Below are two pictures of South Africans.
One is considered as Indigenous African one is not.
Below are pictures of two Australians.
One is considered as Indigenous Australian by the left and liberals the other is not.
Below are pictures of two British people.
According to the liberals and the left both of these are English as no Indigenous English exist.
Why is that the Indigeous peoples of the world exist as long as they are black or brown, but no white indigenous people exist in the world ?
This is because the Left and Liberals are a collection of fascist extremists who do not use logic to analyse reality but rather they see the world through the lens of their own facile and racist propaganda.
Their aim is the extermination of the White Race, the genocide of all Indigenous White Ethnic groups and the eradication of all white ancestral cultures.
They are the fascists - and we are the ONLY true Anti-Fascists in Britain.
Friday, 24 April 2009
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
The liberal-left think if we're embrace being a 'coffee coloured melting pot' all 'tribalism' and conflict will disappear.
But Native Americans fought. So do Black African tribes people.
Everyone craves an identity even if they all look alike.
The liberal-left have nonsense theories about life because they hide from the laws of nature.
The leftist liberal lunatics (not that there is anything liberal about them if you are white) are suffering en masse from ethnic self loathing. They despise themselves and thus they project this outward onto society as a whole. It is a death urge, a suicidal drive, to see their own miserable narcissistic existence eliminated, and thus because they cannot accept that their mental condition is a result of their mental instability, they seek to afflict everyone who is white with the same condition.
If the insane elite fill society with insanity, and condition others that insanity is the norm then they escape their madness for a short time. The conclusion being of course that the whole of society self destructs (as we are witnessing), but this is what the liberal left lunatics would rather have than face their own insanity and self loathing.
Interesting that most photographic models, beauty contestants and female media sirens in the West are Caucasians. The few exceptions are usually mulattos, like Halle Berry, Beyonce etc.
As your African pic shows, full-blooded black women don't have the kind of anatomy that appeals to most Western males.
Which seems to be one form of racism that the Left in this country doesn't kick off about i.e. the Left doesn't mind being inconsistent some of the time, at least where basic discriminatory preferences are concerned.
Also, for what it's worth, the name 'Australia' comes from the Latin, 'Terra Australis Incognita,' or 'the unknown land of the South,' a postulation by European i.e. Caucasian cartographers and navigators, later confirmed by exploration.
No Australian negroid person i.e. aborigine, would have had the remotest notion that he was 'Australian' any time in 4,000 years since the flood of Noah's time to the arrival of the first (Caucasian) English settlers in 1788 with Captain Arthur Phillip, RN and the First Fleet, in what later became the colony of New South Wales.
So the Lefties are semantically and historically off base again, as usual.
They do not live in reality. They are detached from the realities of nature. They fear reality, they are full of self-loathing and hate and so project it onto their own kind with destructive degradeing results.
What they are creating will eventually sweep them away
I have to smile at the detachment from reality on the part of a certain left wing MP who deciding that the Englsih St Georges Day parade in her area is too 'tribal', should have been on board a bus that I was on recently it was half full of blacks, loud, singing/chanting gangster rap on their mobiles , amongst the illegible utterance one could hear reference to womens sexual organs, references to gays and to acts of revenge,violence and death all amongst chants , laughter and 'jive' talk.
That dear women is tribal in cities that are becoming jungles. That dear women is what one should be frightend of, not your own kind which you hate and deny
Fucking hell, I'd loathe myself if I looked like that moose!
If words fail, see diagram. Very well put Lee. Hopefully the dimwit liberals can understand this illustration.
Please watch and understand:-
btw, it's gotta be said... Miss England... Wow, not wrong there!!!
The letists never did let the truth or reason stand in the way of they're leftist propaganda, they'rs to many inconsistancies thats why they fear a debate with a person who is coming from a logical and truthful position.politicalMIZZ..
Leftist lunatics don't care about truth and lies, right and wrong - they only care about establishing their own mental sickness onto society and brainwashing everyone that it is normal. The leftist maniacs trample upon high ideals such as truth.
What we have to realise is that leftists are not of sound mind, they are leftists because they have sought to surround themselves with other freaks like themselves, people who have complete disregard for truth, tradition, culture, reason, etc, all the ideals Western society has until recently valued - but because they cannot live in such a world, because they are mentally insufficient they want to make the world like some insane fantasy land, where they can feel at home amongst the circus freak show. Like a child who breaks the other children toys, because he can't be stand others possessing what he does not. Thus the left is collectively an infantile brain in an adult body - narcissistically raging at the world, seeking to destroy it for being beyond their maturity.
