Why are Pro-White advocates always smeared?

Those who try to hide it are fairly bad at it.

Meh, I live in Idaho, I don't see us being over run by anyone. I actually live in a fairly diverse neighborhood with lots of Bosnians, some Hispanics, and a few black families (I believe they are actually from Africa). It's not a bad neighborhood and we've never had problem with crime.

 

Pot meet kettle.

 

Another interesting question with regard to the "Jackass" comment:

Why are Xtreme sports dominated by whites?

 

They typically require money and space, something the typical urban African-American wouldn't really have access to.

 

Because whites are not into team sports like they used to be.

 

you ever tried to get a tv for 3.00 at wal-mart on black friday? Blacks are very into extreme sports.

 

I have to admit, I've wondered this, myself. Is it because white people are just plain crazy?

But I think the more likely reason is that "extreme sports" require a lot of financial investment and leisure time, and you find more white people with both of those things these days.

 

How is a $200 bicycle or skateboard a barrier to black and brown people?

That is how much they pay monthly for Air Jordans.

 

Okay all I had to do is read this to conclude that the Big White Bear is a neo-Nazi. Really, guy, if you're trying to keep your murderous hatred of blacks and jews under wraps you shouldn't defend the Nazis by saying that they killed less people than the Soviets so it's all good. Stalin and Hitler were both very bad men. The idea of White Pride is considered to be RACIST because it is associated by everyone in the entire world with White Power, with the Nazis, with colonialism and the genocide of the American Indians, etc. etc. etc. If you are WHITE and you are proud of your history and your race, then what you're really taking pride in is our uncanny ability as white men to reap and to pillage, to strip others of their wealth and make them our slaves, to take everything away from the people we have encountered shortly before we exterminate them. I am a WHITE MAN but I am also a person with a soul and a conscious who has looked at history critically and who would give his life to take back the tragedies that have been committed for the furtherance of the white race.

The White Race will only be "purified" when all of the skinheads are DEAD.

 

No I can be proud that my white ancestors fought to get away from religious leaderships.

I can be proud that my white ancestors fought to aid Europe in two wars.

There is much I can be proud of on my white side. I will not be embarrassed or ashamed. I will not be a white apologist. (*)(*)(*)(*) happens and the fact is it is still happening in Africa and the Middle East.

 

The Puritans and the rest of those 17th century fanatics left Europe to escape their own hardships, but in doing so they brought a much greater hardship on the people that already lived here. How is that a selfless or godly act? Although I suppose that genocide followed by repopulation is a crime so unbelievable that a religious explanation is the only explanation we can stomach.

We did not fight to aid Europe. We fought to kill the nazis, who were in fact European.

I'm not sure whether or not I'm a "white apologist" -- a term that I'm sure carries less racist connotations for you than it does for me -- but I'm a white person and I think that wrong deeds deserve apologies, and I'm not afraid to speak up and say what needs to be said. My ancestors came here on the Mayflower, and they landed on soil that was occupied, and through a combination of disease outbreaks and violence they eradicated the natives and occupied their homes. I'm not all that up-to-date on my Puritan history but I'm pretty sure that what they were fleeing from did not even come close to comparing to what they caused.

 

The original settlers were not the issue it was the other crap from Europe that caused issues. Remember they were Brit Colonies.

Let me also say that without the white contributions to society we would be in the stone ages. It makes no difference but hell Black pride is well? Just as nasty. Look at Africa.

 

I'd say this has less to do with race and more to do with your geographic location (rural vs urban).

Hey, jumping out of a perfectly good airplane is sane enough...right?

I'll admit, there's no rush like skydiving.

 

As usual you don't have a clue.

 

The so-called Pilgrims were a particularly nasty brand of religious maniacs, who were so unpopular, even the Calvinistic Dutch could not stand them, and sent them packing. They wanted to do away with the Church of England's traditional observances, and demanded that the rest of the populace follow their lead.

