[fenetre]

Regardless of the veracity of any of the claims made in this thread, Samseau is to be admired for taking a stand and speaking his mind.

Much of that posted in opposition to him is safe and narrative-approved, and definitely not unpopular.

He's received a questionable reputation comment which is out of order.

It's clear to me that the characterisation of what's valuable in life and society differs wildly between groups.

The feel-good relativistic emotionalism that some have posted here adds nothing of substance but gets lots of approval.

Indeed, in my opinion, it's symptomatic of a general degradation of the discourse on parts of this forum over the past year.

[Comte De St. Germain]

(11-06-2017 11:11 AM)fenetre Wrote:  

Regardless of the veracity of any of the claims made in this thread, Samseau is to be admired for taking a stand and speaking his mind.

Much of that posted in opposition to him is safe and narrative-approved, and definitely not unpopular.

He's received a questionable reputation comment which is out of order.

It's clear to me that the characterisation of what's valuable in life and society differs wildly between groups.

The feel-good relativistic emotionalism that some have posted here adds nothing of substance but gets lots of approval.

Indeed, in my opinion, it's symptomatic of a general degradation of the discourse on parts of this forum over the past year.

Way to make the most unsubstantive contribution to this thread yet.

Just because we want to defend someone we think is a great man against what we believe are slanderous attacks(originally substantiated by cross-dresser, homosexual, and generally shit man aka J. Edgar Hoover) we're all emotion filled twats? And on top of that we are supposed to sit by and idly watch?

We're all supposed to support something because it's unpopular and goes against the narrative?

Get your head checked mate.

[Repo]

(11-06-2017 11:11 AM)fenetre Wrote:  

Regardless of the veracity of any of the claims made in this thread, Samseau is to be admired for taking a stand and speaking his mind.

Much of that posted in opposition to him is safe and narrative-approved, and definitely not unpopular.

He's received a questionable reputation comment which is totally out of order.

It's clear to me that the characterisation of what's valuable in life and society differs wildly between groups.

The feel-good relativistic emotional rubbish that some have posted here adds nothing of substance but gets lots of approval.

Indeed, in my opinion, it's symptomatic of a general degradation of the discourse on this forum over the past year. It seems everything must go through the life cycle.

Why don't you speak your mind and specifically call out the posters who are contributing feel good relativistic emotional rubbish? Because without that your post doesn't really have any substance.

And do you mean this narrative ((((())))))? Or another one?

[fenetre]

(11-06-2017 11:18 AM)Comte De St. Germain Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 11:11 AM)fenetre Wrote:  

Regardless of the veracity of any of the claims made in this thread, Samseau is to be admired for taking a stand and speaking his mind.

Much of that posted in opposition to him is safe and narrative-approved, and definitely not unpopular.

He's received a questionable reputation comment which is out of order.

It's clear to me that the characterisation of what's valuable in life and society differs wildly between groups.

The feel-good relativistic emotionalism that some have posted here adds nothing of substance but gets lots of approval.

Indeed, in my opinion, it's symptomatic of a general degradation of the discourse on parts of this forum over the past year.

Way to make the most unsubstantive contribution to this thread yet.

Just because we want to defend someone we think is a great man against what we believe are slanderous attacks(originally substantiated by cross-dresser, homosexual, and generally shit man aka J. Edgar Hoover) we're all emotion filled twats? And on top of that we are supposed to sit by and idly watch?

We're all supposed to support something because it's unpopular and goes against the narrative?

Get your head checked mate.

Look man, you're right to say this. The post did lack substance, I concede this. I'm spending too much time on this forum, expecting something different. I've nothing more of value to add to this discussion, so I'll sign off. I'm not being passive aggressive; being honest. Letting my frustration show through more than anything. Over and out.

[debeguiled]

[Samseau]

(11-05-2017 12:22 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

It's a beautiful crisp autumn afternoon.

You could go out and play some football in the park.

Or do a colored pencil sketch of the evanescent colors of fall leaves.

Or curl up with your girl and some Irish coffee in front of a fire.

Or discredit Martin Luther King.

Or I could have done all of the above things. Went to church this yesterday; celebrated my grandmother's 79th birthday. She was married for 50 years. Taught Sunday school, went to coffee hour. Chatted with the bishop who was visiting, told him I enjoyed his sermon about living in one of the most atheist states in America.

Afterwards I went to my grandmother's house, and played with the infant grandchildren of my uncle. One of them blonde hair blue-eyes, another light-brown skin, hair, and olive-eyes. Their mothers invited me along to a birthday party afterwards of some in-laws. Many attractive middle eastern women were there, going after the tallest and blondest aryan men they could get. My uncle challenged me to show off some dance moves. I did some floorwork and then all the infants started rolling on the ground trying to imitate me while the fawning mothers recorded it on their smartphones. An in-law, fiance of the birthday woman's son, bumped into me as I rose from the floor, totally invading my space, then exclaims, "EXCUSE ME." I felt bad for her fiance, he was marrying a really bitchy middle eastern woman. I know the type from my family all too well.

I drove home thinking about the texas shooting.

Never even thought about this thread once till I got back home around 8pm. Amazing how the fantasy of what people think I am is versus the reality, isn't it?

