New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

If You are using Racism as a political tool...You are a racist(poll to be taken)

Should the P.J. have guidelines for the use of racism as a political tool

  • Yes

    Votes: 1 7.7%
  • No

    Votes: 12 92.3%

  • Total voters
    13
It's not that we don't take the racists to school, it's that practically speaking we can't always afford to waste time debating with them and conceding the legitimacy of their mindset when that becomes a distraction from stopping them from putting their racist ideas into practice.
The Born Rich Hate and Fear All Other White People

We should do the same to you feralphiles. Why give you an advantage? We should concentrate on what class directs your race treason and turns it into law. Once the guilty fear they will be blamed, they have the power to end this Reconstruction II.
 
I'd say it was more aimed at the French. The United States banned the trans-Atlantic slave trade the next year, in 1808, and cooperated with the British to interdict slave ships.
Why Anti-Racism Has Snob Value

What actually provoked the Revolutionary War was the Royal Proclamation of 1763, forbidding Whites to settle west of the coastal states. That was the first proof that aristocrats, who'd be losers without their father's rank, are the enemy of all other White classes. Because of cradle-to-grave mind control, we still don't get it.
 
It wasn't until the advent of the Internet that I ever heard this term "straw man" and logically, it's only used when the person using it has no legitimate argument. There is a difference between analogies and making up scenarios. In the instant case:

You make up excuses for black people with all manner of hogwash and when someone draws a realistic analogy, you're crying straw man. My example would be Holland. The white people there are surrounded by water... nothing but water. Holland is a land literally beat back from the sea. Those people had no geographic advantage.

Fifty paragraphs of your bloviating and puffery cannot change the bottom line. Here is an example of YOUR straw man argument:

"What evidence do you have suggesting the likelihood that areas not explored by Europeans prior to the 14th century or sometimes as late as the 19th century were populated by anyone other than Blacks?"

As soon as I give you the answer to that, you are going to be all over them, challenging their competency, etc. You will have to attack them rather than study them. You are promoting racism, not understanding so you have to win. You will have to challenge my sources, but for chit and giggles, I'll give you some references for material to study:

http://www.librarything.com/author/capteraymond

Pick a few Capt titles and good luck.

Echoes of a Prehistoric Horror

Blacks, American Indians, aborigines, Pacific Islanders, Southeast Asians, and Arabs are the Missing Links still alive long past their evolutionary expiration date, which always gives some grace time. But their time is running out if they continue to threaten the superior races. It is best for them if they retreat back into subservience, but unfit predators never know what is best for them.
 

EatTheRich

President
It wasn't until the advent of the Internet that I ever heard this term "straw man" and logically, it's only used when the person using it has no legitimate argument. There is a difference between analogies and making up scenarios. In the instant case:

You make up excuses for black people with all manner of hogwash and when someone draws a realistic analogy, you're crying straw man. My example would be Holland. The white people there are surrounded by water... nothing but water. Holland is a land literally beat back from the sea. Those people had no geographic advantage.

Fifty paragraphs of your bloviating and puffery cannot change the bottom line. Here is an example of YOUR straw man argument:

"What evidence do you have suggesting the likelihood that areas not explored by Europeans prior to the 14th century or sometimes as late as the 19th century were populated by anyone other than Blacks?"

As soon as I give you the answer to that, you are going to be all over them, challenging their competency, etc. You will have to attack them rather than study them. You are promoting racism, not understanding so you have to win. You will have to challenge my sources, but for chit and giggles, I'll give you some references for material to study:

http://www.librarything.com/author/capteraymond

Pick a few Capt titles and good luck.

Holland is not in fact surrounded by nothing but water. For example, it shares a land border with Zealand. By the time the Hollanders started reclaiming the land from the sea (which had risen since their ancestors' original settlement)--the 10th century according to Wikipedia--they'd already had millennia of technological advancement boosted by favorable geographic factors behind them. And they continued to benefit from easy mixing with the other nations of Europe, rather than the enforced isolationism prevalent in much of Africa.

