|
Post by Babylon Enigma on Apr 8, 2012 21:07:41 GMT -5
There is a misconception in society today of what is considered "white". You may be right moe, this isn't my feild of much interest but I do know that the media is now using the "hispanic" term as oppose to "white". Piers Morgan on CNN even told one of his guests that (and I'm paraphrasing) .. "this isn't white on black crime, the guy is hispanic, that's minority vs. minority". In N. American the term "white" is mis-used a lot. I have had people tell me that I'm not white, cause Eastern Europeans are a "different" white. wtf does that mean? I guess this was the response I got after calling people out on using the word "cracker" and/or other kinds of rhetoric. It's a little strange but I kind of do understand. White people in America who are a few generations old are a lot different than us Europeans who were born/raised/ in Europe and/or recently migrated to the Americas (first generation). You are right UZ, white= European. Not all Europeans look white either, but the vast majority do. White is racial, which means biological=blood. If a Swedish couple gives birth to child in China, the child is white, not Chinese. Confusing geography with biology is jewspeak, and meant to confuse. I think some American whites are part native Indian, which explains why they get so obese.
|
|
|
Post by Babylon Enigma on Apr 8, 2012 21:13:26 GMT -5
this is what he talks about. I remember now, he said something that the Slavs were pushed from the Balkan region into Western Europe in order to avoid persecution. Then centuries later ... (6AD) the majority came back, while many stayed. Saying that it was the Africans working for the semites .... That's nonesnese, jew slave traders and money lenders could not move into "barbarian" lands until Christian crussaders tamed the area with Christianity. In Poland, as soon as the land become Christian, coin currency is found archeology with jewish inscription. Greedy kings who wanted to centralise power brought Chrisitianity north of Danube, and the jewish finnaciers with them. Pagan Aryans would rise their battle axes and crush any jews that dared to extort them of money or property or turn them into slaves. Christianity says, turn the other cheek.
|
|
|
Post by Babylon Enigma on Apr 8, 2012 21:15:20 GMT -5
Some more dieversity videos, of lucky people getting enriched with diversity. ;D
This one is quite shocking, I don't recall the national media making a buzz about this at all.
|
|
|
Post by Babylon Enigma on Apr 8, 2012 21:16:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Babylon Enigma on Apr 8, 2012 21:17:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Babylon Enigma on Apr 8, 2012 21:18:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Babylon Enigma on Apr 8, 2012 21:19:27 GMT -5
Post-Trayvon diversity events.
|
|
|
Post by Babylon Enigma on Apr 8, 2012 21:21:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Babylon Enigma on Apr 8, 2012 21:33:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Babylon Enigma on Apr 8, 2012 21:34:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Babylon Enigma on Apr 8, 2012 21:36:39 GMT -5
Florida, same state as Trayvon, where 14 Trayvons are shot by some other Trayvons
|
|
|
Post by uz on Apr 10, 2012 17:58:07 GMT -5
You’re stating this is strictly based on one-factor, meaning that one-perspective on this can only be correct. The issues of race/color, culture and nationality are primitive concerns that are completely irrelevant in our reality. This is how the media relays this info through webs of non-sense implying always that there is a versus-factor, in this case; Black vs. White. The case of Trayvon Martin from beginning up to now exposes this atrocity. Now the media is playing it all down nonchalant, after brutalizing and exploiting a voice that is dead. Now what has this done? You’re showing examples of black on white crime not being nationally talked about and rising b/c of this Trayvon uproar; angry black mobs attacking defenseless white-people. You are correct, many black on white crimes don’t get talked about and neither do black on black crimes, there is a clear reason for this and I think it’s about dividing not about destroying the other.
There is an attack on European nations. Why is it so hard so become a UAE or Qatar citizen, but to get into the EU is so easy?Why is it that all the nations around the world that accept refugees from Africa and the middle-East are White nations? shouldn’t feel the need to ask these questions to find an answer; the main thing is to acknowledge that this phenomenon exists. What’s the solution? Revolution, war, democracy…… etc? Or maybe it has nothing to do with that, maybe what we need to learn from this is to strengthen our own foundation and not loose where we came from.
Your issues with diversity do not and cannot work in North America. The history and culture of “America” or “Western” is based on imposition from the beginning; when the Europeans first came here up to now and where we’re heading. Certain elements change in the game but the structure and motion always stay the same. The killing of culture and things that are natural is not up to them (this is something we should already expect); it’s up to us as individuals to hold on to. The more we complain about it, the more we loose hold of it. To say it’s a war on our biology and actually believe it, is a scary thing and is not part of any solution unless you’re going militia, into survivalist-mode and live off the grid. Given many people have already done this, foreseeing a dark near-future ahead. I don’t know what to make of it, on one-hand it’s paranoia on the other, it’s being ready-prepared. Either way, when shit hits the fan we’re all going to get fucked, this fuckery won’t see color, both whites and blacks are going to go down the shitter indiscriminately, and what are we going to do at this point. When the truth is plastered in front of everyone’s face? That both the white and black consciousnesses have been used as proxys’ against one another. This is the fact. For when we hit a time where the system no longer is able to sustain itself, when individuals must act on their own regard in order to survive, factors such as color/race and nationality will mean nothing. Character will by far (expecially at this point) stand out the most, and this is what counts.