(11-05-2017 02:44 AM)Kona Wrote:  

Quote:

One of the events mentioned in the document are workshops King held in Miami, Florida, in February 1968 with funds from the Ford Foundation to train black ministers in leadership

“One Negro minister in attendance later expressed his disgust with the behind-the-scene drinking, fornication, and homosexuality that went on at the conference,” the document reads. “Several Negro and white prostitutes were brought in from the Miami area. An all night-sex orgy was held with these prostitutes and some of the delegates in attendance.”

“One room had a large table in it which was filled with whiskey. The two Negro prostitutes were paid $50.00 to put on a sex show for the entertainment of the guests. A variety of sex acts deviating from the normal were observed.”

Come on Samseau. You're believing j. Edgar hoover and the FBI over Martin Luther King?

So Trump better be impeached asap, because the FBI says he did some bad shit right?

The FBI had a big ole push to mess with MLK that is undeniable. The quote above about the orgy, does that really seem likely? Is it more likely the FBI made that up to mess with MLK's Ford Foundation money?

Regardless of your civil rights opinion, one thing that has advanced since the days of Martin Luther King is some people's ability to see through bullshit propaganda. I believe this is called the red pill movement. From what I hear, the king of bullshit propaganda was j. Edgar hoover.

So samseau, before you swear off MLK as a hypocrite, maybe take a deep breath. If not, you better be at work the third Monday in January.

Aloha!

While I agree that the FBI is not to be trusted, it is for that reason I believe these files are accurate because they were kept hidden for so long.

These FBI files on MLK would have never seen the light of day had Trump not taken the White House by storm. Any Dem Pres would have made sure they did not go public.

When the FBI wants us to know something, like in Vegas, we know it's bullshit propaganda. Therefore when they hide something, like this info on MLK for 50 years, I now have every reason to believe it.

These files were given to the people by force, yet another gift from the destroyer of all false American idols, Donald J. Trump.

Trump has destroyed both the Republican and Democrat establishments, the media, Hollywood, the NFL, and now it's MLK's turn. Trump is the all-destroyer, and I can see why discrediting MLK is important. The myth of MLK is a big part of what keeps Blacks on the Dem welfare plantation.

(11-05-2017 01:32 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

As for the civil rights movement being a net gain/loss. My take is that prior to it, blacks were kept in a box and held at waist height. The civil rights movement opened top of the box as well as the bottom. Some went higher than they otherwise might have. Some went lower. But what does it matter which way they went? An America without the right to succeed or fail on your own merits is no America at all.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The civil rights movement was supposed to be about letting Blacks compete on the same terms as Whites, but instead the Blacks were given the gibs train.

- Welfare for Black women = no more Black fathers.
- Affirmative Action = Blacks now have to keep the Dems in power or else they will lose their government mandated jobs and degrees.
- "Systemic racism" in the justice system = Police no longer enter Black neighborhoods, while the criminals take over and utterly destroy any possibility of community advancement.

All of the above are toxic for Black Americans (as they are for any race) and MLK was the stooge who led them onto these positions under the guise of "civil rights" (which overwhelmingly came from the Republican party).

(11-05-2017 02:52 AM)Buck Wild Wrote:  

This. This is exactly where I stand on it. America post-1970 was an America where black people had the right to succeed or fail on the their own merits more than they ever had before. Maybe not exactly equal to white people along every relevant vector, but if you compare our status and socioeconomic mobility with that of ethnic minorities in other powerful empires/nations throughout history I believe we are doing quite well.

Before MLK you could not honestly say this and we have him to thank in large measure.

Just like LDN you make the same mistake in reasoning. Post MLK Blacks were allowed to succeed but they also weren't allowed to fail. The result is that the Black community is destroyed and hangs in a precarious position.

Before MLK, there were many southern White racists, still bitter over the Civil War, who kept Blacks down. Blacks were still heavily ostracized in the North as well. They were allowed to fail but prevented from having any serious success. And yet, despite these hardships, they loved each other more than they ever do today.

People need to be honest when the cure is worse than the disease. What started as the "Civil Rights movement" in the 1950s by Republicans ended as the "Black grievance industry" in the 1960s by Democrats, a precursor to the diversity anti-White anti-Christianity regime we're fighting today.

(11-05-2017 02:59 AM)Agastya Wrote:  

Quote:

Agastya:

Quote:

Before the civil rights period (and for a little bit after) blacks enjoyed better family structures, but they were also slaughtered on the basis of their race, and utterly precluded from doing anything other than menial work. The "making a living" that Samseau talks about involved working as someone's sharecropper, being denied the right to vote, and living in fear of getting lynched or tortured if you looked at a white woman the wrong way.

"slaughtered" How about providing some numbers instead of imaging things? I see Blacks getting slaughtered today, no joke, actual war zones levels of homicide, nothing like that has ever existed in America's past. Nothing even came remotely close.

Well, let's see...

The NAACP reports that 3,446 black people were lynched between 1882 and 1962. They acknowledge that over a thousand white people were also lynched during this period, and that many states lynched far more whites than they did blacks.

Proof is here: http://www.naacp.org/history-of-lynchings/

Now, one could use this factoid to claim that lynching wasn't a serious problem in society -- after all, 3,446 black people lynched over an eighty-year period equals only 43 black people lynched per year, which is significantly less than the number of homicides in Chicago alone.

762 people were killed in Chicago in 2016, 75% of whom are black. So it is legitimate to say that the death toll from lynching was significantly less than the death toll from gang violence in the states -- with one city's crime statistics dwarfing the lynching statistics of the entire U.S on a yearly basis.

