Adding Reply Archived Topic: It will not be bumped to the top of the forum. Topic Blacks kill people anywhere and hate White Membername   Not a member? Sign Up Free (takes 20 seconds) Password   Forgotten your password? Post Font: Verdana Arial Black Georgia Comic Sans Impact   Size: Tiny Normal Big Huge   Color: Default Dark Red Red Orange Brown Green Olive Cyan Blue Dark Blue Indigo Black [ Check Spelling ] [ Post Preview ] [ LiveTags ] FAQ Keyword Search: Post Options Favorites Manager Notify me of new replies to this topic by email Notify me of new replies to this topic by private message Original Post Anonymous Posted at 4:44 pm on Oct. 13, 2008 They kill Whites in South Africa So, it don't matter, if they're minority or majority. Not to mention, they kill each other. It's in there DNA

Replies kidd rune Posted at 2:19 pm on Nov. 1, 2008 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? jakelong Posted at 11:02 pm on Oct. 31, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 6:49 am on Oct. 31, 2008 The question "What is a Jew" is still raging on. Maybe but it doesn't mean that for them the "only way to be white is to stop being jewish". Thats pretty stupid. Many Armenoids have very pale skin. They define Armenoid by MUCH more than skin - which isn't even a factor. Not according to the guy wo defined the term. And I thought you believed that Cppn was so misguided? Who? He's not the only one to have defined Armenoid... He's the first one who came up with the word. You saing he's wrong? The difference between Albanian Dinaric and Armenian nasal indices lies entirely in the breadth. I still don't see any relation to jews anywhere in there. White is an ethnicity and race. White is not an ethnicity. Its a color. Caucasian is a race. European is an ethnicity. 1 - Jews aren't White. Some Jews are white.  You admitted that yourself. Not only that many come from Europe and had ancestors there for lots of generations. 2 - if a White turns Jewish, he is not White. What? A white who converts doesn't change his race. 3 - that is because Jews have a nonWhite culture, ethnicity, religion, and many have a different race. What is a "nonwhite religion"? Jewish Ashkenazi culture comes from Germany and Poland. Its pretty European. Search "Danzig Massacres" I did. Not a lot of info and none from trsuted sources. Also - here is Hitlers speech on it: http://paste2.org/p/94923 Ah Hitler. Yeah we should believe everythng he says of course. The Vikings themselves are proof that they were attacked by Amerinds The fact that they went to America is NOT proff they were massacred no. if the Vikings attacked, they wouldn't have been caught off guard. The Vikings usally attak first no matter what. Theres plenty of proof in Europe for that. Where they do admit it? You mean outside of the Americas? You said they would admit it. So show the sources for that.   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. The way Vikings "explore" is by pillaging and looting. The Amerinds fought to the death 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. the only thing is it wasn't much. Being killed by the thousands with diseases doesn't help. The Whites that came to the Americas, you must admit, had superior technology. That did not make what they did or how they did it right. And the gunpowder came from the Chinese. The conquistadors themselves were attacked by neighboring tribes of the Aztecs. Because they were notriously savage in their killing and massacring. And the whole reason they killed off so many 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. It's not as bad as it was. So? Terrorism in Europe right now isn't "as bad as" genocides and massacres either. You are forgetting Ireland and Basque terrorism.   I'm sure the Italian/Irish immigrants COULD have been a drag on the nation. 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, We're not repeating it - we're discussing it. You want to repeat it if you want segragation. The past shouldn't be an affect on ANY NEGRO BORN TODAY. They live WITHOUT any slavery on them. So why bring up what they have/ have not done in the past? They underachieved a long time ago - and STILL do, even though they aren't considered labor or 3/5 of a human. The past does have n effect on the present. Otherwise you would not bring it up all the time.   ]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. 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. 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). 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. So they START out from behind no matter what. kidd rune Posted at 6:49 am on Oct. 31, 2008 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. jakelong Posted at 8:10 pm on Oct. 30, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 7:25 am on Oct. 30, 2008 being a Jew is NOT JUST A RELIGION. 