ladies had curves.
So it was so strange to me when they started flooding in from Zimbabwe (officially 4 million) - to see these women, thin as a planks.
To see people with hunger making their skin taught over their skulls.
It was frightening.
And sometimes I wonder, how far away are we from that?

People talk easily about how horrible colonialism was, and how dreadful the churches...
Talk is cheap.
What crops can they grow? What farming do they have?
Who do they feed every day?
I'd like to see the proof where anyone but white people and their technology feeds the current population.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by JR MacBeth
I think you'll find that the notion of "might makes right" is something that has been very consistent throughout most of history, regardless of where, and when we may be speaking of.

Right so why say it's something the Jews want to implement when it is pretty much universal.

I would not be too quick to write off Europe's smashing success at subjugating the world as a result of mere might, or even things like opportunity exploited, or superior technology. What they had in their favor was "superior" PEOPLE. And I don't necessarily mean that in any "racial" sense. It could be, but we don't even need to appeal to that. The fact is, European "culture", which was "Christian" (for lack of a better name), imbued their people with the characteristics that lent themselves quite well to conquest.

The mentality that they had the god given right to rule over the savages? Something else that you are blaming the Jews of but it seems that many are guilty of the same.

For better or worse, this European "culture", squeezed through the American "lens" if you will, did in fact become the defacto GLOBAL culture.

No argument there.

As anyone can see, who believes that TPTB desire to control the world, anything European must be played down, if the intention is to craft something truly "global". And why not?

Didn't you just say a couple lines above that the European culture is the Global culture and now your saying that that anything European must be played down? Which is it? Can't have it both ways.

Well, that's long enough! I would encourage anyone to look past the surface. Dump your politically correct history books. There is more than meets the eye, in all that we're surrounded with.

Funny I would say that it is this globalization that started in Europe that is pushing the PC history books. How else are you gonna control the whole world if you can't get the people to be polite with one another.

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

Daskakik, the post you are quoting me from doesn't mention Jews.

Previously, I did suggest that they were playing a role that might eventually reverse important progress that has been made when it comes to freedom. This would amount to a sort of devolution, but I'm not sure we want to hang too much blame on them. They're being used, like we all are.

I don't suppose you recall a few posts ago, some general agreement that it was the "elite" that were more likely our common enemy, not this or that particular group. You might want to stay with that for now, until you're better able to identify that "elite". Clearly, they're not all Jews.

Not sure where you're getting this nonsense about god given rights to "rule over savages", but throw that book away. That's PC nonsense, yet again. And you've plugged the Jews back in here again too? Double check the post you're responding to. I didn't mention Jews, at all. Hmmm.

As far as the global culture, it's looking like you're being a bit argumentative here, which is fine I suppose, but willful ignorance isn't all that great. Of course, this may be a more "advanced" topic yet, it may be that you still need to build a foundation before you can grasp the ideas.

If you read what I wrote, you would see that I took the time to share my thoughts on the genesis of the global culture. In other words, it can help to know where a thing came from, how it developed, etc. We may agree that this thing is now here, but it came from somewhere.

Now, that being the obvious case, that the global culture sprang from somewhere, has had it's own evolution, this still may not say much about where it's headed. This isn't trying to have your cake and eat it too!

You say "you can't have it both ways". That's being a bit simple really, since we're talking about something that can be made into god knows what, given enough time. Could be, this culture will leave it's best within an emerging culture that will be primarily Chinese. Why not? Just because this global culture began in Europe, doesn't mean it's going to "end" looking anything like how it began.

But to trip over the little details is to miss the big picture. Which was, that it's likely that this global culture is being "herded" in a direction, that elements of "intention" are being applied, and by the looks of it, some of the formerly "European" atributes, will be shed in favor of other, non-European ones.

If this was all there was to it, perhaps no big deal! BUT, the entire context was about FREEDOM. It grew slow, such a long road, and now, it is being shoved aside, and perhaps replaced with things that are certainly more cosmopolitan, and agreeable to a majority. But then, this "majority" has hardly known freedom, like Europeans and Americans have.

JR

As a general rule,non-whites fail at self government....too much passion and meaness...before you start howling,take a look at any government that non-whites have had control of more than 6 months....

reply to post by halfoldman

To be blunt, the pre-colonial societies were hell on earth, and that's exactly what they will return to.

I for one appreciate someone being blunt. You are aware of the reality, and you tell it like it is.

Yet, we have so many now infected by the PC versions of history, that the truth may soon be lost.

They also shout the loudest, and repeat the same things so often, that they will eventually be true, due to repetition.

When it comes to colonization, why shouldn't we look at the good, as well as the bad? In the interests of telling the whole truth, we should stand up to those who just regurgitate the nonsense.