The difference is, however, that this violence is largely relegated to the ghetto, and doesn't affect black people at every level of society. In 2017, a black person can expect to meet a violent end if he lives in the worst ghettos of the most violent cities in the country and engages in gang activity.

Close to 70% of Black American lives in the ghetto, i.e. Section 8 housing provided to single-moms.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr66/nvsr66_01.pdf

Quote:

The percentage of all births to unmarried women was 40.3%
in 2015, similar to the 2014 percentage of 40.2% in 2014, the
lowest levels since 2007. The percentage of all births to unmarried
women peaked in 2009 at 41.0%. In 2015, the percentage of
nonmarital births varied widely among population groups, from
16.4% for API mothers to 70.6% for non-Hispanic black mothers
(Table 15).

In other words, the Civil Rights "movement" to the gibs train is great if you're in the top 30% of Black America.

For the other 70%? Have fun with no Dad, massive crime, and HORRIBLE women. I'm sure it's just super easy for Black boys to bring themselves out of that mess.

Thanks, MLK!

Quote:

Before the civil rights movement, however, a black person could expect to meet a violent end (or at least experience violence) if they did the following:

- Talked to a white woman and triggered her (sound familiar?), creating cases like the torture and murder of Emmett Till. This was a kid who basically got killed for daygaming a white woman in the South.

-- Fucked a white woman and was falsely accused of rape after she got regrets (the cause of one third of all black lynchings in the south)

-- Attained any economic prosperity whatsoever, which would lead to jealous whites burning down their downtown areas and running them out of town (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot). This, by the way, led to the complete destruction of one of the most prosperous and tightly-knit black communities in the country.

-- Tried to attend predominantly white institutions, where, no matter how qualified they were, they could expect to receive a significant level of racial animosity at the very least, and abject violence at the worst.

-- Tried to travel the country (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Negro_...reen_Book_) This was a book of safety guidelines written for the few middle class blacks who owned cars and wanted to travel the country. It detailed exactly which places they should avoid -- places where whites would refuse them service, refuse them car repairs, or even assault them for showing their faces after sunset.

So while modern gang violence probably kills more blacks than white supremacists did in terms of absolute numbers, the climate for blacks pre-Civil Rights was significantly worse. Sure, they may have had better family structures back then, but that meant jack shit in terms of their actual prosperity or economic growth. I will agree that their culture was overall stronger prior to the Civil Rights movement, their living conditions were undeniably worse.

You contradict yourself. How can the climate be worse if the total numbers were not worse? If the climate was as apocalyptic as you claim, then Blacks would have been genocided out of existence. Instead, the average group of Whites just wanted to be left alone from Blacks. This is hardly a big deal.

My family lived without Whites for over a thousand years, surrounded by hostile Muslims. But they loved each other and therefore survived.

So why are Blacks doomed without Whites to hold their hands and walk with them? Can they not wipe their own asses? Are Blacks so pathetic they are unable to live without Whites giving them access to their communities?

We already know the answer - Blacks lived just fine, loved each other just fine, and the incidents to which they were persecuted were completely blown out of proportion to their actual prevalence. Conversely today, Blacks suffer on a massive industrial scale, yet everyone pretends otherwise because Blacks have "muh Civil Rights" they are so much better off.

It's an obvious lie.

Quote:

(11-05-2017 01:06 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

If we could somehow bring some Blacks out of the past from 1890 and into this modern world where they could watch their great-granddaughters get banged out by dozens of men and father 5 kids from 4 different fathers, I'd be willing to bet that those Blacks would choose to go back to 1890.

Poverty and promiscuity are bad, but at least they can be surmounted. There ARE blacks who have made it to the middle class and beyond, millions of them in fact. This is a direct result of the Civil Rights movement. Prior to that, black intellectuals and entertainers were a tiny minority, and popular black athletes were basically unheard of, let alone black politicians.

Notice, whenever I bring up the fact that Black communities today are horrible compared to what they used to be, in that they are loveless, violent, and drug-ridden, the number one retort is that a minority of Blacks have made money.

Really? Money? That's your metric of success? I would rather see all of America's money disappear if it meant that the people loved each other perfectly.

Of course, it would be better if people had money and love, but if I had to choose it's a no brainer which one is more important.

Quote:

Legitimate institutional racism, segregation, and racist terror may not have destroyed the black family structure, but they crippled it in terms of economic potential and actual performance. This is a pretty obvious point, but being completely barred from anything but menial work made it impossible for most blacks to get anywhere pre-Civil Rights. I doubt any of the family oriented-blacks from the 1890's would have wanted to see their descendant become an obese single mother of 8 children, but they also would be happy she doesn't run the risk of this:

:

or this:

"Turner was still alive when a member of the mob split her abdomen open with a knife and her unborn child fell on the ground. The baby was was stomped and crushed as it fell to the ground. Turner’s body was riddled with hundreds of bullets."

Which happened after a black woman was accused of killing an abusive plantation owner.

Conditions in the inner city are bad, but at least blacks there have the basic ability to get out, the system isn't completely stacked against them. Blacks prior to the civil rights era did not have that luxury.

While the barbaric behavior of some Whites were inexcusable, the scale and proportion of the events you describe are nothing compared to the destruction and suffering currently plaguing Black America today.

Both murders you listed above are just nothing compared to the dozen people just murdered in Chicago last weekend.