|
|
|
Post by uz on Apr 10, 2012 18:27:33 GMT -5
You mentioned this guy earlier, here's some info I found. Prof. Tony Martin. Tony Martin (born in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, February 21, 1942) was an American professor of Africana Studies at Wellesley College who retired in June 2007 as professor emeritus after 34 years teaching at the Africana Studies Department where he was a founding member. A lecturer and prolific author of scholarly articles about Black History, primarily the Black Nationalist leader Marcus Garvey, his written works and statements about the involvement and responsibility of Jews in the American slave trade, which echo allegations made by the Nation of Islam, have been a source of ongoing controversy.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(professor)Dr. Martin’s thesis is that there is an anti-black invective which runs through the sacred rabbinic literature of Judaism. That is not to say that it runs through the literature of the bible because there is a distinction between the Hebrew literature and the rabbinic literature. There have been, since Dr. Martin’s speech, two major texts which have been issued by Judaic scholars. - The most notorious anti-black racist in Judaism happens to be Judaism’s most influential and revered sage, Moses Maimonides, who taught in his book “Guide of the Perplexed,” that blacks are subhuman. ironlight.wordpress.com/2010/06/09/dr-martin-speaks-on-the-jewish-role-in-the-slave-trade/The following passages are from Dr. Raphael's book Jews and Judaism in the United States: A Documentary History (New York: Behrman House, Inc., Pub, 1983), pp. 14, 23-25. "Jews also took an active part in the Dutch colonial slave trade; indeed, the bylaws of the Recife and Mauricia congregations (1648) included an imposta (Jewish tax) of five soldos for each Negro slave a Brazilian Jew purchased from the West Indies Company. Slave auctions were postponed if they fell on a Jewish holiday. In Curacao in the seventeenth century, as well as in the British colonies of Barbados and Jamaica in the eighteenth century, Jewish merchants played a major role in the slave trade. In fact, in all the American colonies, whether French (Martinique), British, or Dutch, Jewish merchants frequently dominated. . "This was no less true on the North American mainland, where during the eighteenth century Jews participated in the 'triangular trade' that brought slaves from Africa to the West Indies and there exchanged them for molasses, which in turn was taken to New England and converted into rum for sale in Africa. Isaac Da Costa of Charleston in the 1750's, David Franks of Philadelphia in the 1760's, and Aaron Lopez of Newport in the late 1760's and early 1770's dominated Jewish slave trading on the American continent." ------------------------- Slave trading was a major feature of Jewish economic life in Surinam which as a major stopping-off point in the triangular trade. Both North American and Caribbean Jews played a key role in this commerce: records of a slave sale in 1707 reveal that the ten largest Jewish purchasers (10,400 guilders) spent more than 25 percent of the total funds (38,605 guilders) exchanged. - The Jews were the recipients of favorable charters containing generous economic privileges granted by the Dutch West Indies Company in Amsterdam. The economic life of the Jewish community of Curacao revolved around ownership of sugar plantations and marketing of sugar, the importing of manufactured goods, and a heavy involvement in the slave trade, within a decade of their arrival, Jews owned 80 percent of the Curacao plantations. The strength of the Jewish trade lay in connections in Western Europe as well as ownership of the ships used in commerce. While Jews carried on an active trade with French and English colonies in the Caribbean, their principal market was the Spanish Main (today Venezuela and Colombia). www.rense.com/general69/invo.htm
|
|
|
Post by hellboy87 on Apr 11, 2012 7:45:51 GMT -5
The story died down because, zimmerman was attacked (witnesses to confirm this), he had a big cut behind his head(view the enhanced police station video), MSNBC was caught red-handed forging(editing) the zimmerman 911 call to make it seem like zimmerman called Trayvon suspicoius because he's black. The blatant media bias coverage, showing a photo of mean looking zimmerman and a cute harmless Trayvon from his childhood years, lion pubs look cute when they are pre-mature too, I don't see how anyone cannot notice the manipulation. Did you get this from an article in the examiner?!
