Big rise in illegal immigrants in Southeast

HoneyC wrote:

<quoted text>Hmmm...interesting.
Egypt was never "white" to begin with. If you look closely at the reliefs and/or mummies of the pharaohs and their families from the majority of dynasties, they were obviously of African descent. It was just called Nubian at that time. It wasn't until the last dynasty that a family of Macedonian descent took over. See Alexander the Great for references.
Byzantium has been Caucasian for all time. If you consider Middle Easterners "non-white", okay, but they are considered Caucasian, as well. After all, they are closer to the Caucasus region than any lily white American.
Rhodesia falls under "you cannot be serious." Rhodesia is smack dab in the midst of Africa and was majority black, both before independence from Great Britain and after. Whites were always the minority in Rhodesia. Just because they had power for a short while during colonization and for an even shorter time after independence will scarcely qualify them as a majority white country. But, I feel pretty safe in saying Rhodesia was ALL black when the British showed up.
South Africa is "see Rhodesia." It was ALL black until the Dutch arrived. A minority of whites gained power, but they were in the minority from Day One, and after what they did there, I kind of think they deserve everything they've gotten. I'm pretty sure there are still white people in South Africa as I write this, so they haven't been exterminated. They've just been removed from being all-powerful.
You absolutely cannot take a colonial country that whites took over and use it as an example of how when whites became the minority, they were exterminated. If you can find a country along the lines of Sweden or France, that was historically nothing but white and then wasn't, your earlier statement might apply. However, you give me a list of countries that overwhelmingly were ALL black prior to the white man's arrival (leaving Byzantium off the list) and want to use that to illustrate your point. That's not going to work, sorry. Broad sweeping statements will get you nowhere. Keep looking. And don't bother with YouTube. I don't use YouTube for historical accuracy.

Mexican wrote:

<quoted text> Yeah, you said that with the Blacks too! Remember, y'all got your Confederate asses kicked in the Civil War!!

Mexican wrote:

We decided it's time to take over the South from all of those Confederate fools and rednecks!

HoneyC wrote:

<quoted text>Hmmm...interesting.
Egypt was never "white" to begin with. If you look closely at the reliefs and/or mummies of the pharaohs and their families from the majority of dynasties, they were obviously of African descent. It was just called Nubian at that time. It wasn't until the last dynasty that a family of Macedonian descent took over. See Alexander the Great for references.

Byzantium has been Caucasian for all time. If you consider Middle Easterners "non-white", okay, but they are considered Caucasian, as well. After all, they are closer to the Caucasus region than any lily white American.

Rhodesia falls under "you cannot be serious." Rhodesia is smack dab in the midst of Africa and was majority black, both before independence from Great Britain and after. Whites were always the minority in Rhodesia. Just because they had power for a short while during colonization and for an even shorter time after independence will scarcely qualify them as a majority white country. But, I feel pretty safe in saying Rhodesia was ALL black when the British showed up.

South Africa is "see Rhodesia." It was ALL black until the Dutch arrived. A minority of whites gained power, but they were in the minority from Day One, and after what they did there, I kind of think they deserve everything they've gotten. I'm pretty sure there are still white people in South Africa as I write this, so they haven't been exterminated. They've just been removed from being all-powerful.[QUOTE]
You are completely wrong about South Africa. When white people arrived there most of South Africa was very sparsely populated by Bushman and Hottentots. Both distinct racial groups very different from the Sub Saharan African tribes that dominate the area now. The Xhosa moved down form the north after the Boer and the British had built a thriving economy. The Zulu were there and fought bravely against both the Boer and the British. The Zulu didn't want their country taken over by another race. Imagine that. Anyway peace treaty were signed with the Zulu giving them astronomy in their own regions. It is also of historical not that most Zulu did not side with the ANC in the years leading up to the end of Apartheid. As a result Nelson and Winny Mandela had their followers put burning tires around the necks of many Zulu.
But I digress this is about the genocide of white people going on there right now. According to Bishop Tutu's Truth and Reconciliation hearings a total of about 900 blacks were killed by whited during all the years of Apartheid, most of which happened in military conflicts. Since black rule began of 30,000 white men women and children have been murdered in the most horrible ways you can imagine.
But that doesn't matter you. You have already stated that you believe they had it coming. Even the little children.
[QUOTE]You absolutely cannot take a colonial country that whites took over and use it as an example of how when whites became the minority, they were exterminated. If you can find a country along the lines of Sweden or France, that was historically nothing but white and then wasn't, your earlier statement might apply. However, you give me a list of countries that overwhelmingly were ALL black prior to the white man's arrival (leaving Byzantium off the list) and want to use that to illustrate your point. That's not going to work, sorry. Broad sweeping statements will get you nowhere. Keep looking. And don't bother with YouTube. I don't use YouTube for historical accuracy.

