Blacks kill people anywhere and hate White -- LiveWire Teen Forums

And it it NOT JUST A RACE OR ETHNICITY. Many Jews are white, blacks etc...
If they are no longer Jew they still are of the SAME ethnic group they started with.

The question "What is a Jew" is still raging on.

The ONLY way your favorite raialist define amrenoid is USING skin pigmentation.

No...
Many Armenoids have very pale skin. They define Armenoid by MUCH more than skin - which isn't even a factor.

I just think the whole thing is a bunch of BS.

And I thought you believed that Cppn was so misguided? Remember, he said that the Negro is 200,000 years behind the White in brain development.

According to the ppl who DEFINE armenoid race it is.
BTW I don't see anywhere any mention of Jews as "armenoid". Apparently they include assyrians and the TRUE caucasians. Which is funny when you think about it.

He's not the only one to have defined Armenoid...

They are men of medium stature, with a mean of 166 cm.; this varies extensively in accordance with geography; the eastern Armenians, from Van, Erivan, Bitlis, and Erzerum, are considerably taller than those in the west, who come from Sivas, Kaisarie, and Marash, while those geographically intermediate, from Kharput and Diarbekr, are intermediate in stature as well. The extremes are the Van people, with a mean of 169 cm., and those from Kaisarie and Marash, with means of 164 cm. They are, for their weight, very heavy people, with a mean of 160 lbs.; the lateral bodily habitus which the foregoing weight-stature ratio indicates is predominant in all regional groups, except Van. Mernbers of the western groups, on the whole, are more lateral than those from the east. The relative span, 104, and the relative sitting height, 53.2, fall into the general Alpine category.

The mean cephalic index for Armenians is 85.4; this varies from 84 in Van and Erivan, to 86 in Sivas and 87 in Erzerum. The mean head length, 185 mm. for the total, reaches 188 mm. in the east, and 183 mm. in the west. The breadth mean, 158 mm., is relatively constant. The auricular height, with a mean of 126 mm., is also subject to this east-west differentiation; local means reach 129 mm. in the east, 124 mm. in the west. The lateral dimensions of the face, 108 mm. for the minimum frontal, 144 mm. for the bizygomatic, and 110 mm. for the bigonial, show no geographical variation; they are comparable to the breadth dimensions found among moderate-sized Dinarics in Europe, although the jaw width is more reminiscent of Asia Minor and Greece. The inverse jaw-forehead ratio is the opposite from that of Albanian Dinarics.

Vertical diameters of the face are again divided geographically, the total face height mean is 128 mm., ranging from 130 mm. in the east to 125 mm. in the west; the upper face height similarly varies from 78 mm. to 75 mm., with a mean for the whole of 77 mm.; the facial and upper facial indices vary in consequence. The group as a whole is on the upper border of mesoprosopy, and mesene. Only Van is leptoprosopic and leptene.

The Armenian nose is extremely long, with a mean height of 60 mm., and quite wide, with a mean breadth of 38 mm. The nasal index, 64, is leptorrhine, but by no means as leptorrhine as the noses of European Dinarics. The difference between Albanian Dinaric and Armenian nasal indices lies entirely in the breadth. Like all other vertical dimensions, the nose height among Armenians is subject to geographical variation, but this is slighter than with most other characters, since a long nose is an essential Armenoid feature. The width also varies, from 37.4 mm. in Van, to 38.4 mm. in Kaisarie.

Some of Coons info.

Still didn't answer the question. How?

White is an ethnicity and race.

Boy you really love circular reasoning. I showed some Jews who are white. Eruopeans CAN convert to the Jewish faith. Many HAVE.
So it is POSSIBLE for Jews to BE white. So their faith DOS NOT affect their ethnic background or their race.

1 - Jews aren't White.
2 - if a White turns Jewish, he is not White.
3 - that is because Jews have a nonWhite culture, ethnicity, religion, and many have a different race.

Proof?

Search "Danzig Massacres"
Also - here is Hitlers speech on it:
http://paste2.org/p/94923

Danzig was to return to the Reich. An exterritorial road was to be built to East Prussia�at our expense of course. In return Poland was to receive the most extensive Free Port rights, and similar exterritorial access. I, on the other hand, on top of that, was prepared to guarantee the existing frontiers, hardly bearable as they were, and finally to let Poland participate in guaranteeing the safety of Slovakia. I cannot imagine what a state of mind the Polish Government was in when it rejected these proposals. I do know, however, that untold millions of Germans gave a sigh of relief because they were of the opinion that in making those proposals I had gone too far.
Poland's reply was to order the first mobilization, immediately followed by ferocious terrorism. My request to the then Polish Foreign Minister to visit me in Berlin in order to discuss this question with me once more was rejected. Instead of coming to Berlin, he went to London!

which do NOT prove ANY massacres occured.