Leftists need to be understood as suffering from a mental condition, and it is this mental condition that drives them to become leftists in the first place. They pilgrimage to that great asylum where Marx has flung the doors wide open and let out into the world a demented mass. Their frothing at the mouth is their insane rants at those not like them, and their own excrement they smear about themselves is manifest in their own self loathing.
Why is that the Indigeous peoples of the world exist as long as they are black or brown, but no white indigenous people exist in the world ?--DOL
I noticed the same thing but there is a good reason for this. Indigenous whites tend to have more power and resources in their own nations than black or brown people. Whites tend to have resources even in lands where they are not indigenous. It boils down to that rather than anti-white propaganda.
Which seems to be one form of racism that the Left in this country doesn't kick off about i.e. the Left doesn't mind being inconsistent some of the time, at least where basic discriminatory preferences are concerned.--AlanOrei
That's because romantic preferences aren't discriminatory or racist in the same way that job discrimination is. People should be allowed to find anything they want attractive without penalty, IMO.
On the other hand, I see the same dichotomy when it comes to whites. Having worked part-time in the fashion industry, I noticed that whites with "racially ambiguous" features (full lips, darker skin and hair) are more likely to appear on the catwalk than those who look purely white without question. Similarly, what many consider to be the most beautiful white woman (Angelina Jolie) has similar features.
The same holds true for men although not as much for white males (Johnny Depp appeals to women of all races since he does not look like what many consider to be "100% white"). All groups benefit from the racially ambiguous edge.
Then again, this could be because I live in America. England is a "native land" so it makes sense that certain features would be considered the most attractive. I really don't see anything wrong with that.
Re: That's because romantic preferences aren't discriminatory or racist in the same way that job discrimination is. People should be allowed to find anything they want attractive without penalty, IMO. My point was simply to highlight the Left's inconsistency. It wasn't meant to be taken too seriously. However, where job discrimination applies in the US, I believe it is in the form of Affirmative (i.e. anti-white) Action, which I would certainly regard as racist.
In the UK, it's more a case of imported foreign cheap labour.
Re: racially ambiguous features, not according to the freebie fashion catalogues my missus is sent on a regular basis.
Re: Angela Jolie, well, not in my opinion but neither of her parents (Jon Voight, Marcia Lynne) look anything but Caucasian (ML is French Canadian), so whatever allure AJ has does not seem to stem from appreciable race mixing.
As an aside, it is interesting to consider the 2009 Miss America contestants. I could only find two, Misses Georgia, New Hampshire, with easily discernible racially mixed features.
The other contestants e.g. Misses Colorado, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, all appeared to me to be classically Caucasian, though some others may have had partly Hispanic features, which wouldn't be surprising in the US. (It would be in the UK.)
The current Miss America, Miss Indiana, Katie Stam, doesn't really remind me of AJ, either. She does appear to have a slightly olive complexion but if she is racially mixed, it's well hidden.
All of which would seem to suggest that the dominant race in the US still seems to prefer its own, where womenfolk are concerned.
Re: Johnny Depp, not in the UK, to my knowledge, though I admit to certain limitations here. However, the only male actors of whom I have heard young women speak highly were Pierce Brosnan, Clive Owen and Brad Pitt (AJ's other half, of course, after BP dumped Jen), all of whom I think are distinctly Caucasian.
Which again suggests that segregation, rather than integration, is preferable for superior looks (at least in the eyes of the beholders).
The current Miss America, Miss Indiana, Katie Stam, doesn't really remind me of AJ, either. She does appear to have a slightly olive complexion but if she is racially mixed, it's well hidden.--Alanorie
If I looked at a pic of Miss America without background info,I wouldn't think she was white. It pretty much goes along with what I was saying, the racially ambiguous edge causes people to be more appealing in the eyes of many. That does not imply that she or AJ are actually mixed (I suspect AJ had plastic surgery on her lips).
