THIS ISNT YOUR BOARD

THIS ISNT YOUR BOARD

YOU DONT OWN IT

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot
census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900_United_States_Census
census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0076/twps0076.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=Y7AXizmhgi0
twitter.com/AnonBabble

well the liberals certainly won the culture war
You take someone from 100 years ago and every last one of them would be vilified as evil neo-nazi racists

fear of people who look different is an survival instinct of family/pack identification. its a deeply entrenched psychological mechanism, which is why it takes so long to breed it out.

>You take someone from 100 years ago and every last one of them would be vilified as evil neo-nazi racists

what did he mean by this?

50 years ago, and for nothing more than a little blackface

I HURT MYSELF TODAY

White people (and hell, people in general) 100 years ago were for the most part extremely racist, though. And eugenics was very popular at the time.

Survival strategies don't stop being survival strategies just because its 2016

>Stewart points out that the Republicans act like they have a monopoly on patriotism and the ideal of America
>this triggers Sup Forums-I mean, "Sup Forums" for some reason

You guys are almost as bad as the SJWs who see racism behind every white casting decision

really makes your mind ponder

Boy was he wrong. I bet they thought this would rally their troops.

I wonder if at least Jon is looking back and wondering how they can change for the future, rather than doubling down on the whole ''you're all RACISTS!'' rhetoric.

He is saying that any regular guy who lived around 1900 would hold super evil opinions in the eyes of liberals.

They had gained some victories in the western world.
But society is divided or even a majority anti-liberal like in Europe. Most of the changes imposed by them are destined to disappear in the current political climate.
For the rest of the world and the vast majority of Humanity their cultural influence is close to null.

the poo is one the poo is gold

nobody tells you about the poo's fold

it bends and spins, the poo is good

for the poo knows best as it should

WE OWN IT

YOU ARE A LONE NOBODY

Wasn't the labor movement and socialism more popular than ever 100 years ago?

of course not. it's instinct to kill other men and rape women to pass on yoir genes. but in a modern society these survival instincts are destructive.

eh it wasn't a "you're all racist" strategy, it was actually far more insidious than that. It was Jon Leibowitz showing what he actually thinks about America/White People.

That the Jews own it, and white people will be the next slaves.

Yes.But I think he's talking about the left's social views nowadays. Ironically, the labor movement of 100 years ago was incredibly racist, in spite of the lofty goals of the bookworms behind the movement. For example, Russian commies hated Jews almost as much as Russian Tsarists, and American commies absolutely loathed black people (who made up a large part of the working class and were natural allies under marxist ideology). That's probably one of the biggest reasons communism thankfully never got a serious foothold here.

> in a modern society
Here is the problem in your whole thinking
There is no "modern society"
People are not different
Nothing has fucking changed
We are still animals squabbling in the mud
Successful instinctive evolutionary strategies are successful for a reason, that doesn't go away just because the media & government tells you race mixing is ok, or that homogenous societies are something only a racist would want.

You have no idea what you are talking about

>It was Jon Leibowitz showing what he actually thinks about America/White People.

That's not what he was doing at all. Here's what Stewart said, after showing a quick montage of conservatives criticize Obama for certain traits an then praising Trump for the exact same trait:

>"So here's where we are, either Hannity and his friends are lying about being bothered by thin-skinned, authoritarian, less-than-Christian, teleprompter readers being president, or they don't care as long as it's their guy."

>"You just want that person to give you your country back because you feel you're this country's rightful owners. There's only one problem with that: This country isn't yours. You don't own it. It never was."

He's speaking to conservatives, and more specifically to the Republican Party. It's incredibly obvious if you look at it in context.

>You have no idea what you are talking about

Wait, do you think union members in 1916 America weren't racist?

Can you rephrase that without using a meaningless buzzword?

oh yeah.. thank god we all dont have a living wage and access to free education and healthcare.. that would fucking SUCK.

Which meaningless buzzword is that?

racist

"think"

>if i say someone used a buzzword that means i win the internet argument

>Lets villify all our ancestors based on modern liberal sensibilities
fuck
all
buzzwords

...