You're right, if you link to a crank promoting crank pseudoscience, I'll challenge his competency. Note that my sources, on the other hand, are well-regarded academic histories.

Who is E. Raymond Capt? A promoter of British-Israelism, the discredited hypothesis that the British are the descendants of the Biblical Joseph, and a pseudo-archaeologist who attributes most of the works mainstream archaeology attributes to (most pertinently here) aboriginal Africans (e.g., the pyramids) to this purported British-Israelite race. British-Israelism is at the root of Christian Identity doctrine, which in turn provides a religious cloak for white-supremacist boneheads such as the Aryan Nations, and Capt's books are often sold at Aryan Nations gatherings. Is that where you became familiar with him?
 

EatTheRich

President
Considering your DEMOCRAT PARTY created American slavery and continues to foster it, I sense a bit of hypocrisy here. And considering that we have a half black president whose Muslim ancestors sold blacks into slavery, the hypocrisy is piling up.
1. I'm not a Democrat, as I've pointed out many, many times.
2. American slavery predates all American political parties including the Democratic Party which was founded in 1828.
3. Please explain how the Democratic Party continues to foster slavery.
4. I don't understand whose hypocrisy you think is being exposed by the trivia about the president's family.

Obama CREATED ISIS. And he gave them billions of dollars of American military hardware.
No he didn't.

Islam is NOT a religion of peace. The Koran preaches DEATH TO INFIDELS. And your buddies ISIS claim that if they were in charge of America today, the African slave trade would still be in business. They act like they're proud of it.
1. This has essentially nothing to do with the comment it is purportedly in response to, which was about your attributing to the Nation of Islam, a non-Sunni sect based in the United States, the acts of Sunni Muslims in Africa.
2. The Koran also specifically demands that the lives of Christians and Jews be spared unless they attack Muslims.
3. The Bible preaches death to infidels as well.
4. ISIS are not my buddies.
5. Citation needed on the claim.

Just admit you were wrong and STFU. Admit you took a shot in the dark and it came up empty.
Which is why I was able to cite evidence.

Great Britain outlawed slavery 200 years ago. That precedes your wonderful Dahomeans.
Dahomey was one of the last countries to have slavery. It still had slavery when it was destroyed by the French in 1904. You may have noticed that I was talking about the city-state of Abeokeuta, and how it was founded as a refuge against slave traders from places like Dahomey. Or do all African countries look alike to you?

It's true that Great Britain outlawed the slave trade in 1807, before Abeokeuta was founded. But it did not in fact outlaw slavery throughout its empire until 1833--183 years ago, for the record--after Abeokeuta did. Slavery was abolished in the French Empire--due to the Haitian slave revolt led by Toussaint L'Ouverture--in 1793.
 

EatTheRich

President
OLD SCHOOL: Manifest Destiny // NEW AGE: Many Fuzzy Dust Bunnies

If Blacks had evolved into being intelligent beings, they would have left their hostile environment. In fact, they tried to but were driven back by more intelligent races. In they had managed to do so because the better land was unoccupied, like the Indians, they wouldn't have developed it and would have gained no advantage when superior races discovered it.

Other unevolved races were driven into literally No Man's Land as criminal fugitives. Since your Suicide of the West ideology doesn't believe in free discussion, you have to automatically dismiss this refutation of the geographical excuse in order to champion the unevolved races and dismiss genetic superiority. The reason you take the side of evolution's sore losers is that you are a bitter misfit in any society that has a future.
1. Blacks did develop Africa. In fact, early development in Africa and the attainment of a high standard of living by Stone Age standards was one of the things retarding further technological progress. People didn't want change that would threaten the stability of a well-functioning social system.
2. Blacks also left Africa, including in relatively recent history (after the evolution of different skin colors), and developed advanced civilizations in places like the Middle East.
3. The human species has some of the lowest genetic diversity in the animal kingdom. Certainly in the realm of intelligence, there is much more deviation within races than observable difference among races. Which is why people of all races have done well when placed in a position by society to do so.
4. The archaeological record is clear--the geographical dispersal of the species long precedes the development of warfare, the development of diverging levels of technology among Stone Age cultures, and the mutations creating lighter skin in some European, Asian, and Native American populations.
 