Pierce Brosnan, Clive Owen and Brad Pitt (AJ's other half, of course, after BP dumped Jen), all of whom I think are distinctly Caucasian.--alanorei
Clive Owen is distinctly caucasian??? He's not what I imagined the typical caucasian man to be (Zack Efron is typical to me). I think it boils down to the fact that we really don't know what's typical unless we are members of the said group. Ex, Halle Berry is a black looking "mulatto" while Beyonce is not (half white). Being very familiar with blacks, I can say that they both look like typical black Americans; like the majority of black entertainers.
Lastly, Pierce has very dark hair and isn't pale...neither is Pitt. I should mention, none of your examples have red hair and/or freckles, a distinctly caucasian feature that doesn't appear to have widespread appeal:
"For years Nicola Roberts has stood in the shadow of her Girls Aloud bandmates.
Dramatically different looking to her blonde, bronzed bandmates, the 23-year-old is a pale redhead."Even whites have to conform to a standard. NOT saying it's right.
Re: Katie Stam, "white" covers a wide spectrum. I wouldn't have said she was racially mixed. If AJ has had plastic surgery, then her racially ambiguous allure is artificial.
I didn't pick red-haired examples with freckles. I simply picked Caucasian men who were cited (in my hearing) as 'hunks,' unlike Johnny Depp. Like the term "white," the term "Caucasion" covers a lot of territory. That Brosnon and Owen are not, for example, fair-haired or fair-skinned, doesn't mean a lot under the heading "Caucasian" because blondism is recessive and found essentially amongst Nordics, though Nordics are not all blonde (or red) by any means.
The point I was trying to make, apparently unsuccessfully, was that the young women I spoke with did not appear to appreciate either Mongolid or Negroid features in their 'pin-ups.' The actors I mentioned do not display any of those features, nor do any leading males on British TV that I can think of.
Re: GA, in spite of varying hair colour, they too, woould, I think, be classed as Caucasian by any anthropologist, whatever else fans and the media might say.
The point I was trying to make, apparently unsuccessfully, was that the young women I spoke with did not appear to appreciate either Mongolid or Negroid features in their 'pin-ups.' The actors I mentioned do not display any of those features, nor do any leading males on British TV that I can think of.--alanorei
I'm not disputing the above since I can plainly see that "white male worship" is alive and well throughout the world in varying degrees. As I said in my first reply, white males don't suffer from the pressure to conform to a standard as much as nonwhite males or women of whatever race (thinness for example).
We may not agree on that but I hope my original point about the difference between white and nonwhite indigenous populations was clear. Whites have not suffered like nonwhites have...that's why people tend to look away from their plight in favor of indigenous people of color.
I think your point is clear, although w.r.t. white vs. non-white suffering, that too covers a lot of territory and would need to be carefully qualified in two respects:
1. Who inflicted the suffering upon whom. A lot of suffering throughout history is intra-racial e.g. the Papal inquisition, post-colonial Africa (e.g. the Rwandan genocide), not inter-racial.
2. The actual suffering incurred by whites at the hands of non-whites. I mention this only because it is usually overlooked. The book White Gold by Giles Milton, for example, outlines the centuries-long abduction of white Europeans by Muslim Barbary pirates to be sold into slavery. Their victims even included Englishmen, women and children. Today's Pakistani Muslim paedo gangs who prey on "white meat" (their term for adolescent, vulnerable white English girls) are the Barbary corsairs' ideological heirs and successors, even if of a different (non-white) race.
Though I grant you this is an entirely different topic and it is really up to Lee if he would want to take it forward.
Now, I will add my two penneth...
LorMarie said: "Clive Owen is distinctly caucasian??? He's not what I imagined the typical caucasian man to be (Zack Efron is typical to me). I think it boils down to the fact that we really don't know what's typical unless we are members of the said group."Firstly, I don't particularly like the Americanism "caucasian" as a blanket term to describe white people, it is incredibly sweeping and trite - thus a perfect Americanism. However, being as this word is being bounded about I will use it.
The problem seems to be that racial stereotypes about white people are still existent in the minds of many non-whites (even sadly amongst many whites), and most of these people all though they don't realise it have not progressed their understanding of white ethnicity beyond the caricature of the Nazi Aryan superman. I.e. caucasians are blond haired blue eyed, athletic build. This is mainly because they have been fed a diet of garbage from Hollywood and also by myths perpetuated by the lunatic left. But that's another story.