Sadly, your prophesy about these societies returning to the hell that they were, is quite apparent when you look at places like Africa. Wherever the white man has retreated from, the story is the same. The natives descend rather quickly, and only to the extent that they have accepted, and internalized civilizing qualities, can they maintain peace at all.

"Peace". Here is a word heard often enough, but there is so little. And yet, we all know that it something that comes with a price. The normal course is that discipline, laws, and enforcement, need to come into play. This is what the colonial regimes did so well, in comparison to the insanity of numerous tribes and chieftains striving for dominance.

Submission to the LAW, whether king, or serf, THIS is what the world needed, and was given, through the white man, as he spread out upon the globe.

Historically, we had the Pax Romana to look (up) to. Yes, it worked. And yes, the modern version of it, with the British Empire serving as the best example, and now this not-so-wonderful Pax Americana. But the principle is there, and could work much better if there wasn't this constant pull downward.

Let's recognize the good, from wherever it comes. If Europe gave the world much good, then it is foolish to turn our backs on it. Likewise, if there is bad, then let it be cast aside. But to cast the baby out with the bathwater? This is what is being done. And there are sometimes severe consequences.

JR

reply to post by JR MacBeth

That actual post doesn't mention Jews but the previous post said:

...while some from every "race" will find themselves within their ranks, but they are still not the "real" enemy...

So I thought you meant that the Jews were the real enemy since that was what the post previous to that said:

This war is more of a cultural one, IMO. White, Christian, European you might say, on one side, and the Jews, and all who they can get to line up behind them, on the other.

Now about god given right to rule the savages you said:

I would not be too quick to write off Europe's smashing success at subjugating the world as a result of mere might, or even things like opportunity exploited, or superior technology. What they had in their favor was "superior" PEOPLE. And I don't necessarily mean that in any "racial" sense. It could be, but we don't even need to appeal to that. The fact is, European "culture", which was "Christian" (for lack of a better name), imbued their people with the characteristics that lent themselves quite well to conquest.

I don't know what you mean by PC nonsense. Europeans conquered the Americas, Australia and parts of Africa and Asia. Probably over half of the planet. You say it was because it's people were imbued with caracteristics that lent themselves well to conquest. The most important caracteristic when conquering others is ruthlessness this is helped by seeing those that are to be conquered as less than human. I am not PCing or sugar coating anything that is the way the world works. The places where they could not get a foot hold were the places where they were met with equal ruthlessness.

If this was all there was to it, perhaps no big deal! BUT, the entire context was about FREEDOM. It grew slow, such a long road, and now, it is being shoved aside, and perhaps replaced with things that are certainly more cosmopolitan, and agreeable to a majority. But then, this "majority" has hardly known freedom, like Europeans and Americans have.

I believe that this european culture that you speak of isn't about freedom but of the illusion of freedom. It began in europe and the power still resides in europe. The great american experiment was to see if they could control the herd making them think they were free. It worked and now they are shipping it world wide.

Personally I don't really care much one way or the other but I don't like exaggerations posted as facts like those in the OP.

reply to post by daskakik

I believe that this european culture that you speak of isn't about freedom but of the illusion of freedom. It began in europe and the power still resides in europe. The great american experiment was to see if they could control the herd making them think they were free. It worked and now they are shipping it world wide.

I think we probably agree more than you think.

Of course the power still resides in Europe, the real power hasn't been relinquished, it has been preserved primarily within the ranks of the royals and the nobility. The Jews play a special role because they have been selected based on characteristics no one else has. They have a strong "racial" identity, a long-established supra-national presence, and their recent history seems to suggest that they have been effectively deployed.

As far as the "great American experiment", I completely agree that this is what it was, but it may not be merely that. Plus, I would add a very important ingredient. More precisely, we might prefer to call it the great masonic American experiment". Perhaps this is going too far afield for this thread, but you brought it up.

Regarding the illusory aspects of freedom, here were getting into philosophy, but I understand what you're saying, and I also largely agree. But I believe we have to be careful when looking at these things, perhaps we need to see some gray now and again, this isn't black and white.

The freedom that has sprung up amongst humanity is certainly not pure illusion. Here we sit at our computers, a world of information at our command. We read, whereas only a few centuries ago, very few could read. Science has flourished, productively replacing centuries of superstition. The power of religion, while still considerable, no longer seems indispensable for the control of society. Some of us might consider the possibility that true progress really has been made.

But herein lies the rub, if you will. This great experiment perhaps went a bit too far. Adding to this was an internet that apparently even the godlike PTB didn't see coming. Science does indeed "threaten" the entire paradigm of want, at every new invention. The reality is that the time could come when the PTB can't quite keep the lid on anymore.

I don't think they'll let us get that far myself. Draconian measures can be brought forth at any time, and considering the massive bloodshed of the previous century, they have shown us a resolve that should give us pause. But we should never imagine that the struggle is futile. Yes, they have the edge, but even so, they continue to miscalculate, and it could be that even if we fail, their own hubris will eventually defeat them.