I bring facts and stats, you bring anecdotes and feels. I talk about love and community, you talk about a bunch of Blacks making tons of money so they can throw it away on expensive items, women, and drugs (instead of helping out the 70% trapped in the ghettos).

(11-05-2017 03:10 AM)Buck Wild Wrote:  

^^Great comment with which I agree completely.

Quote:

If we could somehow bring some Blacks out of the past from 1890 and into this modern world where they could watch their great-granddaughters get banged out by dozens of men and father 5 kids from 4 different fathers, I'd be willing to bet that those Blacks would choose to go back to 1890.

I have a ton of respect for Samseau's contribution to this forum...but as a black man I can definitely say without hesitation that I prefer to live in our current time as black man even with all our problems as black people (self-inflicted and otherwise) and that I very strongly suspect my predecessors would concur.

I'm extremely skeptical. The Blacks of 100 years ago valued God much more than money.

(11-05-2017 05:40 AM)Not a Second Hander Wrote:  

After learning that Nelson Mandela was a lying scumbag, racist and hypocrite who ruined South Africa instead of the angel he is portrayed as I've had suspicions regarding just about any one person who the media tries to sell as completely moral or completely amoral. The reality tends to typically fall somewhere in the middle.

I agree with Samseau on Black America and I'm black.

Bunch of children in this thread talking about the right to bang white girls and being able to piss in the same urinal. How is that even remotely useful metric for quality of life? Black America is broken and if segregation means stronger black families, non-abrasive black women, economic opportunities and spiritual fitness -then why not?

Thanks for speaking up man. Not until more Black men speak up will their communities improve.

I also recommend trying to work with the bastard boys in your community, and be a positive male influence they most likely do not have. That is the #1 way to improve things in the long run. There must be a return to brotherly communal love if Blacks truly want to see prosperity.

(11-05-2017 07:33 AM)Tanapiko Wrote:  

As a black man , I'd say that I'm siding with Samseau on this , black people wanna act like whites nowadays when we not even there yet , shit like black lives matter , why black lives matter when white cops kill us and not when we killing ourselves for stupid shit , these people living the gangster that we idolize , negroes don't even speak English properly anymore , black people hate black people more than anyone else , fucking white women don't do you any good , voting for politician when you left out at the end of the day anyways .
If you hate yourself , how do you expect others to love you ??
Black people have to grow up , love themselves before expecting anyone else respect.
We celebrate MLK today , but how exactly was he impactful , I didn't know having sex with white women showed how evolved we have become .
Hahaha of all the things we can show our improvement with pussy

Thank you as well for being brave enough to state simple truths. Pointing out the Emperor has no clothes is tough when people hate on you for doing so. I know the feel all too well.

And your point about women is right on. Why should banging White women be a measure of success? True success is loving your own women, your mothers, sisters, and daughters. Being able to love women of other races is just icing on the cake.

The fact that there are many threads of Black American men rejecting their women in massive numbers speaks volumes, just as it does with White men rejecting their women.

(11-05-2017 09:04 AM)Buck Wild Wrote:  

@ Razor Beast

Saying I'd rather be alive in 2017 as opposed to 1890 as a black man is not proof that "collectively and maybe culturally they don't value a traditional nuclear family and a strong community as much as white [people] do".

The point is that black people's problems in 2017 can--and I believe will--be overcome by us eventually. Black people's problems in 1890 could not be overcome by us because the deck was entirely stacked against us.

But I'm guessing you probably already understand this--I think you just got a little carried away with your post. Perhaps you typed a reply in advance of really digesting what I had said?

This is, without question, the best time to be alive as a black American male. My grandparents definitely thought so---and they absolutely valued the nuclear family (lifelong marriages until death parted them) and their grandparents were slaves in this country.

Just so you know.

Sounds you're part of the top 30% of Black America. Have you considered what life is like for the other 70%?

I'm afraid your confidence that Blacks "will overcome" the degeneration of their family structure seems like unwarranted optimism. 80% of Blacks last election continue to vote for the gibs train, ensuring that Black women will slut it up into oblivion.

Unless Black men regain control of their communities, I don't think Black America stands a chance in the long run. Female dominated families are unsustainable. If America were to go broke in the next 20 years, and the welfare money stopped, 70% of Black America would be looking at extinction.

Getting Blacks back to God and with stable marriages is easily a multi-generational affair that will take 2-5 generations, assuming no setbacks. These are terrible odds, you better hope America doesn't go bankrupt in the next 50 years.

(11-05-2017 10:31 AM)Sumanguru Wrote:  

Samseau,

I can't believe we're actually discussing whether or not the Civil Rights movement was a good thing just because one of its icon didn't fully live up to what he preached. As a black man, fuck if I'd ever live in pre-Civil Rights Act America.

Why? Does the idea of only living with just Blacks disturb you that much?

Christians have always been content to live just among Christians, Whites among Whites, Asians among Asians. Ever consider that the only reason Blacks feel like they need to live among Whites is because they've been programmed with an inferiority-complex through government run schools?

That unless Blacks have what Whites have, they aren't as good? Says who? Why buy into a racist frame?

You're telling me the loveless world we inhabit is better than a loving world tainted by racism?

Quote:

Just because I want our families and communities to be stronger doesn't mean I want to revert back to the past exactly as it was: there were a lot of bad old days. It would've been a lot harder to achieve the educational, professional, and financial success that I've reached if not for the CRM. Both King and X will always have my appreciation for their fight, even if I wish both had done things differently.

