You Have Awoken A Sleeping Giant

The op said white people were awakened. Why no others if it wasn't meant to be racist?


The obvious answer is because other ethnic groups are already "awake" in that their are allowed and even encouraged to actively pursue their interests and to celebrate their heritage.

For Whites, that is still TABOO.

For example, do you know what NAACP stands for?

For example, do you know what NAACP stands for?


Sure. Now why was it necessary to establish such an organization?


That they are allowed and even encouraged to actively pursue their interests was the whole of my point.

Thanks for agreeing.

As to why, blacks, back then in 1909, faced real discrimination, both legal and informal.

Why do you ask?

I ask because you seem to draw a parallel between your "struggle" and that of blacks.
Do you believe whites are now marginalized in the way blacks were to the point of needing a similar advocacy organization? That's what you seem to be saying.


Well, don't get lost in the details.

My point is that Whites, as a group, have interests and do not actively pursue them, and indeed, the normal response is any white even suggest doing so, they are generally shouted down as "racist".

I do not think that a National Association for the Advancement of White People is so much needed, as simply a breaking of the Taboo of speaking of Whites as a Group like every other, that has interests and is expected to protect and pursue them.
This is why we need even more PC Nazi thug behavior to wake more white people up to the new Reality that they were distracted from perceiving for the last 50 years.

It is now happening today.
 
Correll argues that whites are discriminated against but does not show how with objective evidence. I think what he wants is a White Man's Civilization in the United States and is desperately unhappy that we don't.
He will not adjust to his new role as a minority




So sad you hate white people. Like bill klinton. He was speaking to a group of college students, I think it was georgetown. Anyway, he said "by the year 2040, white people will be in the majority". The students clapped loud and long over that one. Most of them were white. Why did they clap? Maybe you can tell us why?

Because they are the typical limp wrist guilt ridden white morons that vote for Dhimmicrats.
 
Last edited:
White people!

Go Trump


hqdefault.jpg



Hitler's small dick made it easier for his top advisors and followers to take him in their ass.
More leftists pretending to be nazis to keep the racial fear going among minorities.

And of course you fixate on sexual fantasies about Hitlers dick because you are a fucking pervert.
 
LOL- you do have a partial point- any Trump supporter who whined about people voting for President Obama because of his rhetoric rather than his political expertise- should be embarressed to look in the mirror.
What political 'expertise' does a community organizer have, Sherlock?
 
Although I quoted exactly in Correll's link where the survey said it was not conclusive and that agendas may take out of context, Correll lies and says it did not and proceeds to take it out of context.

Correll has not supported his assertion that Duke's association with the Klan was not well known, and yet he wants others to refute his association.

Correll, you have said you would be honest yet you have not.
 
Who is and how are the political rights of the white middle class being suppressed?

I do not feel oppressed. I daresay a small minority may feel like the few above, bur that is tough, guys.
 
Although I quoted exactly in Correll's link where the survey said it was not conclusive and that agendas may take out of context, Correll lies and says it did not and proceeds to take it out of context.

Correll has not supported his assertion that Duke's association with the Klan was not well known, and yet he wants others to refute his association.

Correll, you have said you would be honest yet you have not.




You complained that I never present objective evidence of the discrimination I complain of.

So I give you a link to a study doing just that.

YOu post a link to the researcher putting some spin on it after that fact and pretend that that means the documented discrimination did not and is still not taking place.

That's nonsense on your part.


My view on the GOP knowledge and reaction to Duke is based on my personal recollection of the events of the time. I've looked for some links, but any Duke searches I've made is buried under more recent reports.


Jake. I am being honest.

You are the one being dishonest.

Knock it off.
 
I used your link, Correll, to prove what you said was false.

That is the purpose of dialogue, so, yeah, I will read your links carefully and when they are wrong, point them out. The NC kid used to do that all the time then scream and crap on the floor and disappear for awhile. You are headed that way.

Your dishonesty knows no bounds.
 
Who is and how are the political rights of the white middle class being suppressed?

I do not feel oppressed. I daresay a small minority may feel like the few above, bur that is tough, guys.
I used your link, Correll, to prove what you said was false.

That is the purpose of dialogue, so, yeah, I will read your links carefully and when they are wrong, point them out. The NC kid used to do that all the time then scream and crap on the floor and disappear for awhile. You are headed that way.

Your dishonesty knows no bounds.


The researcher did not repudiate his numbers.

HIs numbers show documented discrimination against whites.

He put some spin on it after that fact, but that does not mean that citing his numbers is wrong.


Why are you like this?
 
The researcher said his findings were not conclusive, yet he was concerned that people with agendas (that brings you to mind, Correll) would use his findings wrongly. Cite it, as long as you cite his cautions.

You have to be fair and honest, Correll. Please try.
 
The researcher said his findings were not conclusive, yet he was concerned that people with agendas (that brings you to mind, Correll) would use his findings wrongly. Cite it, as long as you cite his cautions.

You have to be fair and honest, Correll. Please try.


This is what you actually cut and pasted.

"While Espenshade and Radford -- in the book and in interviews -- avoid broad conclusions over whether affirmative action is working or should continue, their findings almost certainly will be used both by supporters and critics of affirmative action to advance their arguments. (In fact, a talk Espenshade gave at a meeting earlier this year about some of the findings is already being cited by affirmative action critics, although in ways that he says don't exactly reflect his thinking."


He did not claim that his study was "not conclusive", the writer of the article said they avoided "broad conclusions over whether AA is working or should continue".


"NOT EXACTLY REFLECT HIS THINKING" does not mean that his numbers are false.

NOt exactly is pretty vague.

WHat does that mean?

I would be happy to speculate on what that means.

WHAT IS DOES NOT MEAN is that his numbers should not be considered as valid data.

Blacks get a 310 point bonus for being black.

YOu are the one being dishonest.
 
Whites are tired of being blamed for the problems "minorities" have
 

Forum List

Back
Top