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. Some people don't go by the skin color definition... The ONLY way your favorite raialist define amrenoid is USING skin pigmentation. Carleton wrote that the racial type in question is very similar to the Dinaric race; the only difference is that they have a somewhat darker pigmentation, most probably due to racial mixture with the Mediterraneans and the Alpines. He described the Armenoid as a subrace of the Caucasoid race. I just think the whole thing is a bunch of BS.  Totally irrelevant because SKIN COLOR ISN'T RACE. 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. As I've said, White isn't JUST a race. Still didn't answer the question. How? The fact that they're Jewish. 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. That wasn't the first Danzig Massacre. They started slaughtering in April 1939. Proof? They have uncovered runes and other Viking "artifacts". which do NOT prove ANY massacres occured. They wouldn't hesitate to admit it. Still does not make  PROOF. Show where they  DO admit it. Obviously you don't know what a Viking is - they don't burn, pillage, and rape just to do so - they go after MONEY. 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. Amerinds NOT starting fights? Pretty unusual. Actually it is. They bend over backwards to greet the pilgrims and even the conquistadores. - it is relevant to other things. WHAT things? Today it is. 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. I'm sure you have brought up the past plenty of times. 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 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. Because some people think that Blacks underachieve BECAUSE WE ENSLAVED THEM IN THE PAST. 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. 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. So your own claims PROVE RIGHT the ppl who say black underachieve because of slavery. kidd rune Posted at 7:25 am on Oct. 30, 2008 So you still think religion changes your "ethnic" group? Yes, but being a Jew is NOT JUST A RELIGION. By Nazis and white nationalists? yeah I bet. Some people don't go by the skin color definition... White skin isn't "PC" its been used since the 19th century or before. And now we have genetic testing and racial classifications. Nowadays, White skin is PC, race isn't. so you think they are "darker skin"? Totally irrelevant because SKIN COLOR ISN'T RACE. How? As I've said, White isn't JUST a race. Circular shit again. What MAKES them nonwhite? The fact that they're Jewish. Since even Germans admit it happened AFTER the invasion of Poland then no http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bromberg_Bloody_Sunday That wasn't the first Danzig Massacre. They started slaughtering in April 1939. From sagas and tales its hard to tell. They have uncovered runes and other Viking "artifacts". Sure but NO PROOF of any killing. They wouldn't hesitate to admit it. That would be unusal for the Vikings. Sure. Burning and raping can be done even if theres nothing of value. More so even. Obviously you don't know what a Viking is - they don't burn, pillage, and rape just to do so - they go after MONEY. The Vikings NOT starting fights? Pretty unusal. Amerinds NOT starting fights? Pretty unusual. Then why do you always mention it? As I've said - it is relevant to other things. terrorism is a totally different ballgame. Europe history has plenty of massacres, wars and killings in it. So "destruction" is not new. Today it is. Yeah w/e is convenient for your ideology right? I'm sure you have brought up the past plenty of times. But we were not. We were speaking of blacks of today. Of issues today. Of racism today. And you keep talking about how they wre considered them in the past. Because some people think that Blacks underachieve BECAUSE WE ENSLAVED THEM IN THE PAST. PrideAndJoy Posted at 11:53 am on Oct. 28, 2008 Quote: from nwo1 at 8:07 pm on Oct. 16, 2008 You pass me on the street and sneer in my direction. You call me "Cracker", "Honkey", "Whitey", and even "The Man" and you think its OK. But when I call you, "nigger", "kike", "towelhead", "sand-nigger", "camel jockey", "beaner" or "chink" you call me a racist. You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you, so why are the ghettos the most dangerous places to live. You have the United Negro College Fund. You have Martin Luther King Day. You have Cesar Chavez Day. You have Yom Hashoah. You have Ma'uled Al-Nabi. You have the NAACP. You have BET. If he had WET. (white entertainment television) we'd be racists. If we had white history month, we'd be racist. If we had an organization for only whites to "advance" our lives, we'd be racists. If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships, you know we'd be racists. In the Million Man March, you believed that you were marching for your race and rights. You are proud to be black, brown, yellow, and orange, and you're not afraid to announce it. But when