JR

reply to post by daskakik

Some good points to the polemics here.
Of course my views on this come from the African experience, and I cannot speak about colonialism in every country, because in many of them a mixed population in any case obscures the kind of former colonist/colonized discourse we still find in SA and some other places
I would say colonialism was at its most successful and swift where the colonizers used existing ruthlessness.
For example, both the Aztecs and Incas had powerful native enemies, and the conquistadors were first seen as liberators from their cruelty.
Both Cortez and Pizarro took native concubines and quickly mixed with the local royalty, and much of the conquest is increasingly seen as an indigenous civil war prompted by the Spanish.
Even in North America the Indian Wars were won with native scouts and soldiers from rival tribes, and the same is true of Australia and other countries.
This is still obscured, and the political correct versions only see whites vs. native conflict.
Of course there were all kinds of conflicts between various European and indigenous nations, and pan-Indianism, or African nationalism only developed in the 20th century.
Then there were various kinds of colonialism. In Africa only southern Africa was settled to various degrees, the rest was run by a tiny administration.

In Zimbabwe an off-shoot of the Zulu tribe called the Matabele conquered the land from the Shona in the 19th century. Since independence the Shona had their revenge by killing over 20, 000 Matabeles in the 1980s (under the name of rival liberation movements).
The world and the black diaspora said nothing.
Black dictators are beyond criticism if they supported the liberation movements - no matter how much they were funded by socialist tyrannies, no matter whether they used terrorism, starvation, genocide and mutilation.
In 2000 Robert Mugabe received a resounding welcome in Harlem.
In 2007 he received a standing ovation in Lusaka at a summit of the African Development Community.
These black apologists were only concerned that he hurt white people, they couldn't care less about their black brothers.

Today liberals pay lip service to a US or white hegemony.
This is a joke.
The post-colonial dictators and idealogues have the bloodiest hegemony and satanic club on the planet, and they used the colonial system just as it once used them.

PS. Satirical song on Robert Mugabe.
Of course he's just the latest symbol, and how the "liberation" club closes ranks with anti-white rhetoric.
Without this support, and the vast mind-control amongst the Western intelligentsia, he (and many others like him) would be long gone, and millions of African people wouldn't have to suffer so badly.

reply to post by JR MacBeth


I see that we do agree quite a bit. There's just a few things that I think have become wrongly ingrained when talking about TPTB. One is the idea that the Jews are behind it. I know that many believe that there is the one jewish family that controls the world. I could buy into that but I also believe that they will not think twice about using other Jews as cannon fodder. Just like there are elite american families that have no problem sending american citizens to their death while they make money for them being there. They have no loyalty to anyone but themselves.

This brings me to the next thing which is the OP. Now the OP is different than what halfoldman has been posting about. The OP is talking about MSM (mainly in the US) and I think it's weak. Halfoldman is talking about a bold, in your face anti-white movement.

Now colonization probably started off very bloody and then the good things about it started to be enjoyed by the conquered. Like you posted earlier it only fair to look at both the good and the bad. Depending on what part of colonization you focus on it will look good or bad. This can be used by leaders to rally support. Political manipulation as usual.

As far as freedom I can't help but think of The Matrix. The fact that the "real world" was just another level of the matrix. The thing that stands out to me is that the "real world" was less appealing while being "connected" was nicer. Now I grew up in the US and have since relocated in a third world country so this stood out when I saw the movie because life in the US (connected) was nicer but living in the third world (real world) feels rougher but there is more freedom. Sure it's more dangerous but that's what the "trading freedom for security" quote is all about but in the end we are all still under control.

Sitting at a computer with a world of information at your fingertips is great but I don't think they feel threatened. They control more important things and they know that they can always starve part of the worlds population then offer them food to deal with any other part. That is why keeping people divided is important to them. Unfortunately it is so easy to do.

reply to post by daskakik

From my view I don't see an endless conspiracy or hegemony behind everything.
The Jews have race and class differences between themselves, and here they have many professional people speaking out against corruption. If the slaughter of whites ever comes (or "Uhuru") the Ashkenazim would be killed with the rest of us.
That still doesn't mean they identify with us, it just means the killers won't know the difference, and the blacks are pro-Palestinian (although they are rather pro-Palestinian liberation movements, which are pretty rotten and phony, and Wiki-leaks recently revealed how they actually work with Zionism in organizing war).

I'd rather say if in Africa there is a bloodthirsty dictator, or corrupt party they must be taken at face-value.
They are evil people.
What's the point of going into intellectual ideas of "US hegemonies" or painting wicked monsters as "good" just because they are anti-Western (basically anti-white)?
That's the crap that students are fed.
An evil man is an evil man in 2011.
There is NO excuse.
And the people who support evil men are morally bankrupt at worst, or living in glass houses at best.