The Vikings themselves are proof that they were attacked by Amerinds - if the Vikings attacked, they wouldn't have been caught off guard.

Still does not make PROOF. Show where they DO admit it.

Where they do admit it? You mean outside of the Americas?

Still the FACT that they do it MEANS that they are the ATTACKERS. And the ppl who are ATTACKED are those that ARE burned, pillaged and raped BY the vikings.

They attacked churches usually, KNOWING that they had money. The Vikings I'm speaking of are explorers, not really the berserkers you have in mind.

Actually it is. They bend over backwards to greet the pilgrims and even the conquistadores.

Ha! The Amerinds fought to the death - the only thing is it wasn't much.

The Whites that came to the Americas, you must admit, had superior technology.
The conquistadors themselves were attacked by neighboring tribes of the Aztecs. And the whole reason they killed off so many was because they heard that they were planning to be attacked BY the Aztecs - remember, this was after being attacked by other tribes (which, in turn, HELPED them kill the Aztecs).

WHAT things?

Well, this post is a good example.

Destruction and massacres have not really stopped much. Even in 1990s they still were raping and massacring each other over a pice of land in te balkans. So yeah.

It's not as bad as it was.

I bring the past when ppl say that the present is different. I bring the past when ppl claim that immigrants from Mexico are worse and show that the same complaints were made against immigrants from Italy or Ireland.

I'm sure the Italian/Irish immigrants COULD have been a drag on the nation.

I don't say one day that past dont matter and the next that it does. The past matters. But i does NOT mean it HAS to be repeated and remade.

We're not repeating it - we're discussing it.

The funny thing is YOUR OWN claims that blacks were not considered humans and were not considered as part of the US and were seen as "just labor" JUSTIFIES that claim.

The past shouldn't be an affect on ANY NEGRO BORN TODAY. They live WITHOUT any slavery on them.

If ppl are considered as just labor and as not American and as not part of society THEN yeah NO WONDER they underachieve. If they are "just labor" and they are forbidden to be educated and put down and not "considered human" then yeah NO WONDER they underachieve.

They underachieved a long time ago - and STILL do, even though they aren't considered labor or 3/5 of a human.

So your own claims PROVE RIGHT the ppl who say black underachieve because of slavery.

No, it doesn't. Explain how a Negro born into todays society, rid of slavery, 3/5 of a human claims, forced labor, ect underachieves.

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

Maybe but it doesn't mean that for them the "only way to be white is to stop being jewish". Thats pretty stupid.

If you are Jewish and EVERYTHING ELSE is White, the only thing making you nonWhite is your Jewishness.

Not according to the guy wo defined the term.
Who?

Coon.

He's the first one who came up with the word. You saing he's wrong?

He said many things and considered Negroes 200,000 years behind Whites in brain development - you saying he's wrong?
You saying Negroes aren't unevolved, primitive, beasts?

White is not an ethnicity. Its a color.
Caucasian is a race.
European is an ethnicity.

European means you are from Europe.

An old college book I saw divided the Caucasian race into three divisions - Semites, Aryans, and some other people - I believe another term for Dravidic. Aryans referred to "Whites".

Some Jews are white. You admitted that yourself.

I said it over and over again - you can't be White and Jewish at the SAME TIME. Some Jews are the SAME RACE as Whites, but the fact that they're Jews makes them nonWhite.

Not only that many come from Europe and had ancestors there for lots of generations.

You're speaking of the Ashkenazis. They are inbred and have genetically pushed themselves away from other Europeans.

What? A white who converts doesn't change his race.

White isn't just a race.

What is a "nonwhite religion"?
Jewish Ashkenazi culture comes from Germany and Poland. Its pretty European.

European doesn't mean White.

And nonWhite religions are any religions not really practiced by Whites. Christianity and the various mythological religions formed in White civilizations are White. Atheism/agnosticism are neutral. Judaism is nonWhite - as a Jew is a JEW, an entirely different classification.

I did. Not a lot of info and none from trsuted sources.

Ah, no trusted sources. Maybe they don't want you to know of this? The allies get to write whatever they want for history, they don't want to look like THEY started the war.

Ah Hitler. Yeah we should believe everythng he says of course.