"An America without the right to succeed or fail on your own merits is no America at all."

Quote of the thread right there.

So I guess we don't have an America then, since today's women are prevented from failing, especially Black women, and Blacks as a whole are compensated with all sorts of programs (such as Affirmative Action) intended to help yet yields negative results.

I find it incredible that you're trying to justify the Civil Rights movement through the virtues of laissez-faire economics, when Blacks themselves vote for the Communist Dems at 80% or higher. Surely you are not thinking things through.

(11-05-2017 11:52 AM)Sumanguru Wrote:  

Quote:

Quote:

I can't believe there's a three page thread discussing the merits of civil fucking rights. Amazing.

This is almost as ridiculous as that Repeal the 13th amendment thread. Really shows how much the forums focus has dramatically shifted...

Bullshit like this thread's OP is why Excelsior and others bailed. It's why so many black people on this forum only post in the Moma and Rudeboy thread. And it's why the Manosphere/Alt-Right/Whatever-the-fuck-it's-being-categorized-as-today will never truly take off.

Do you have any idea how many haters have been proven wrong about the dissident right? I can find posts here from 2012 and before of people telling us this place would fail.

The idea that the civil rights movement were unqualified goods is a dogma easily contradicted by heapings of empirical evidence. More Blacks over a 5-year period are murdered and victims of crime than were for 80 years prior to Civil Rights, more Blacks born out of wedlock, more Blacks strained from God, and more Blacks utterly dependent on White money to survive.

Why is it wrong to question this, and call it out?

(11-05-2017 12:27 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  

All you "black"(I doubt you really are black) posters who want to return to segregation are out of your goddamn mind-my mother and father lived through segregation and marched to end it. My parents had to endure that shit and fought to get a chance for me not to have to deal with that oppression.

For all you "black" posters who think black America is worse off, go talk to your grandparents and see how they feel about now verses then. If you do not like black neighborhoods-then fucking move to a white neighborhood it is legal to do so now,try that shit in 1958. Don't like your economic situation? Take your black ass to school, major in STEM and change your circumstance-you no longer have to travel to black only universities, go to the majority white school in your city-it is legal now. Black chicks giving you shit for "acting white" and will not fuck you? White women will fuck the shit out of you, have at them-no more lynch mobs, it is even legal to marry them.

Any "black" poster here who thinks segregation was a good thing is likely a troll and unworthy of having their opinion considered seriously. I have rights my Grandfather could not fathom, his grandfather was a slave-born into bondage. With my rights come responsibilities, and I shoulder those responsibilities as well as I can manage-sometimes I slip, fail and disappoint myself-but I get up and try to give this world more positives than negatives. Most men are like this , and MLK was likely like this-If you want to condemn him , go for it-but ask yourself what have you done with your short time on this planet? Probably not as much as MLK, probably did not get as much ass as he did either.

Atlanta Man easily falls in the top 30% of Blacks I pointed out up above, and just from reading his posts over a few years I would guess he is in the top 5% of Blacks nationally.

As such, he only sees the Civil Rights movement from his selfish perspective. It's been great for him, so why can't all the other Blacks living in destroyed communities prosper? Obviously there must be something wrong with them if they can't make it.

Just because they grew up without a father and barely trust anyone in their community shouldn't matter! They can live with and trust Whites or other people. Just because they cannot expect to marry their own women shouldn't matter! They can marry White or other women.

For the other 70% of Blacks stuck in the ghetto, well, they just need to learn how to live in the White world and embrace "muh civil rights," so they can finally experience all the pleasures of our brave new world.

Except, it's not really happening, is it? We aren't seeing happiness except for a small percentage of Blacks, who then glorify themselves in music, TV, and social media, and the rest pretend everything is OK.

Atlanta Man, my question to you is, don't you feel any empathy for all the bastards born to lose? Will you help them? Or is this up to Whites too?

(11-05-2017 12:35 PM)BoiBoi Wrote:  

Saying that MLK's entire legacy is bullshit because he liked to bang hookers in the ass is a bit like saying don't use the autobahn because Hitler built it.

But if 70% of the people who drove on the autobahn ended up in car accidents, we'd have to ask if Hitler built the highway with good intentions, no?

(11-05-2017 02:29 PM)Goldin Boy Wrote:  

Can't believe some had to actually type-out this very obvious point. Civil right gave Black self-determination. Some Blacks made good choices, some didn't. But at least they have agency and can change their life trajectory if they choose to.

All the Civil Rights movement accomplished was giving Blacks access to White America. But I would argue Black men, as did all men, had more self-determination prior to "Civil Rights." Marriages actually meant something, people cared for one another within their communities, crime was very low, and children grew into better adults.

"Civil Rights" just brought in the hardcore feminism that bail out women no matter how many bastard children they have, no matter how many tests they fail, and no matter how many men they divorce.

The effect was far more toxic for Black men because Black men had fewer resources to compete with against Uncle Sam than White men did, but that is rapidly changing. 30% of White children are born out of wedlock, or White women just choose not to have kids at all if they can't find a husband who can beat Uncle Sam.

Quote:

(Samseau if at any point I misinterpreted you, please correct me and clarify):

Samseau's major points in this thread appear to be

1): MLK was married preacher, yet he had affairs. This discredits all this sermons and non-religious speeches and activities. Anything influenced by his speeches and other actives is therefore wrong as well.

