Question about white race based organizations

That sounds very racist. Are you a racist? I didn't think you were.

 

Trump is burrowed into your brain.

 

And doing so is the first step in improving relationships, opening communications.
And that doesn't mean trusting or believing them as many would like to portray it.
It its the old adage of keeping friends close- and your enemies closer, so you are more aware of what they are doing under wraps.

 

I am a pattern seeking organism like you are. I have sensed a pattern that the MSM is covering up. When one group is 60 times more likely to predate on another group, I am able to discern the bullshit. And yet here we are with the MSM gaslighting me about how dangerous and hateful whites are.



The MSM is overtly racist against my group. That overt racism is of course making people in my group more racist (or self hating). It also creates more black racists. This isn't rocket science. We have seen this throughout history.

Racism will ALWAYS rise when narratives are created to demonize and otherize groups of people unfairly. When that occurs, the otherized groups will ALWAYS begin looking for data to defend their group. Hell I lived my entire life unaware of any of the interracial stats because I did not care. I did not begin to care until the last five years or so when I became aware that whites were being targeted for hatred by the MSM. I do not hate blacks and in fact black conservatives are the people keeping me sane. If I have hatred in my heart, it is directed at the white elites who are creating hatred every second of every day by portraying the problems of all black people as the fault of white middle class folks.

You CANNOT modify white behavior to help blacks succeed. Instead of gaslighting, perhaps the elites could work with the inner city black community and come up with strategies that will improve their lives and prospects. The blame whitey strategy will solve nothing and ensure that the cycle continues... perhaps purposefully so.

 

But unlike your case, he doesn't live there.

 

You seem to be overreacting. Tell me this: do you believe we have a problem with racism in the US? Yes or no.

 

Well said!
And the biggest equivalent to felony right now is being committed by the MSM, that being the selective and intentional distortion of facts for the purpose of manipulation of public opinion and endorsing criminal political power schemes.

 

In your skull, rent free, three years and counting.

 

Do you have any actual debate arguments to offer that aren't ad hominems?

 

I have two degrees. You want me to reinvent the wheel? Really?

"The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.

It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognised as citizens in the several States, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else. And the personal rights and privileges guarantied to citizens of this new sovereignty were intended to embrace those only who were then members of the several State communities, or who should afterwards by birthright or otherwise become members, according to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded. It was the union of those who were at that time members of distinct and separate political communities into one political family, whose power, for certain specified purposes, was to extend over the whole territory of the United States. And it gave to each citizen rights and privileges outside of his State which he did not before possess, and placed him in every other State upon a perfect equality with its own citizens as to rights of person and rights of property; it made him a citizen of the United States.

In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument.

The first of these acts is the naturalization law, which was passed at the second session of the first Congress, March 26, 1790, and confines the right of becoming citizens 'to aliens being free white persons."

BEFORE you go off on a tangent about the excerpts quoted, I'd like to go back to the first part of Taney's ruling:

"It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or law-making power; to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the Constitution. The duty of the court is, to interpret the instrument they have framed, with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted." https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/60/393

It's easier to comment on the ruling than to read the mountains of legal authorities Taney relied on. But, go ahead.

 

It was merely an accurate observation.

 

It was merely an ad hominem.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/second-klan/509468/

 

What math did you use to come up with this?

Democrat math?

 

Actually it comes from the ruling of a Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court

 

Therein lies the rub. You have to watch the race be the victims of genocide or be called a supremacist. I don't want to reign supreme over anybody.

 

No. I figured this would be an off topic dumb ass post. I heard the figure during a PBS story once. I inquired about the "math" of it. A Georgia Bureau of Investigation agent said for every active member, the LEO community estimates 4 silent members that you don't see and 11 more sympathizers. Link? Nope. Not going to pursue it. If you want to research the KKK members who held public office and how many people voted for them (like the late Sen. Byrd), you may find out they were a major force. But, you got lost. This thread is not about the KKK. I'm in no mood to argue with you about since it don't mean squat to me. If you want to argue about it, find an appropriate thread. I apologize for answering your question and giving you the opportunity to try and hijack the thread with irrelevant B.S.

 

Why are you getting mad at me?

I'm not the one pulling numbers out of my a$$.

 

WTF???!!!!! It's now against forum rules to say "WHITE"????

This kind of absurdity is why I haven't been here much in the last year!

It's also against forum rules to circumvent the "curse corrector" but people do it like in post 118 right above.

 

Judged by what behaviors? By what character? Who defines what is good or bad behavior? And does one's ethnicity/race/values influence that? And what is the goal? To be declared the best conservative? The best American? No one is color blind unless they are actually blind. The first thing I see about anyone is their race. To say otherwise is a lie. It's silly to ignore one's ethnic and racial backgrounds in knowing who they are. To do so is a means of forcing conformity.

 

You're just the one going where I said I did not want to go with the thread - and I did not pull the numbers out of my ass. I heard it on a documentary many years ago and asked someone to explain it to me. Why is it even relevant to the OP? The KKK managed to elect 16 U.S. Senators and 11 governors in its heyday:

https://books.google.com/books?id=w...icans had a klan robe in their closet&f=false

That would indicate that the number I quoted was reasonably consistent with the way voters voted. It was a major force, but I fail to see what relevance it has to this thread except for something for you to run around crowing that it was more like 1 in 9 or 10 or 11 Americans supporting. It's freaking irrelevant since they are NOT doing a damn thing NOW to promote, defend, or protect the Posterity of the framers of the Constitution.

If there are no groups that promote white culture, my question has been answered. Groups that seek confrontation and offer nothing to enhance our culture are not helping us. Then, again, I'm the guy who started a church because none of our local churches have ministers that visit with the sick and elderly; do not help their parishioners find a job when they are down and out and do not offer counseling for those who need a friendly voice when their problems are overwhelming them.

 

Dude, simmer down.

The only lesson you should be taking away here is not to believe factoids you hear on documentaries, and then regurgitate them as if they're historical fact.

There were not 13 million Klan robes in American closets in the 1920s. The very idea is ludicrous.

If such things are irrelevant, then don't bring them up in the first place.

 

Your asking me who defines what is good and bad behavior? I would say God defines that. Others might say its "fluid" and grey. What does that have to do with race? Are you saying some skin colors are bad and some good?

Forcing conformity? What the heck does that mean?

 

It's the opposite. Non-whites are given careful consideration of heritage (he is Chinese, she's African, they are Mexican, etc) .. whereas white is white no matter what the background.

 

I'll ignore your usual verbosity of trash talk and examine the validity of your statement in bold print...
Explain to me how a black person enslaved and treated like nothing more than an animal by a white person has a choice?
Explain to me how it's his own fault that he has been made a slave by a white person?
Explain to me why after the slaves were set free that it was their own fault they were grievously mistreated by white people?
Many of them murdered by white people for simply being black.