Ok, fine then:

Do you think that union members in 1916 America weren't prejudiced against black people? That they didn't refuse to work fully with black laborers?

I'm not vilifying them at all. It was just the era they lived in.

why do you think saying they were racist is a blanket vilification? it's a fucking fact, it doesn't mean they were all bad people, it just means they were fucking racist, jesus christ, are you 12?

>a word with a very clear definition, used in the correct context, is a buzzword

Do you even know what buzzword means? Or is "buzzword" just Sup Forums's newest buzzword, joining "cuck" and "shill"?

Yeah.. they didnt "burn" witches.. they were just "lighting" them. It's a scottish rite and a cultural heritage and how dare anyone try and appropriate that with their hateful modern liberal buzzwords.

Now, I don't see how being pro-white implies "prejudiced against black people", nothing stopped blacks from having their own communities/businesses.

There is a big seperation between these unions or other socialists, and the communist jews who started the NAACP/pushed civil rights/pushed integration/etc

>nothing stopped blacks from having their own communities/businesses

except when the whites would occasionally set them all on fire

When they were defending black criminals, yea

witches deserve to be killed

>which is why it takes so long to breed it out.

you cant breed it out... thats the thing...

im beginning to think the war on bigotry is a spook to drain taxpayer money into never ending attempts to do things you cant biologically do

The American Federation of Labor actively excluded black an asian workers. They essentially shot themselves in the foot by driving huge numbers of potential voters away. It wasn't pro-white, it was anti-black and asian.

The same thing happened nationwide with the American labor movement, and it's a big part of the reason why most blacks kept voting Republican (up until the 60s political flip) instead of Democrat or Socialist.

>nothing stopped blacks from having their own communities/businesses.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot

*black and asian workers

So if you defend someone who turns out to be guilty, I can set your house on fire?

>well the liberals certainly won the culture war

Maybe a few years ago but Trump winning is a clear sign people are getting sick of their shit and things are gonna change fast.

...

spoken like a true (((educator)))

>The riot was triggered over a Memorial Day weekend when a black man was accused of raping a young white female elevator operator. One of the newspapers allegedly editorialized that the youth ought to be hanged. Rumors raced through the black community that a lynch mob was planning to hang the youth. A group of armed African-American men rushed to the police station with the intention of preventing a lynching from occurring. There was no lynch mob but a confrontation developed between blacks and whites; shots were fired and some whites and blacks were killed.

To anyone with a spec of racial awareness this says everything.
A nigger raped a white woman, then the other nigs shot whites in defense of that nigger.

Then we're back to identity politics, who's side are you on?

You can say that, shit is moving fast, boycotts are working, exposing the shills in the media, all that. IT's fuckjing beautiful. Just wait for some right wing shit to make big money and it's all gravy

>The American Federation of Labor actively excluded black an asian workers. They essentially shot themselves in the foot by driving huge numbers of potential voters away. It wasn't pro-white, it was anti-black and asian.

It was done so that wages for the working man didn't go in the toilet because of massive immigration levels from 3rd world shitholes.

"Accused". Not evidence, no proof, just an accusation. By your logic, a gang of black people should have driven down to Duke about 10 years ago and murdered those lacrosse players. After all, they were accused of raping a black woman.

You don't execute people on the basis of an accusation, and you certainly don't execute people for rape regardless.

No evidence of Churchill saying that.

Most of the black people in America could trace their ancestry within the US to the 18th century or earlier. They weren't immigrants. If it was about excluding immigrants, why were German, Irish, and Italian immigrant workers allowed to join but black workers were not?

Because black people in America are slaves.

They do not deserve wages.

>massive immigration
>black

lol, do you think they all just showed up in 1900?

They showed up here as slaves.

Slaves don't have wages.

Slavery was abolished in 1865...we're talking about the late 1800s and early 1900s here.

Like I said, this is identity politics, you choose to take the side of the blacks.