Never take ethics lessons from a hypocrite. They might be right about math, logic, science, history, philosophy, etc, but morality? Serious hypocrisy is an instant disqualifier.

Quote:

2) Blacks need to choose strong, nuclear families or a civil rights and equal protection under the law because they can't have both simultaneously.

I don't believe that both cannot exist simultaneously. But if there can only be one, the option for loving families living in the light of God is superior.

Quote:

The Civil Right's movement didn't guarantee that every Black man will be a success but removed de jure obstacles that precluded earlier generation of Blacks from living, working, and doing whatever they wanted however they wanted.

They got access to the White world, but their rights within their own communities were diminished. Black communities have been destroyed as a result of it.

Quote:

How much social mobility and economic opportunity did Blacks, specifically Black men, have in pre-1960? I imagine it's hard to provide for that loving family when:

1) Bank won't mortgage loans regardless of credit history,
2) employers won't hire regardless of a work experience
3) The government gives out benefits only to Whites that helped them to build generational wealth (G.I. bill, homesteading laws).
4) (While it didn't always happen): A white person could do bodily harm to you or kill you with little cause/provocation and there you have little legal recourse (Black Wall Street, Emmit Till, Solomon Northrup).

Blacks had access to the homestead act. Blacks suffered 1% of the crime back then they do today. Blacks have a dying family structure. But at least a few of them have money!!!

(11-05-2017 03:27 PM)Laska Wrote:  

Quote:

I've always heard rumors about MLK being a major hypocrite and devient, but I never had any proof to support such accusations. These FBI files are extremely damaging to the man's reputation. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the FBI's allegations are true, in fact, there is no real reason to doubt them considering MLK's early life had plenty of girlfriends. Dude was a player, and once he hit max fame the idea he indulged in all kinds of pussy does not seem unrealistic in the slightest.

Kinda hard to take any of his sermons seriously ever again, though. False prophet recognized.

MLK also copied a great deal of his I Have a Dream Speech from Archibald Carey, speaking at the RNC of 1952. https://soundcloud.com/wbez/archibald-ca...s-1952-gop

Thank you very much for this link. What an unbelievable speech, Mr. Carey must have been something truly special. 17 minutes of unrestricted wisdom in the above link. I can't believe this was 1952, this man was 80 years ahead of his time.

He points out that since Blacks started voting for Dems with increased numbers (a reference to FDR) the Black community was suffering much more and the nation had been in tons of wars for no reason (under "police actions"). He pointed out that only the Republican party had ever treated Blacks under equal rule of law, and still managed to give economic prosperity to the rest of the nation.

The speech starts at 1:15, and immediately he is electrifying. A terrific speaker and fantastic points made right out of the gate just one minute in. It is hard to stop listening. At 4:15 he mentions how only the Republicans were supportive of ending discrimination against Blacks, too bad no one today knows shit about history anymore. Keep voting Dems, Black man.

[MajorStyles]

(11-05-2017 04:46 PM)zoom Wrote:  

(11-05-2017 04:20 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

^Notice also how Columbus day has now been relegated to the dustbins. The sjws at a college nearby where I live have successfully had it removed as a holiday from the school calendar. There wasn't even a token resistance from the faculty.

We still have Columbus day bro, it's a national holiday.

In the Los Angeles Unified School District, there is no school on MLK day; the same goes for schools and colleges in the state of Nevada. However, the same reverence is not shown to Columbus Day (October 9th) in either of these states. Most students don't realize that Columbus Day ever occurred. So the two holidays cannot be compared in terms of the cultural importance that is placed on each, as evidenced by the closing of schools and federal institutions.

Zoom, what state do you live? Do they close the schools and other institutions on Columbus Day like they do on MLK Day? I would bet my life that the answer is no. This leads to an obvious question...why do you think that is?

Columbus Day is still, technically speaking, a national holiday. But to pretend that it carries the same weight as MLK Day is fallacious.

[Sumanguru]

Wait. So I say

Sumanguru Wrote:

I can't believe we're actually discussing whether or not the Civil Rights movement was a good thing just because one of its icon didn't fully live up to what he preached. As a black man, fuck if I'd ever live in pre-Civil Rights Act America.

And then you say

Quote:

Why? Does the idea of only living with just Blacks disturb you that much?

Yes. Because the Civil Rights Movement--with one of its crowning achievements, the CRA legislation--was just about not having to live with only blacks. Sure. That's what I said I care about. Thanks for the strawman.

This feels like talking to women and explaining the life a man lives and she says, "Nuh uh! There's no way that's right!" I learned long ago that trying to explain myself in that situation was a waste of time.

This thread is cancer. I'm out.

[Paracelsus]

All I'm going to say is that the kernel of Martin Luther King's argument is often forgotten: he didn't argue for equality between black and white as such. The dream he spoke of in his famous was a world where man was not judged on the colour of his skin, but on the content of his character.

Character, as they say, is what you do when you think nobody is looking. Draw your own conclusion.

[zoom]

(11-06-2017 03:34 PM)MajorStyles Wrote:  

(11-05-2017 04:46 PM)zoom Wrote:  

(11-05-2017 04:20 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

^Notice also how Columbus day has now been relegated to the dustbins. The sjws at a college nearby where I live have successfully had it removed as a holiday from the school calendar. There wasn't even a token resistance from the faculty.