EatTheRich

President
The Born Rich Hate and Fear All Other White People

We should do the same to you feralphiles. Why give you an advantage? We should concentrate on what class directs your race treason and turns it into law. Once the guilty fear they will be blamed, they have the power to end this Reconstruction II.
It's pretty clear in our day and age that racism has always been bankrolled by the bourgeoisie and anti-racism has always been the popular movement of the proletariat. And that in the long run anti-racism is winning and racism is losing.
 

EatTheRich

President
Why Anti-Racism Has Snob Value

What actually provoked the Revolutionary War was the Royal Proclamation of 1763, forbidding Whites to settle west of the coastal states. That was the first proof that aristocrats, who'd be losers without their father's rank, are the enemy of all other White classes. Because of cradle-to-grave mind control, we still don't get it.
The planter class in the American South--the most aristocratic element in the colonies--had long been at odds with the British ruling class, in part because of their desire to spread their slave system west of the Appalachians. They were supported by farmers who wanted new homesteads. But they were unable to defeat the British until the merchants and mechanics centered in Boston had their own grievances against the British, which had little to do with the Proclamation of 1763 and much to do with taxation and civil liberties, and allied with them.

This alliance, which came at the expense of the Indian masses, was also harmful to the incipient working class, in that it paved the way for the planters to take political power out of the originally triumphant merchants' hands, pitting whites and Blacks against each other forcefully, repressing free speech and the other liberties won in the revolution, and forcing the masses to resort to civil war to remove them from power.

Both British and New England capital at the time tended to oppose American expansion, not only because the wars of expansion came at the expense of taxpayers and blood, or because regularized, peaceful relations with Indian nations was better for commerce, but also (especially in New England's case) because expansion tended to open up new fields for slavery and increase the economic and political power of the slaveowners.

Aristocrats are the enemies of all other classes, without regard to race. In fact, despite whatever temporary alliances may arise, all classes are the enemies of all other classes. White workers and Black workers share far more common interests than white workers and white bourgeois. Appeals to race are appeals for cooperation across class lines, which in practice means workers falling in line behind the class enemy.
 

EatTheRich

President
Echoes of a Prehistoric Horror

Blacks, American Indians, aborigines, Pacific Islanders, Southeast Asians, and Arabs are the Missing Links still alive long past their evolutionary expiration date, which always gives some grace time. But their time is running out if they continue to threaten the superior races. It is best for them if they retreat back into subservience, but unfit predators never know what is best for them.
http://www.timwise.org/2013/08/whats-the-matter-with-white-people-a-modest-call-for-personal-responsibility/ <--- Your master race doing what it does best.
 

TheResister

Council Member
Holland is not in fact surrounded by nothing but water. For example, it shares a land border with Zealand. By the time the Hollanders started reclaiming the land from the sea (which had risen since their ancestors' original settlement)--the 10th century according to Wikipedia--they'd already had millennia of technological advancement boosted by favorable geographic factors behind them. And they continued to benefit from easy mixing with the other nations of Europe, rather than the enforced isolationism prevalent in much of Africa.

You're right, if you link to a crank promoting crank pseudoscience, I'll challenge his competency. Note that my sources, on the other hand, are well-regarded academic histories.