>You don't execute people on the basis of an accusation
Who says there was only "accusation", other than leftists talking decades after the fact?

Then they are immigrants, thus not deserving of wages.

>There is no "modern society"
People are not different
Nothing has fucking changed
We are still animals squabbling in the mud

People will disagree with you but it's true.

>hurr it's biology so it's ok

if your gonna live your life based on your evolutionary instincts; you should be shitting in the woods, all women should be joining harems since biologically they should only go for the strongest man, you should raping many women to spread your seed, and yeah hating everyone different from you.

If you're intelligent you can seperate yourself from your baser instincts and live like a human instead of an animal.

>humans arent animals

lol

Go live like a human and spare us the torture of being bred out.

Am I reading a non-ironic call to abandon the drive to protect and propagate your own genetic heritage right now?

You think all the various niggers of the world give a single shit about you or your people?

>you choose to take the side of the blacks

No, I don't. I believe that executing someone just because they've been accused of a crime is wrong, regardless of race. Also, I don't think that even convicted rapists should be executed.

>Who says there was only "accusation", other than leftists talking decades after the fact?

Who says that there was anything more than an accusation, other than right-wingers talking decades after the fact? All of the stories we have available say that a young man was accused of assaulting a white woman in an elevator. Black historians claim that he stepped on her foot while walking and caused her to scream, at the time she claimed that he had assaulted her. It was his word against hers, so we'll never really know. Again, either way, you don't execute someone for attempted rape, especially without a trial.

And you certainly don't go ahead and start murdering anyone with the same skin color either.

>Am I reading a non-ironic call to abandon the drive to protect and propagate your own genetic heritage right now?
no. are you illiterate?

If we eliminate the white man then the world will unite in peace and harmony... but it has to start with the white man

Well if he's talking to Republicans and this country was once a Republic, then I guess the people he's saying are wrong are actually right.

>you choose to take the side of the blacks.
lmao can you imagine unironically talking like this?
how's the girlfriend hunt going user?

Because they were white, and theres nothing wrong with that.
This idea that whites have no right to self-determination or their country is subversive left wing trash.

I wonder how many hours it would take for the Chinese to put a plan together to wipe out all the blacks if whites suddenly stopped existing

>No, I don't.
Yes you do, thats literally what this is. You either trust the thinking of your ancestors, or you are taking the side of the blacks.
It's the same nowadays with these police shootings, whites casting judgement on their fellow whites for actions they took.

>Because they were white, and theres nothing wrong with that.

Germans, Irish and Italians had their 'whiteness' questioned several times in US history

Once again anglos proving they are mentally ill

So you are suggesting that in the future we'll consider black people to be white?

except there are some instincts that people can choose to suppress. i simply choose not to suppress my racism. if you think all those instincts are bundled in together and inextricably connected, and you believe they're harmful, backwards and damaging to society, why do you still care whether you're going to survive day in day out? simply cease the intake of food. let yourself get driven over by a car. just don't move out of the way.

I meant the Republican Party. And this country is still a republic, what the hell are you talking about?

>Because they were white, and theres nothing wrong with that.

Of course there's nothing wrong with being white. But if the goal of those white union workers in the early 20th century was to get better labor conditions for the working class (which was the stated goal of organizations like the AFL), then deliberately excluding a massive portion of the working class was surely a stupid move, wasn't it?

>This idea that whites have no right to self-determination or their country is subversive left wing trash

Who in this thread is saying that? The quote that OP posted was taken out of context and was aimed at the Republican Party, not at whites.

Well we already consider mexicans "white" so these things change

Did he actually say the bottom? Sounds like he's telling us not to trust foreigners

>Well we already consider mexicans "white" so these things change

troll time to go

>You either trust the thinking of your ancestors, or you are taking the side of the blacks.

Rounding up a mob to murder a man because he's been accused of rape is insane no matter what race the accused is or the mob is.

>Did he actually say the bottom?

The quote on the bottom has a different name at the end of it...

extrajudicial killings are a pretty normal thing everywhere outside the west.
And it was normal in the US back then.