We still have Columbus day bro, it's a national holiday.

Columbus Day is still, technically speaking, a national holiday. But to pretend that it carries the same weight as MLK Day is fallacious.

I never said it carries the same weight as MLK Day.

[Samseau]

(11-06-2017 07:03 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

All I'm going to say is that the kernel of Martin Luther King's argument is often forgotten: he didn't argue for equality between black and white as such. The dream he spoke of in his famous was a world where man was not judged on the colour of his skin, but on the content of his character.

This is the myth of MLK, but not the reality. The "content of character" part is what he stole from Black Republicans like Archibald Carey. This was just King's way of entryism, the true intentions of his politics was to create the Black welfare state:

Quote:

The exploitation of King's name, the distortion of his teachings for political gain, is an ugly development. The term "affirmative action" did not come into currency until after King's death "but it was King himself, as chair of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, who initiated the first successful national affirmative action campaign: "Operation Breadbasket."

In Atlanta, Philadelphia, Chicago and other cities, King staffers gathered data on the hiring patterns of corporations doing business in black communities, and called on companies to rectify disparities. "At present, SCLC has Operation Breadbasket functioning in some 12 cities, and the results have been remarkable," King wrote (quoted in Testament of Hope, James Washington, ed.), boasting of "800 new and upgraded jobs [and] several covenants with major industries."

King was well aware of the arguments used against affirmative action policies. As far back as 1964, he was writing in Why We Can't Wait: "Whenever the issue of compensatory treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic."

King supported affirmative action";type programs because he never confused the dream with American reality. As he put it, "A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro" to compete on a just and equal basis (quoted in Let the Trumpet Sound, by Stephen Oates).

In a 1965 Playboy interview, King compared affirmative action";style policies to the GI Bill: "Within common law we have ample precedents for special compensatory programs.... And you will remember that America adopted a policy of special treatment for her millions of veterans after the war."

In King's teachings, affirmative action approaches were not "reverse discrimination" or "racial preference." King promoted affirmative action not as preference for race over race (or gender over gender), but as a preference for inclusion, for equal oportunity, for real democracy. Nor was King's integration punitive: For him, integration benefited all Americans, male and female, white and non";white alike. And contrary to Gingrich, King insisted that, along with individual efforts, collective problems require collective solutions.

Like Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, King viewed affirmative action as a means to achieving a truly egalitarian and color";blind society. To destroy the means, the gradual process by which equality is achieved, destroys the dream itself. And the use of King's name in this enterprise only adds derision to destruction.

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/04needs/affirm25.htm

And of course the gibs machine did not stop there, it ended up including welfare for pregnant women and animosity against cops and judges.

"Ye shall know them by their fruits."

I will take the word of Christ over any man, any day. MLK, the false prophet, led his people down a dark path that will lead them all to their doom if not rectified very soon.

Quote:

Character, as they say, is what you do when you think nobody is looking. Draw your own conclusion.

Using God's name to acquire power, whoremonger, and adulterate. And advocating policies which have destroyed his people. What other conclusion, besides what I have presented, is there to draw?

[RoastBeefCurtains4Me]

This post follows closely on my last post in another thread. MLK's primary virtue was that he promoted non-violent resistance, both on practical terms, and on Christian moral terms. The fact that he was willing to enjoy the sweet, sweet pussy that fell on his cock does not detract from his moral preference for non-violent resistance.

You can say he was only being pragmatic, and was depending on the virtue of the majority white population, the same as Gandhi did. You can say his chosen approach was purely cynical, with no superior moral basis.

However, there were a hell of a lot of violent, revolutionary leaders around the world of people who saw themselves as oppressed by white people. It would have been easy for US blacks to have adopted terriorism as a response to their grievances as they saw them at the time. The avoidance of this fate by calling on the name of God is why MLK is recognized.

[Kid Twist]

I came to the conclusion on my own years ago what Samseau has clearly thought a lot about. I always wondered why something which so obviously (post civil rights act) led to subsequent decline, chaos and destruction for a group was not immediately mentioned and recognized. I think the reality is a complex mixture with the culture in general at that time, which led also to destruction and chaos in many other sectors, just not as obvious or striking as with black Americans. The Great Society also brought rising health care costs which haven't stopped since. Coupled with marxism's spin and invasion of the universities, it went in part to provide much of what we're fighting against socially today. That includes ALL subgroups that involved themselves in those rebellious political movements, which pretty much includes all races. The immigration acts from 65 on destroyed (as we know now) a truly cohesive identity; they made America an economic haven to go to, not your home anymore, which technology allowed for a proxy economic savior with wires back home to the shithole you came from, but that you strangely still favored over the country that provided for you and your family.

I liked RoastBeef's post above because it makes a good point. Samseau makes good points, but I would urge him to consider the multi-faceted milieu of a country being sold out by the same politicians doing the same thing as MLK in some regard here; it is the time-old recognition of politicians in a wealthy country to start spreading the largess for votes and continued power. When that happens, it is the beginning stages of decline, a very real one which we saw surface concretely in the last few years. These people have worked change in slowly, they fooled the overwhelming majority, who aren't good at critical thinking, or due to materialism, didn't care, or worse (considering the future), both.

[Chris Brown]

Is there a single man or woman in history without any skeletons in the closet?