we announce our White Pride, you call us racists. You rob us, carjack us, and shoot at us. But, when a white police officer shoots a black gang member or beats up a black drug-dealer running from the law and posing a threat to society, you call him a racist. I am white. I am proud. But, you call me a racist. Why is it that only whites can be racists? ROFL! You really need to stop watching American History X. sadnessness Posted at 11:17 am on Oct. 28, 2008 absolute rubbish. jakelong Posted at 6:46 pm on Oct. 27, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 6:10 pm on Oct. 27, 2008 Well, they can't be White and Jewish at the same time So you still think religion changes your "ethnic" group? it matters what you define as "White". Ashkenazi Jews are about 80% of the Jewish population of today - and, they are European of course, but are primarily Armenoid - Which isn't considered White. By Nazis and white nationalists? yeah I bet. Well, you're going by the PC "White skin" White skin isn't "PC" its been used since the 19th century or before. They are, of course, incorrect. And white nationalist and nazis are of course correct. Armenoids not included. so you think they are "darker skin"? I'm sure that a Jew can be of a White subrace, but the fact that he's a Jew distances him from Whites. How? Because Jews aren't White. Circular shit again. What MAKES them nonwhite? Well, the Danzig massacres happened BEFORE any war broke out - but it damn well contributed to the start of the war. Since even Germans admit it happened AFTER the invasion of Poland then no http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bromberg_Bloody_Sunday Well, Jewish isn't just a religion. Are you claiming they didn't happen? From sagas and tales its hard to tell. There is extensive evidence that the Vikings reached North America BEFORE Columbus. Sure but NO PROOF of any killing. They didn't pillage or burn their land That would be unusal for the Vikings. they had nothing of value to the Norsemen. Burning and raping can be done even if theres nothing of value. More so even.   You're insisting that the Vikings started this with violence - which isn't the case. They were simply fighting BACK. The Vikings NOT starting fights? Pretty unusal.   I was speaking in the current day, not decades ago. Hey you're always talking about the past so who knows? It's totally irrelevant to the beliefs of MODERN DAY PEOPLE. Then why do you always mention it? Haven't you heard of the terrorist bombings in Britain? terrorism is a totally different ballgame. Europe history has plenty of massacres, wars and killings in it. So "destruction" is not new.   Past is more important for some things, but the present is more important for others. Yeah w/e is convenient for your ideology right? Because it's relevant to SOME THINGS - such as when we were talking about history hundreds of years ago - where current beliefs would have no effect. But we were not. We were speaking of blacks of today. Of issues today. Of racism today. And you keep talking about how they wre considered them in the past. matt15 Posted at 6:15 pm on Oct. 27, 2008 Same with whites and chinese and mexican. lol so GTFO kidd rune Posted at 6:10 pm on Oct. 27, 2008 But it is ALSO and MAINLY a religion.  And most jews are white. Well, they can't be White and Jewish at the same time - and it matters what you define as "White". Ashkenazi Jews are about 80% of the Jewish population of today - and, they are European of course, but are primarily Armenoid - Which isn't considered White. Still doesn't explain why jews can't be white. I can't find a single definition that says that white is an "ethnicity".   Well, you're going by the PC "White skin" or "European" definition. They are, of course, incorrect. As I've genetically described the White race to you - Armenoids not included. I'm sure that a Jew can be of a White subrace, but the fact that he's a Jew distances him from Whites. Yes. but why do they have to "stop being a Jew" in order to be White? Because Jews aren't White. You can't be nonWhite and White at the same time. Thats NOT what you say when ppl kill Germans. Well, the Danzig massacres happened BEFORE any war broke out - but it damn well contributed to the start of the war. Following a religion or not has no effect on your ethnicity or your race. Well, Jewish isn't just a religion. Your sources are prtty fucked up as we showed every time. It was a joke - it's not like your source was any better. Oh thats right! Sagas and legends are total absolute PROOF of the truth. Oh yeah forgot about that. Are you claiming they didn't happen? There is extensive evidence that the Vikings reached North America BEFORE Columbus. You mean they go fuck up in someone's land and they pillage and burn and then they get "clashes" with natives? Wow. How rude of the natives. They really should have surrender peacefully in frot of the blande gods!!! They didn't