Who is E. Raymond Capt? A promoter of British-Israelism, the discredited hypothesis that the British are the descendants of the Biblical Joseph, and a pseudo-archaeologist who attributes most of the works mainstream archaeology attributes to (most pertinently here) aboriginal Africans (e.g., the pyramids) to this purported British-Israelite race. British-Israelism is at the root of Christian Identity doctrine, which in turn provides a religious cloak for white-supremacist boneheads such as the Aryan Nations, and Capt's books are often sold at Aryan Nations gatherings. Is that where you became familiar with him?
I became familiar with Capt while in college and, honestly, did not give it much thought as to his religious views. We can go all day long, attacking each other and trying to prove we are superior in thinking, reasoning skills, etc. but your side is just as racist as any other.

It's just that you don't want to admit it. In another generation George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison will be black in the history books. Everybody that disagrees with your black supremacist viewpoint will be regarded as animals. Whites will be an anomaly - most circus freaks.

The fact that you would lie and claim that Capt has ever been discredited shows your bias. I read some of the reviews of Capt's material. Historians and archaeologists disagreed with his religious views, but found his work to be solid. You like to have a shit-storm over this because if I mention one aspect of anyone, you do that little guilt by association thing and make us two peas in a pod. That wasn't popular when Joseph McCarthy used the same technique. Now you employ a right wing technique to attempt to discredit me because you can't compete honestly with me. I don't have to go line by line to expose your lies. Your tactics are doing you in all on their own.
 
1. Blacks did develop Africa. In fact, early development in Africa and the attainment of a high standard of living by Stone Age standards was one of the things retarding further technological progress. People didn't want change that would threaten the stability of a well-functioning social system.
2. Blacks also left Africa, including in relatively recent history (after the evolution of different skin colors), and developed advanced civilizations in places like the Middle East.
3. The human species has some of the lowest genetic diversity in the animal kingdom. Certainly in the realm of intelligence, there is much more deviation within races than observable difference among races. Which is why people of all races have done well when placed in a position by society to do so.
4. The archaeological record is clear--the geographical dispersal of the species long precedes the development of warfare, the development of diverging levels of technology among Stone Age cultures, and the mutations creating lighter skin in some European, Asian, and Native American populations.
The Call of the Wild

I believe in retroactive history, that is, the behavior today explains past events. Blacks turn every neighborhood they take over into a junkyard. Since they destroy what was built by Whites, their ancestors and relatives must be responsible for the anarchy and poverty in Africa because they can't build anything themselves.

Their mooching today proves that they had to be kept in chains or at zero entitlements during Jim Crow in order to get them to work and contribute to society. The fact that some contribute today is not a criterion to judge them by; it is the fact that subtracting their damage from that leaves a negative value. This is made even worse by the feralphile attitude of those who do play by the rules supporting those who don't, indicating that their DNA drives them to want to be savage predators. If they support BLM, they have the drive to crime but are afraid to let go and get punished.
 
It's pretty clear in our day and age that racism has always been bankrolled by the bourgeoisie and anti-racism has always been the popular movement of the proletariat.
Reds Are Bluebloods, and Always Have Been

The hereditary plutocracy is far outnumbered by other Whites and feels the danger it is in if people wake up. They recognize that Blacks are too dumb, selfish, and undisciplined to be a threat. You're really being a sucker if you think otherwise.

And you know perfectly well that those born in the White working class have no use for Blacks. Claiming that they are brainwashed to think so is an insult to their intelligence and ability to form their own opinions, which reveals your snobbery once again. Your fraternity's real reason for abandoning them is that they didn't kowtow to pseudo-intellectual Marxists trying to take them over. Out of resentment over that, the New Left decided to abandon the working class and support the underclass, plus every other unfit group such as vindictive rejected feminists, LGBT, PETA, and the Unabomber cult. They all came out of the University, an obsolete aristocratic institution specifically designed for preppies living off an allowance.
 
The planter class in the American South--the most aristocratic element in the colonies--had long been at odds with the British ruling class, in part because of their desire to spread their slave system west of the Appalachians. They were supported by farmers who wanted new homesteads. But they were unable to defeat the British until the merchants and mechanics centered in Boston had their own grievances against the British, which had little to do with the Proclamation of 1763 and much to do with taxation and civil liberties, and allied with them.