Clive Owen is totally "caucasian" in appearance - are you saying that because he has dark hair, dark eyes and darker complexion means he is less caucasian? That's utter nonsense. Dark hair (and darker eyes) make up the greater percentage in Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Wales, Scottish Highlands, all of continental Europe (except of course the Scandivian countries) and Russia. Therefore if when you refer to caucasian you mean the blond superman of the Nazi's then you are expressing a cliche and not reality of what a "caucasian" really is... a caucasian being someone of native European descent of the indigenous Europeans... primarily amongst those of course being the Celts, with tracable history stretching back 3000 years. Thus a visit to Ireland or Wales would so sweep away the myth of the blond haired blue eyed Nazi Aryan and give a truer picture of a "caucasian" as equally likely to be dark haired and dark eyed. Could anyone say Ireland is not full of Caucasians?
I would guess the Nordic Europeans exhibit a wide range of hair, eye and facial complexion colour i.e. the Angles, Celts, Danes, Frisians, Jutes, Normans, Saxons, Vikings etc.
(Though according to Professor Stephen Oppenheimer, University of Oxford, the origins of the British actually pre-date the above distinctions by several thousand years. His book Origins of the British, Constable, September 2006, has the details. His work would definitely demonstrate that expressions like 'black British' and 'British Asian' are contradictions in terms. I think it may also, in spite of a differing timescale, support the Genesis account of the migrations of peoples after the Noahic flood, of approximately 2300 BC, Genesis 10.)
The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 1964 Edition, simply defines a Caucasian as a member of the white race. Clearly not every 'Caucasian' is from anywhere near the Caucasus, just as not every Mongoloid is from Mongolia or every Negroid from Africa. Happy to use any other generic terms for these groups but I'm not aware of any.
1. Who inflicted the suffering upon whom. A lot of suffering throughout history is intra-racial e.g. the Papal inquisition, post-colonial Africa (e.g. the Rwandan genocide), not inter-racial.--AlanOreiNot surprised as there is much evidence of this even today. However, this suffering appears to have affected nonwhites much more partly due to the fact that most of the focus is placed on oppression at the hands of whites instead of nonwhite against nonwhites. So anyway one looks at it, nonwhites have suffered much more.
The problem seems to be that racial stereotypes about white people are still existent in the minds of many non-whites (even sadly amongst many whites), and most of these people all though they don't realise it have not progressed their understanding of white ethnicity beyond the caricature of the Nazi Aryan superman.--AndrasteI'll be the first to admit that nonwhites hold racial stereotypes about whites. Is that any worse than whites holding racial stereotypes about nonwhites?
Re: Clive Owen. I don't believe he is less white now that I know he's actually white. I thought he was part Arab, fully Italian, or Spanish. And no, I'm not implying that the Spanish or Italians are not white. Most of the whites I've seen with that coloring have Italian or Spanish ancestry. I guess one could say that Owen does not look what many here in the US consider to be typically English, Irish, or whatever. I've traveled to England only once but I've met many, many English expats over the years. NONE were similar to Clive Owen in any shape or form.
Re: 1. Who inflicted the suffering upon whom. A lot of suffering throughout history is intra-racial e.g. the Papal inquisition, post-colonial Africa (e.g. the Rwandan genocide), not inter-racial.--AlanOrei
Not surprised as there is much evidence of this even today. However, this suffering appears to have affected nonwhites much more partly due to the fact that most of the focus is placed on oppression at the hands of whites instead of nonwhite against nonwhites. So anyway one looks at it, nonwhites have suffered much more.The history of Africa, the Middle East, the Indian sub-continent and the Orient would indicate that the worst oppressor of a non-white is another non-white, e.g. the Sudan for the last 30-50 years. This is what the MSM repeatedly overlooks and that was my essential point.
As for whites, the historian Henry Halley states that the Papal Inquisition accounted for "untold millions" of victims, one figure running as high as 68,000,000 (over a period of several centuries), the vast majority being Europeans. That being the case, at the very least, no one race could reasonably claim to have a monopoly on suffering, as inflicted by the same or a different ethnic group.
Re: Owen, just to confirm that both his parents are English (from the West Midlands). He was also picked to play the lead role in the film King Arthur, which is always a traditional English role. That he looks unique as an English individual would be par for the course. Having met/seen many English males since living here since 1978, I can't ever recall encountering a CO doppel-ganger either. That does not mean that either he or any of them is anything but English by race.
Post a Comment