pillage or burn their land - they had nothing of value to the Norsemen. When you GO into SOMEONE ELSE's territory where they live with arms and weapons and go into burning and pillaging spree then you are the ATTACKER and the DEFENDERS have a right to fight back. Funny how you think the ppl who defend their land and ppl are the attackers. You're insisting that the Vikings started this with violence - which isn't the case. They were simply fighting BACK. It don't change the fact that this what HOLLYWOOD did way more. There are many MORE movies where indians are the bad guys than the good guys. So when you say Hollywood in general you are way off. I was speaking in the current day, not decades ago. So? You said yourself that ppl USED to think that America were not for nonwhites. So you seem to think that what ppl thought in the past is important. It's totally irrelevant to the beliefs of MODERN DAY PEOPLE. How many Whites are running around claiming that nonWhites don't deserve to live here at all and aren't humans? I'm sure some do, but you can't say that it's very many. Proof. Haven't you heard of the terrorist bombings in Britain? That wasn't the case before they began taking in Pakis. Ppl don't ANYMORE. So what is more important to you. What ppl thought in the past or what they tink TODAY? Apparently you care about the past on some things and the present on other things, depending on what makes your point. Past is more important for some things, but the present is more important for others. So why mention what ppl think in the past then? Because it's relevant to SOME THINGS - such as when we were talking about history hundreds of years ago - where current beliefs would have no effect. jakelong Posted at 5:47 pm on Oct. 27, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 11:46 am on Oct. 23, 2008 Jew isn't JUST a religion y'know. But it is ALSO and MAINLY a religion.  And most jews are white.   White isn't JUST a race y'know. Still doesn't explain why jews can't be white.   White is an Ethnic group with a racial link. White people is a term which is usually used to refer to those human beings characterized, at least in part, by the light pigmentation of their skin. It often refers narrowly to people claiming ancestry exclusively from Europe.[1][2] A broadly corresponding concept was the Caucasian race.[3] Caucasoid people from the Middle East, North Africa, and parts of Central and South Asia[4] may also be considered "white." I can't find a single definition that says that white is an "ethnicity".   If they stop being a Jew, they wouldn't be a Jew anymore, would they? Yes. but why do they have to "stop being a Jew" in order to be White? You like that word eh? All it shows is you were pawned and you don't have an answer. DNA tests aren't 100% accurate, dipshit. Only a retard can't tell the difference between two people of entirely different races. They were in a war, of course they killed a lot. Thats NOT what you say when ppl kill Germans. You can't be more White than someone else - you're either White or you're not. Following a religion or not has no effect on your ethnicity or your race. My sources say Negroes are over twenty billion times more likely to fail than Whites. Your sources are prtty fucked up as we showed every time. In the Vinland Sagas . Oh thats right! Sagas and legends are total absolute PROOF of the truth. Oh yeah forgot about that. One explanation for their sudden departure was the occasional clashes between the Viking explorers and the native people whom they called Skraelings. You mean they go fuck up in someone's land and they pillage and burn and then they get "clashes" with natives? Wow. How rude of the natives. They really should have surrender peacefully in frot of the blande gods!!! If they come in and massacre your people first, you do the same to them - THAT is war. When you GO into SOMEONE ELSE's territory where they live with arms and weapons and go into burning and pillaging spree then you are the ATTACKER and the DEFENDERS have a right to fight back. Funny how you think the ppl who defend their land and ppl are the attackers.   Well, that would be pointless to have movies nobody watches to base facts on. It don't change the fact that this what HOLLYWOOD did way more. There are many MORE movies where indians are the bad guys than the good guys. So when you say Hollywood in general you are way off. People watch newer movies, and would get their ideas from that. So? You said yourself that ppl USED to think that America were not for nonwhites. So you seem to think that what ppl thought in the past is important.   