Aristocrats are the enemies of all other classes, without regard to race. In fact, despite whatever temporary alliances may arise, all classes are the enemies of all other classes. White workers and Black workers share far more common interests than white workers and white bourgeois. Appeals to race are appeals for cooperation across class lines, which in practice means workers falling in line behind the class enemy.
The Specious Spectrum

You want to believe racial pride and expansion wasn't the main factor in the War of Independence because you want to believe that anti-racism will prevail in the New Age. You've got things backwards and upside down; race-card dealers are frauds working for the Conservatives as agent provocateurs. They purposely insult, disgust, and threaten the majority and then claim they hate the Conservatives (their own fathers, if the truth could be told and believed). This is a trick to drive the majority into the hands of the hereditary Capitalist class. Liberals don't have minds of their own; they are totally driven by born and bred class instincts, which drive them to present this preppy puppet show.
 

EatTheRich

President
I became familiar with Capt while in college and, honestly, did not give it much thought as to his religious views. We can go all day long, attacking each other and trying to prove we are superior in thinking, reasoning skills, etc. but your side is just as racist as any other.

It's just that you don't want to admit it. In another generation George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison will be black in the history books. Everybody that disagrees with your black supremacist viewpoint will be regarded as animals. Whites will be an anomaly - most circus freaks.

The fact that you would lie and claim that Capt has ever been discredited shows your bias. I read some of the reviews of Capt's material. Historians and archaeologists disagreed with his religious views, but found his work to be solid. You like to have a shit-storm over this because if I mention one aspect of anyone, you do that little guilt by association thing and make us two peas in a pod. That wasn't popular when Joseph McCarthy used the same technique. Now you employ a right wing technique to attempt to discredit me because you can't compete honestly with me. I don't have to go line by line to expose your lies. Your tactics are doing you in all on their own.
You view the world through a white-supremacist lens. Anyone who opposes white supremacy, you conclude, must then be a Black supremacist. The very idea that anyone could promote a fraternity of workers of all races is so outside the box that you can't even conceive of it.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R2QVLH1E8LJX33/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0934666016 <-- Did you happen to see this review of Capt's work?
 

EatTheRich

President
The Call of the Wild

I believe in retroactive history, that is, the behavior today explains past events. Blacks turn every neighborhood they take over into a junkyard. Since they destroy what was built by Whites, their ancestors and relatives must be responsible for the anarchy and poverty in Africa because they can't build anything themselves.

Their mooching today proves that they had to be kept in chains or at zero entitlements during Jim Crow in order to get them to work and contribute to society. The fact that some contribute today is not a criterion to judge them by; it is the fact that subtracting their damage from that leaves a negative value. This is made even worse by the feralphile attitude of those who do play by the rules supporting those who don't, indicating that their DNA drives them to want to be savage predators. If they support BLM, they have the drive to crime but are afraid to let go and get punished.
1. Blacks turned the Greenwood district in Tulsa into a wealthy and prosperous neighborhood--the wealthiest African-American neighborhood in the country. It was looted and destroyed, and hundreds of its residents killed, by a white pogrom. So much for turning every neighborhood they take over into a junkyard.
2. Black employment rates are higher today than in the days of Jim Crow. So much for Jim Crow keeping Blacks working.
3. BLM is an anti-murder movement that is resisting savage predators.
 

EatTheRich

President
Reds Are Bluebloods, and Always Have Been

The hereditary plutocracy is far outnumbered by other Whites and feels the danger it is in if people wake up. They recognize that Blacks are too dumb, selfish, and undisciplined to be a threat. You're really being a sucker if you think otherwise.