HoneyC wrote:

<quoted text>Wow, I just figured you out. I must be slow on the uptake tonight. I do believe you are in the wrong forum. You need to head on back to the white hoodie wearing, cross burning one. Have a nice trip.

Veritatis wrote:

<quoted text>
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the United States a Colony at one time?
If you believe that genocide is justified in South Africa, then I can see why you don't have a problem with genocide in the United States.

Cajun Nation wrote:

<quoted text>
His name calling and racism gives all of us "Confederate fools and Rednecks" the right to kill every Mexican on site.

Veritatis wrote:

<quoted text>
What do you think is the real problem?

Veritatis wrote:

<quoted text>
Typical. You have no real reply so you start name calling. In your opinion I am a racist.
Answer one thing. Are you like Obama's buddy Henry Louis Gates, looking forward to the time when we all look like Polynesians.
I am not and if you went to a black country say Haiti for example and said you were looking forward to a time when everyone there looked like Polynesians, what do you think the reaction of the people there would be?
If you went to Thailand and said you were looking foreword to a time when everyone there looked like Tiger Woods, what would any sane Thai think of you?
But when I say that I don't want my race, my people, blended into something that looks like Polynesia, I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionje w or a klansmanwhowantstolynchalltheb lacks.

NTRPRNR1 wrote:

<quoted text>I believe she simply tried to inform you that you don't know the definitiion of genocide, you need history lessons, and she now sees clearly that you're a white suremacist. I wouldn't continue to provoke her. You'll only regret it.

HoneyC wrote:

<quoted text>There are many people who need history lessons. Gleaning one's history from the Bible or the Aryan Nations lecture series just isn't going to cut it. I should have seen it, though. I'll just chalk it up to a long week. The simple fact is most genocides that have happened in recorded history occur between people of the same colors and the genocide is based upon more intangible factors, such as religion or tribal affiliations. The United States has just as much blood on their hands as any other part of the world and that can never be condoned or explained away. Either way, it has nothing to do with a legitimate conversation about illegal aliens. If anyone's biggest fear is they'll be wiped out due to the color of their skin as a result, they have no business in the matter. They only serve to prove all the charges made against us are true and that's not something I'm interested in being associated with.

Mexican wrote:

<quoted text> Yeah, you said that with the Blacks too! Remember, y'all got your Confederate asses kicked in the Civil War!!

Zagg wrote:

The real problem is that the corporate and political elites decided decades ago that it was in their interest to eliminate national borders for labor and capital flow. That way, capital can exploit the cheapest labor where ever it is. This was done under the rubric "free trade". NAFTA is an example. That's why manufacturing is moving to China at a great rate, and backoffice work is moving to India. In Europe, Eastern Europeans are flooding into Western Europe (the "Polish Plumber" phenomenon), along with Turks and Africans. In the US, it's Latin Americans, along with some Chinese and Poles. High unemployment, falling wages, and declining standard of living for the working class is the result. How bad things will get is beyond my capacity to say, but I don't think it's going to be good. Unless you're involved in international capital flow or international trade, or can position yourself as a flunky to those who are, the future doesn't look good.
<quoted text>

NTRPRNR1 wrote:

<quoted text>Exactly. So, the question for Americans is whether we can find enough unity of purpose to ban together and vote across party lines in order to affect "change" from the status quo, while we figure out how to "hold the line" against globalists in order to preserve what little is left of the middle class in America.

man on the street wrote:

<quoted text>I see the point being that these were countries under minority rule until it was abolished. What do you think about it on those terms?