Europe is being destroyed at this very moment. And no, I'm not happy with it. Proof. They believed that they were savage beasts. Ppl don't ANYMORE. So what is more important to you. What ppl thought in the past or what they tink TODAY? Apparently you care about the past on some things and the present on other things, depending on what makes your point. I don't think they're savage beasts So why mention what ppl think in the past then? runthespread Posted at 3:16 pm on Oct. 27, 2008 The poster knew they were an idiot, that's why they made it anon. Learn some there/their/they're, fool. kidd rune Posted at 4:04 pm on Oct. 23, 2008 Quote: from Windstorm at 3:56 pm on Oct. 23, 2008 Two words: INFLAMATORY TROLL!!! A troll is not someone who makes posts that you don't like. Windstorm Posted at 3:56 pm on Oct. 23, 2008 Two words: INFLAMATORY TROLL!!! kidd rune Posted at 11:46 am on Oct. 23, 2008 But you do? 1/2 and 1/2. Nope becuase to me many Jews are white anyway. I bolded the important part. You posted so much bullshit it will take a while to find it. How do you find some particular piece of crap in a whole pile of feces? The entire thing just stinks. That was a good one - but you still lack proof. You posted that you are a racist penis that hates Whites, but I can't go through all of YOUR CRAP to find it. You mean that if they stop practicing their religion and go to  Church instead of the synagogue they will automatically TURN WHITE??? Cool!!! Jew isn't JUST a religion y'know. So practicing a certain faith makes a person nonwhite? Wow magic! White isn't JUST a race y'know. White is NOT an ethnicity. EUROPEAN is an ethncity. Stop mixing words up so you can twist facts. White is an Ethnic group with a racial link. You just admitted that some jews can be "white to begin with". If they stop being a Jew, they wouldn't be a Jew anymore, would they? You like that word eh? All it shows is you were pawned and you don't have an answer. DNA tests aren't 100% accurate, dipshit. Only a retard can't tell the difference between two people of entirely different races. Germans killed a rtcukload of Russians too. And Jews might be MORE white than som Russians. They were in a war, of course they killed a lot. You can't be more White than someone else - you're either White or you're not. Syre like your sources prove anything either. All they have is speculation. My sources say Negroes are over twenty billion times more likely to fail than Whites. The book is out of print. Quote some passages from it that are relevant to what you claim. You can still buy it on Amazon for $1.69. Here's some from another book: In the Vinland Sagas it is explained how one of the Viking leaders, named Karlsefni, decided it was best to depart from the island for good. While the land could sustain them the constant fear of native attack made them rethink their decision to remain. The Vikings deserted their village, their homes, their land, and everything they had built in Newfoundland and travelled somewhere else to begin the desperate struggle for survival all over again. Leaving Newfoundland: A History of Out-Migration Stephen Nolan How about this one: Once there they had set up their own small village on an area of land now called L'anse aux Meadows. At first all appeared promising but then a few years into their stay, on one fateful day, for reasons that even now are still shrouded in mystery, they finally gave up to the inevitable and forever abandoned the island. One explanation for their sudden departure was the occasional clashes between the Viking explorers and the native people whom they called Skraelings. The concept of war in those days means that combattants should be the only ones engaged and not women and children and unarmed civilians. Kinda funny you like to speak of the massacres BY indians but try to justify the massacres OF indians. A good indian is a dea indian right?   If they come in and massacre your people first, you do the same to them - THAT is war. How many old movies have you watched anyway? The point is that Hollywwod HAS made a shitload of movies showing indians as bad guys. Its only the past 30 years of so they started making more movies showing them as good. If they even show them anyway. So again your claim failed. No surprise here. Well, that would be pointless to have movies nobody watches to base facts on. People watch newer movies, and would get their ideas from that. Therefore, if someone got their ideas and beliefs from Hollywood - it would be from WHAT THEY WATCHED, newer movies more likely than not. The whites killed the buffaloes of the indians by the thousands just for sport and killed off the main staple food of the indians. If Indians came to Eruope and started burning off all your wheat crops and killing all your beef just for fun would you have let it go at that? Europe is being destroyed at this very moment. And no, I'm not happy with it. h yeah FIGURED OUT. Yeah it is a FACT that amerinds are SAVAGE BEASTS right? Playing with my words again? They believed that they were savage beasts. Freudian slip to reveal YOUR RACISM KR? Kinda hard to hide your true feelings eh? I don't think they're savage beasts Most recent 15 of 62 previous replies displayed.