They considered themselves to have an 'unique covenant with God'. They wanted to do away with the King James Bible and the Book of Common Prayer. They supported Cromwell and his regicidal reign, and imposed a grey and hideous republic upon England for roughly nine years. They banned drama, sacred music, dancing, and certain forms of poetry. They also banned the celebration of Christmas. Their like can most easily be found in the most fundamentalist and extreme Islamic societies today. They made the Taliban look like dissolute party goers.

They were not persecuted in any form, but when the Cromwellian republic fell, and the Monarchy was re-established, they fled. First to Holland, and then to the Americas, where they embarked upon a Godly programme of witch-burning and genocide.

So it was very much the original settlers who were the issue. The colonies were modelled upon their principles, which may account for certain characteristics of US society today.

 

Can I get a mod response on the using the term "racism enthusiasts"? i think it is descriptive without being overtly offensive.

 

Don't forget that the Indians drew first blood in the Americas with the pilgrims. The "Starving Time" was a brutal act perfomed by the native peoples.

 

James Towne was not colonised by the Puritans - it was established by the Virgina Company of London, so that incident had no relevance to their genocidal activities.

 

Well it does show that the Natives were not the victims they are always made out to be.

 

Regardless of whether whites constitute a numerical minority group in some cities and regions, they are still the dominant ethnic group in terms of numerous socioeconomic indicators, and still not subject to the institutional discrimination that non-white ethnic minorities are.

http://core.ecu.edu/soci/juskaa/soci2110/Lectures/Race/tsld004.htm

For example, it is African-Americans and not whites that are subject to labor market discrimination, as evidenced by Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination: "We perform a field experiment to measure racial discrimination in the labor market. We respond with fictitious resumes to help-wanted ads in Boston and Chicago newspapers. To manipulate perception of race, each resume is assigned either a very African American sounding name or a very White sounding name. The results show significant discrimination against African-American names: White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews."

While you mention "mestizos" (a biologically useless term), you do not mention that white Hispanics are not subject to the labor market discrimination that dark-skinned Hispanics are, as evidenced by Annual Income, Hourly Wages, and Identity Among Mexican Americans and Other Latinos: "I find strong incentives favoring acculturation among Mexican and Cuban Americans. Americans of Mexican and Cuban descent but less so Puerto Ricans, are able to increase annual income and hourly wages by acculturating into a Non-Hispanic white racial identity. However, neither the abandonment of Spanish nor the abandonment of a specifically Hispanic racial self-identity is sufficient to overcome the penalties associated with having a dark complexion and Non-European phenotype."

The basis for minority group activism is organized resistance to institutional discrimination that targets an ethnic group for their shared attributes. Whites are not subject to harmful institutional discrimination for their shared attributes, and do not rank low on any socioeconomic indicators that I am aware of, in comparison to other ethnic groups.

Thus, there is no basis for organization of "white pride" or "white nationalism" except as a mechanism for maintaining existing ethnic hierarchies

 

Perhaps a little bit of factual history might help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starving_Time

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamestown,_Virginia

The natives were not the first to instigate hostilities. What would you do if invaders arrived on your shores, and after being treated well, began to take your food by force?

 

I would not use wiki as your source but yes there is quite a bit left out of that little article you quoted. Also left out is how the tribes were playing the Europeans off of each other in power struggles among their people. Trade, the beaver wars, was a huge factor for the Indians. Contrary to popular belief there was alot of Natives that wanted the Europeans there for that reason.

 

LOL, OK be that as it may, it still has no relevance to what a nasty shovel of crap the so-called Pilgrim Fathers were, and how they influenced the development of the colonies.

 

Actually, it does work. People like you seem to actually pay better attention to my intended point,

Well, I'd say the Han point was not to be CONQUERED by the Huns, but in a lesson the Right Wingers in the USA could pay attention to, that 3000 mile wall built an enormous expense did not even slow down China's invasion and takeover by the Huns. Bribe a few guards, and the invasion simply came on in!

And the race-mixing did occur! All over. The Huns were EXCELLENT "race-mixers"!

Man, you just like to ignore THAT one, don't you?

Really, how do you know what kind of prince she is waiting for?

 

What a racist comment.