And you know perfectly well that those born in the White working class have no use for Blacks. Claiming that they are brainwashed to think so is an insult to their intelligence and ability to form their own opinions, which reveals your snobbery once again. Your fraternity's real reason for abandoning them is that they didn't kowtow to pseudo-intellectual Marxists trying to take them over. Out of resentment over that, the New Left decided to abandon the working class and support the underclass, plus every other unfit group such as vindictive rejected feminists, LGBT, PETA, and the Unabomber cult. They all came out of the University, an obsolete aristocratic institution specifically designed for preppies living off an allowance.
Blacks are the leading threat to the plutocracy and the vanguard of the coming socialist revolution. Blacks and Latinos are a majority of the working class in the United States today. I'm not gonna defend everything the New Left did, but the fact is that a labor aristocracy that was predominantly white was won over to the side of the exploiters with the help of the Communist Party, the union bosses, and some fat extra crumbs from the masters' table. An orientation toward student radicals and oppressed groups allowed revolutionary movements to survive the witch hunts and continue organizing. PETA and the Unabomber (a thoroughly reactionary right-winger) got little to no support from Marxists.
 

EatTheRich

President
The Specious Spectrum

You want to believe racial pride and expansion wasn't the main factor in the War of Independence because you want to believe that anti-racism will prevail in the New Age. You've got things backwards and upside down; race-card dealers are frauds working for the Conservatives as agent provocateurs. They purposely insult, disgust, and threaten the majority and then claim they hate the Conservatives (their own fathers, if the truth could be told and believed). This is a trick to drive the majority into the hands of the hereditary Capitalist class. Liberals don't have minds of their own; they are totally driven by born and bred class instincts, which drive them to present this preppy puppet show.
The majority, including the majority of whites (especially working-class whites), is firmly anti-racist. Liberals were not the impetus for the destruction of Jim Crow--they were prodded into action by communists and union organizers mobilizing the masses for hard-fought victories through (mostly) multi-racial action.
 

EatTheRich

President
Your Master Class Owns You, Just Like They Themselves Used to Say the Jews Owned You

Of course the aristocrats want to rule over the best by pretending to be on the side of White people and hiring false-flag preachers to insult both us and the Conservative aristocracy.
"Aristocracy" literally means rule by the best. Your argument that some people are naturally fit to rule and others are fit to be ruled or to die is the argument of a would-be aristocrat. The fact is that (as with other races) some white people are on one side of the class divide and some are on the other.
 

TheResister

Council Member
You view the world through a white-supremacist lens. Anyone who opposes white supremacy, you conclude, must then be a Black supremacist. The very idea that anyone could promote a fraternity of workers of all races is so outside the box that you can't even conceive of it.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R2QVLH1E8LJX33/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0934666016 <-- Did you happen to see this review of Capt's work?
You are very funny. Did you see how the white supremacists attacked me when I told them they didn't understand the immigration laws? They jump up and down swearing and be damned that I'm on your side and when I see the hypocrisy of your side, then I'm on the white supremacist side?

Not quite. I looked at both sides of the equation. I listened to the arguments and concluded that you were little more than the Klan with a tan.

You blame failure on white privilege; you blame it on geography; your entire religion revolves around your race and how the white man screwed you and you want to prove it so badly that you pretend to be an authority on history, archaeology, law, genetics, politics and anything that affects the non-whites.

In reality, you probably work at a minimum wage job because you're always on the board or researching ways to beat your "unworthy opponents" with horsesh!+ you can't sell without desperate moves to call others names, make baseless allegations, and find fault with any position that challenges yours - even claiming that some people had a discredited hypothesis... Yeah, right pal. Just because YOU don't want to believe something does not negate its value in the conversation.

You think I'm supposed to buy your position because the other guy is white and if I don't, I'm a racist???? Sage keeps talking about how backward the blacks are in terms of intelligence. I've bumped heads with him, but on this one, you're proving him right. If you can ever get the courage to pretend to be mature, we can discuss this. If not, you're doing more to derail your own arguments than anyone else can hope to.
 
Top