[WalterBlack]

(11-09-2017 11:25 PM)Chris Brown Wrote:  

Is there a single man or woman in history without any skeletons in the closet?

[kaotic]

^^^^



-His mom was a whore
-His step dad was a beta
-He had some bigly father issues

[YoungBlade]

^^^

I think it was more in reference to Chris Brown being jesus by paraphrasing him.

But you're right. Jesus himself didn't cast the first stone after bringin it up.

[sterling_archer]

Speaking of stoning...

[Jetset]

(11-06-2017 06:38 PM)Sumanguru Wrote:  

This feels like talking to women and explaining the life a man lives and she says, "Nuh uh! There's no way that's right!" I learned long ago that trying to explain myself in that situation was a waste of time.

Now I'm just curious about this conversation.

[ElJefe1]

Oh this is terrible MLK..... was a man????

[Samseau]

(11-09-2017 10:45 PM)RoastBeefCurtains4Me Wrote:  

This post follows closely on my last post in another thread. MLK's primary virtue was that he promoted non-violent resistance, both on practical terms, and on Christian moral terms. The fact that he was willing to enjoy the sweet, sweet pussy that fell on his cock does not detract from his moral preference for non-violent resistance.

You can say he was only being pragmatic, and was depending on the virtue of the majority white population, the same as Gandhi did. You can say his chosen approach was purely cynical, with no superior moral basis.

However, there were a hell of a lot of violent, revolutionary leaders around the world of people who saw themselves as oppressed by white people. It would have been easy for US blacks to have adopted terriorism as a response to their grievances as they saw them at the time. The avoidance of this fate by calling on the name of God is why MLK is recognized.

Although non-violence was the smart move, it wasn't that big of a deal because had the Blacks gone violent they would have been put down brutally. They would have never had a chance.

Non-violence is only truly impressive when you've got the majority in your hands. If your group is the weaker group and you promote non-violence, that doesn't take virtue as much as pragmatic thinking. So there was no virtue on MLK's part for advocating non-violence, just realistic thinking.

Conversely, in many countries where Blacks have assumed majority over Whites the outcome has been completely opposite; Zimbabwe, Haiti, and South Africa show much different outcomes.

The Whites are far more commendable in America where they have had power for centuries and yet never genocided the Blacks, indeed Blacks have prospered more in America than any other country on the planet.

So not even the non-violence aspect of MLK is anything special.

Quote:

Samseau makes good points, but I would urge him to consider the multi-faceted milieu of a country being sold out by the same politicians doing the same thing as MLK in some regard here

When have I ever defended the politicians running this country? I supported Trump from the start, as well as anyone else who works to destroy the status quo. MLK is part of the status quo killing the country, and he needs to be destroyed too.

Quote:

Oh this is terrible MLK..... was a man????

Quote:

Is there a single man or woman in history without any skeletons in the closet?

There have been millions of other Americans with 10x the virtue of MLK, why don't we have national holidays named after them instead of this terrible sinner?

[Leonard D Neubache]

Countering the rhetoric of violence among your people is entirely moral and impressive, regardless of whether you're in a minority.

When you have violent agitators dragging angry people toward being crushed in some fool crusade it takes a man of incredible character to drag those same people twice as hard away from violence and back towards peace.

How is that even difficult to understand? This man could have preached violence and had a line of moronic lackeys running through five states, but instead he chose to take the high road and save lives AND souls.

And we're supposed to believe it was just some cynical wargaming that led him to play rope-a-dope with whitey?

(11-14-2017 09:25 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

...
Although non-violence was the smart move, it wasn't that big of a deal because had the Blacks gone violent they would have been put down brutally. They would have never had a chance.

Non-violence is only truly impressive when you've got the majority in your hands. If your group is the weaker group and you promote non-violence, that doesn't take virtue as much as pragmatic thinking. So there was no virtue on MLK's part for advocating non-violence, just realistic thinking.

Conversely, in many countries where Blacks have assumed majority over Whites the outcome has been completely opposite; Zimbabwe, Haiti, and South Africa show much different outcomes.

The Whites are far more commendable in America where they have had power for centuries and yet never genocided the Blacks, indeed Blacks have prospered more in America than any other country on the planet.

So not even the non-violence aspect of MLK is anything special.
...

Foolproof logic right there.

Blacks sometimes genocide whites.
Only when they have the numbers.
MLK was black.
MLK therefore wanted to genocide whites.
Didn't have the numbers.
Sneakily preached peace instead.

[Chris Brown]

Quote:

Is there a single man or woman in history without any skeletons in the closet?

There have been millions of other Americans with 10x the virtue of MLK, why don't we have national holidays named after them instead of this terrible sinner?



Names?

[nomadbrah]

This is all long in the past and mythology.

What matters is this.

Once the boomers die off, there is going to be a massive housing crash which will bring on an economic crisis of unprecedented proportions.

Lines will be drawn.

At that point, whining about past injustice won't give any positive results.

Boomers will die off within 10-15 years.

[debeguiled]

(11-14-2017 05:38 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

This is all long in the past and mythology.

What matters is this.

Once the boomers die off, there is going to be a massive housing crash which will bring on an economic crisis of unprecedented proportions.

Lines will be drawn.

At that point, whining about past injustice won't give any positive results.

Boomers will die off within 10-15 years.

So, MLK is just a dead boomer?

You should have said so sooner and saved us five pages.