The reason why Jabari thinks like that is because of his understanding of US history and how Blacks fit in it. Its what Macdonald calls “historic grudges”. It also is a powerful reminder as I have pointed out before in my posts in this thread of how history is an authority. This is why it is very important to understand what Shelby Steele meant. I have shown a link of one his short lectures. Steele says that is Black White relationship that determines how Whites deal with all the other races and ethnic groups in America. Because Blacks have the most grievances. History is a very powerful weapon. Some Nationalist want to change that history and drag the US into another civil war because they don’t want to understan that Blacks are not a pruduct of the Jewish multi-cultural America. They are not immigrants like Hispanics and Jews and Asians. They have roots in America and they are Americans.

Now you all can see what I mean.

I feel that you are way off the mark on much of you post . I think you have a very leftist warp to your opinions .
but , I picked just one and the following that jumped out :

[ The only blacks who want whites around are dumb ass “niggers” who want to screw any and every ugly white woman on the planet just to feel as though they are asserting some power over the white man. ]

It is interesting that you describe these white women as
” ugly ” I wonder how you would compare these women to black women , since it seems there are very many black guys who are attracted to white females . Are you saying that black guys specifically pick ugly white women over black women ? If so , would that be considered to be very insulting to black women since even ugly white women are being preferred by these “men ” over black women and even what you would consider attractive black women .
Also , since you have brought up the subject of physical attractiveness , would you consider black women who have very negro features ( very thick lips , very broad nose , etc . ) to be more attractive than black women who have more caucasian features ,
or in your ” mind ” , would it be the reverse ?

One concept that everyone to whom this site is of interest should be aware of is the ability to simultaneously claim relativism while in fact imposing absolutes. Whatever else anyone thinks of the Church, at least it is forthright.

This isn’t the place to debate theology, I just wish that people would see that we can no more do without the Church (all three branches of it), than we can without Plato or Snorri Sturluson, or Seneca, or yes, Voltaire or Nietzsche. But the classical past is gone, it can’t be brought back. The Church still lives, and it is our tangible connection to our past. Hegel might have disagreed, but to use his terminology, it is the repository of our geist. Why else have the zhyd worked so hard to make us rootless? Our desire and our discipline can only be rooted in spirit.

Thanks for the accolades, Pierre. Though I’m a lowly student.

Reading The Final Call has destroyed your mind son.

By-the-way, did you know that Elijah Robert Poole was a Prince Hall Freemason. You know what that means right. He worked for the Joooos.

For decades I marveled at the exaggerated esteem in which society’s owls held Giordano Bruno—a man for whom the word crank would have had to be invented had it not already existed—until, that is, I understood his utility as a club with which to beat Catholics and other upholders of Christian civilization.

An interesting contrast to GB is Girolamo Savonarola, who died 102 years earlier. A pious, profoundly orthodox monk, a man shocked, depressed, and angered by the depravity and sexual degeneracy of the Medicis and the Borgias (notably Pope Alexander VI [Rodrigo Borgia]), Savonarola, unlike his fellow Florentines, had the gift of eloquence and used it to roundly denounce the Medicis. He soon found himself, by popular acclaim, leading the broad-based uprising that succeeded in driving them temporarily from the city after the death of il Magnifico and the ascendancy of his still viler and more tyrannous son.

That Savonarola was a political naïf, at the very least, is of course obvious. That he did not understand that his support for a French incursion into Florence would win him no applause from anyone else in Italy, whether the saintly or the debauched, indeed almost beggars belief. Nonetheless it’s still worthy of comment (though, alas, not wonder) that secular and ecclesiastical historians who haven’t otherwise a single good word to say for Alexander VI (not that he deserves many) yet side with the latter in his unlawfully convened trial and execution of Savonarola. Could it be that Rodrigo Borgia is being repaid for his refusal (considered heroic by the present masters of the universe) to expel Jews and Jewish money from Rome, despite the near unanimous demands for him to do so from the very cardinals Alexander had just paid handsomely to elect him pope?

Ah, there it is! Alexander VI and Giordano Bruno: useful idiots. Girolamo Savonarola: vicious anti-Semite. Now why couldn’t you have explained that to me, Athanasius, and saved me the bother of thinking?!?

Let’s take heart from another thing. I saw this pro-miscegenation article where they were interviewing Non-Whites about their success in dating Whites and they found the younger generation of Whites are far less inclined to date out than their parents were! This one light-skinned Mestizo complained/jeered about the racism of White liberal girls he had dated when he told them his background. He said they reacted “with horror” and found excuses to drop his behind even though they all worked in social “justice” fields.

Then there were all the whiny posts by black men desirous of crossing the color bar to date white women. Not a single nibble, in many cases. This leads me to believe that Jared Taylor was absolutely right when he said that the purpose of a liberal college education was to learn how to speak to Non-Whites while having the ability to live as far away from them as possible.

IMO, I would say all the White Ron-Paulites you were speaking to were practicing a form of racial tagiyaah. They will pay lip service to the joys of multiculturalism and diversity while doing handstands to avoid it. Things are not as grim as we may think.

To a primarily White audience, he self-identifies as a White. In fact, he makes a big deal about hammering home how White he is. But to a primarily Jewish audience, he is as kosher as can be, baby.

If any of you find yourself in a position where you have to publicly debate a “White” anti-racist, you may want to do your homework and ferret out everything you can about him. More often than not you may be dealing with the OTHER white meat.

That way you can control the language of the debate. You can focus on all the discrimination against White CHRISTIANS. It will either muzzle him or, if he is ballsy enough to slap you with his White card, you can slap him back with, “yes, but you are not Christian; you’re JEWISH and that’s a whole different matter!” Then you can segue into how disproportionately they are represented in positions of wealth and power and ask them which White group really holds all the White Privilege?