He is known for not lying to his people if you didn't know that - which he specifically says is what a good leader needs.

The Vikings usally attak first no matter what. Theres plenty of proof in Europe for that.

Usually is not always. There is PLENTY of proof that Amerinds attack first -take history for example.

You said they would admit it. So show the sources for that.

Well, most Viking journals are very rare to find, and most of what we know about them are from ancient churches and a few chronicles from vikings.

The way Vikings "explore" is by pillaging and looting.

HAHAHAHA! You call ME biased! These are Viking BERSERKERS - not EXPLORERS.

At first they welcome the white explorers. But when those explorers brought in ppl that took over their land and massacred their hunting grounds then they reacted.

BAHAHAHA!
They ATTACKED WHITES FIRST. The Amerinds were all bored with their dark skin. black hair scalps, the light skin blond/red/brown haired scalps were much better.

Being killed by the thousands with diseases doesn't help.

Of course, but even if the diseases weren't present, do you think stone age technology was anything comparable to White, European weapons?

That did not make what they did or how they did it right. And the gunpowder came from the Chinese.

I thought i fixed your gunpowder shit in another post.
The first written reference to gunpowder - and how to make it - appears in the writings of the 13th century English monk Roger Bacon, belying the oft held theory that it was developed in China and exported to Europe. In fact, the Chinese has what they called "fire powder" - an inflammable chemical which they used in bamboo tubes to make clay pellet firing 'rockets."
A 14th Century German monk, Berthold Schwarz, was the first person to use gunpowder to fire a substantial projectile, and can rightly be given the title of inventor of the firearm. Schwarz was preparing gunpowder in a closed vessel called an apothecary's mortar when the mixture ignited and blew the pestle from the mortar. The use of "mortar" for a type of ordnance commemorates this occasion.
The oldest Chinese canon dates from 1332, whereas in Europe, the oldest cannon found so far dates from 1300, which was made in Sweden. European cannon are also depicted in a 1326 manuscript on war by Walter de Millimete of England.
"Gunnis cum telar" - guns with handles - showed up in the 1350s, marking the emergence of the personal firearm. Gunpowder factories had been established in England and Germany in 1334 and 1340 respectively.

Because they were notriously savage in their killing and massacring.

Totally irrelevant - they were attacked and they fought back.

That is your opinion. Its like saying the only reason indians killed is because they were defending their homes. We don't really know the reasons for everything. The fact remains.
Whites came in and attacked indians and massacred their food source in the north and the indians themselves in the south.
Of course they took advantage of the fact that the indians were divided and were isolated for centuries.

Whites came into the Americas for more land, Amerinds attacked, they fought back and won.

So? Terrorism in Europe right now isn't "as bad as" genocides and massacres either. You are forgetting Ireland and Basque terrorism.

And the Pakistanis too.

Every immigrant can be a drag at first. But they are hard workers and help the country and their kids integrate and become just like other americans after a while,

Third-generation Hispanics drop out of school at a higher rate than blacks and are less likely to be college graduates. THIRD GENERATION...

Only 33 percent of citizens of Hispanic origin consider themselves "Americans" first. The rest consider themselves either "Hispanic/Latino" or their former nationality first.

If that's acting American, then I guess I am the one being non-American.

You want to repeat it if you want segragation.

Did I say I wanted the US segregated?

So why bring up what they have/ have not done in the past?

I don't know, ask them. THEY are using the past as their excuse.

The past does have n effect on the present. Otherwise you would not bring it up all the time.

YES! THAT IS TRUE JAKELONG! The past - Negroes enslaved, treated like animals, ect. has NO EFFECT ON THEIR PRESENT CONDITIONS!

Because we all depend on our parents and how they do to go forward. So if you START out from ancestors that were'nt even considered fully human you got a LONG WAY to GO to even get anywhere.

OK, that was over 100 years ago, now what about the people today?

For blacks from the 1930s that had parents and grandparents who were slaves they had a LONG WAY to go to even have an education and get even a regular PAID job (even a manual one).

No Blacks now have parents that were slaves.

For blacks who had parents and grandparents who went thought segragation and couldn't even have the SAME jobs and SAME pay as whites and couldn't go to the SAME universities as whites, they have a LONG WAY to go to have the same level of education and knowledge and position a whites.

Eastern Asians had the same shit - but look at them now!

So they START out from behind no matter what.

Are you saying a Negro born today starts out worse than a White born today?

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

769 users online 222873 members 1372 active today Advertise Here