|
|
|
Post by uz on Apr 11, 2012 11:45:06 GMT -5
The story died down because, zimmerman was attacked (witnesses to confirm this), he had a big cut behind his head(view the enhanced police station video), MSNBC was caught red-handed forging(editing) the zimmerman 911 call to make it seem like zimmerman called Trayvon suspicoius because he's black. The blatant media bias coverage, showing a photo of mean looking zimmerman and a cute harmless Trayvon from his childhood years, lion pubs look cute when they are pre-mature too, I don't see how anyone cannot notice the manipulation. Did you get this from an article in the examiner?! Now you just sound stupid. Protests over Trayvon Martin's death sweep across America as anonymous witness claims teen attacked his killer George Zimmerman before fatal shooting www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2119615/Trayvon-Martin-case-Anonymous-witness-claims-teen-attacked-killer-George-Zimmerman-fatal-shooting.htmljust look up witness for Zimmerman, a bunch of results will come up. ABC’s Enhanced Video Shows Cuts on Zimmerman’s Headwww.eurweb.com/2012/04/abcs-enhanced-video-shows-cuts-on-zimmermans-head/This too is an easy search. NBC Fires Producer of Misleading Zimmerman TapeThe action came in the wake of an internal investigation by NBC News into the production of the segment, which strung together audio clips in such a way that made George Zimmerman’s shooting of Mr. Martin sound racially motivated. Ever since the Feb. 26 shooting, there has been a continuing debate about whether race was a factor in the incident. mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/nbc-fires-producer-of-misleading-zimmerman-tape/NBC edits Zimmerman's 911 tapewww.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-watch/2012/04/09/nbc-edits-zimmermans-911-tapeGlenn Garvin: NBC's 'dirty editing' of 911 call in Trayvon Martin casewww.modbee.com/2012/04/11/2152799/glenn-garvin-nbcs-dirty-editing.htmlOld photos shape perceptions in Trayvon Martin caseWEST PALM BEACH, FLA. — When he was shot, Trayvon Martin was not the baby-faced boy in the photo that has been on front pages across the country. And George Zimmerman wasn’t the beefy-looking figure in the widely published mug shot.
--- The most widely seen picture of Martin, released by his family, was evidently taken a few years ago and shows a smiling, round-cheeked youngster in a red T-shirt. But at his death, Martin was 17, about 6 feet tall and, according to his family’s attorney, about 140 pounds.
==== Zimmerman, 28, is best known from a 7-year-old booking photo of an apparently heavyset figure with an imposing stare, pierced ear and facial hair, the orange collar of his jail uniform visible. The picture, released by police following the deadly shooting, was taken after Zimmerman’s 2005 arrest on an assault-on-an-officer charge that was dropped. www.tennessean.com/article/20120331/NEWS08/303310065/Old-photos-shape-perceptions-in-Trayvon-Martin-caseDon't be lazy. Everything talked about in this thread about this case is verifiable, I won't be doing your homework again.
|
|
|
Post by mystery on Apr 11, 2012 16:58:24 GMT -5
The ZOG will shut down this thread and arrest you guys..
beware
|
|
|
Post by hellboy87 on Apr 12, 2012 4:02:29 GMT -5
I haven't been paying much attention to this case.
I don't know who is guilty.Because of my prejudice,I hope to boy is the one.Based on your(UZ) posts,it seems like the boy is.
|
|
|
Post by uz on Apr 12, 2012 13:24:37 GMT -5
I haven't been paying much attention to this case. I don't know who is guilty.Because of my prejudice,I hope to boy is the one.Based on your(UZ) posts,it seems like the boy is. I don't know what happened, I am just pointing out straight media bias which works in all ways in all sectors. It was never about race. Would we be talking about it if the victim was a "white punk"? Think about it. Or think if Zimmerman was Black, would the national media give it a 20second time slot? That kid should not have died it looks to me that it was a street brawl that crossed the line somewhere, I think Zimmerman should stand trial for manslaughter (they're charging him with 2ND |Degree murder= MAX life in prison), I don't think he intended for that kid to be killed or even hurt. The race fiasco died down hard, and now I believe it's going to turn into attacking the Stand Your Ground Law. The Right to defend yourself. In England if a persons' home is invaded/being burglarized it is ILLEGAL to "stand your ground", defend yourself/family. You have to retreat and call the police. If you beat a burglar who broke into your house you can face jail time and land yourself with a criminal record. What do you think of that?
|
|
|
Post by hellboy87 on Apr 13, 2012 3:12:33 GMT -5
The race fiasco died down hard, and now I believe it's going to turn into attacking the Stand Your Ground Law. The Right to defend yourself. In England if a persons' home is invaded/being burglarized it is ILLEGAL to "stand your ground", defend yourself/family. You have to retreat and call the police. If you beat a burglar who broke into your house you can face jail time and land yourself with a criminal record. What do you think of that? I think people SHOULD have the right to defend themselves. But you know,it can get tricky.The defender could have purposely gone overboard with it.For example,the defender could have just harmed the burglar to the point that he couldn't go on to do what he was doing.But the defender could have harmed him even further out of revenge.
|
|
|
Post by uz on Apr 13, 2012 10:38:35 GMT -5
The race fiasco died down hard, and now I believe it's going to turn into attacking the Stand Your Ground Law. The Right to defend yourself. In England if a persons' home is invaded/being burglarized it is ILLEGAL to "stand your ground", defend yourself/family. You have to retreat and call the police. If you beat a burglar who broke into your house you can face jail time and land yourself with a criminal record. What do you think of that? I think people SHOULD have the right to defend themselves. But you know,it can get tricky.The defender could have purposely gone overboard with it.For example,the defender could have just harmed the burglar to the point that he couldn't go on to do what he was doing.But the defender could have harmed him even further out of revenge. Or maybe the defender out of panic continuously beat the burglar with a baseball bat till he died. Is this murder/manslaughter, or is this just the consequence of someone being put in a situation where/when they have to defend themselves. If the burglar gets bain damage or becomes an invalid, is the home-owner responsible? The way I see it; when the uninvited forces himself into someones' home, they are entering at their own risk.
|
|