>
Of course there's nothing wrong with being white. But if the goal of those white union workers in the early 20th century was to get better labor conditions for the working class (which was the stated goal of organizations like the AFL), then deliberately excluding a massive portion of the working class was surely a stupid move, wasn't it?
Blacks and asians are not a massive portion of the working class, they were even more of a minority back then.

>then deliberately excluding a massive portion of the working class was surely a stupid move, wasn't it?
hm? Whites were 90% of the population back then
And why would it be stupid to have an explicitly racial agenda, to be pro white ? This is kinda communist thinking, where class is what matters rather than race.

that's an immensly retarded way of thinking. whites aren't flawless, blameless and faultless.

Those two things are completely irrelevant to whether or not it's right.

The black population in 1900 was 8.8 million, out of a total American population of 76,212,168 million. They made up 12% of the country, roughly the same percentage as they do today. And just like today, an overwhelming percentage of them were part of the working class.

They are more than the niggers, that's for sure.

If you believe otherwise, time to ship your ass to Africa.

>The black population in 1900 was 8.8 million, out of a total American population of 76,212,168 million. They made up 12% of the country, roughly the same percentage as they do today.
That is not a massive proportion. But source?
>And just like today, an overwhelming percentage of them were part of the working class.
Source?

This is the same logic some British Muslims use to justify an "honor killing".

It's not a Republic anymore. The people in this country have no power over anything thanks to how massive the federal government has become, and the existence of the federal reserve which sets most policy that matters since they literally own the country.

The government basically runs on auto pilot because of how large and sweeping the bureaucracy has become, to the point where even a political earthquake like Trump will probably lead to nothing because there's layer after layer of unelected segments of the deep state that control things the public can never access.

On top of it all, the actual representatives are completely hobbled by the fact that the country is now forever engaged in a tug of war over people trying to vote themselves money, so you'll almost never get people that actually care about the country, and instead just care more about promising people money in exchange for votes, such as the entire black population that is 100% dependent on government for all their needs.

>Those two things are completely irrelevant to whether or not it's right.
Then you should be glad you didn't live back then.

But we should get back to vigilantism to be honest, that is what's right.

>British muslims
No such things.

If they use such logics, we should use the same logics against them.

>extrajudicial killings are a pretty normal thing everywhere outside the west.

So does that make it okay in your mind? Guess it's time to look at Mali and Afghanistan in order to prosper

It is a different way of thinking. I am not one who believes our ways superior by default.

What is a lynch mob other than the very essence of "jury by peers" ?

you're definitely trolling. you'd be lucky to find people this "radical" even on stormfront.

it deserved an investigation. you can't just take the words of woman as if they were gospel.

You are asking honestly?

Yes, I believe we need vigilanties back.

This country was better with vigilantes.

>That is not a massive proportion. But source?

census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900_United_States_Census

census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0076/twps0076.pdf

>And just like today, an overwhelming percentage of them were part of the working class.
>Source?

I don't have a source for this, but surely it goes without saying that black Americans were mostly poor 116 years ago, just like they're mostly poor today?

Oh no, I can't even, I can't.

Stormfront is a pussy ass site, brah.

>you can't just take the words of woman as if they were gospel.
You don't need a reason to lynch a nigger.

I wish you would have just started with this, would have saved a lot of time for the sane people trying to argue with you.

>You take someone from 100 years ago and every last one of them would be vilified as evil neo-nazi racists


try 20 years ago
youtube.com/watch?v=Y7AXizmhgi0

>You don't need a reason to lynch a nigger.

i'm a racist but you're an unreasonable retard

It wasn't ever the "words of a woman"
And when the niggers brought guns to shoot whites over it, then they brought their fate down on themselves.

Once upon a time people weren't pussies.

>census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html
I don't see the proportion of races in this.
>I don't have a source for this, but surely it goes without saying that black Americans were mostly poor 116 years ago, just like they're mostly poor today?
Them being poor doesn't mean they are working class. They must have a job in order to have working class.