I hate liberals

DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
edited March 2011 in Spurious Generalities
They all deserve to be show or at least sent to Africa to live with the niggers they love so much. Their entire philosophy is based on feelings of white guilt and guilt in general. Ted Kaczynski better known as the Una Bomber summed it up perfectly imo. Keep in mid by leftist I'm referring to the "Social Marxist" ways of most modern liberals that would make Karl Marx and all true great revolutionary's spin in their grave. These people are just as bad as capitalists. I think every limp wristed politically correct liberal that has hijacked the Left needs to be publicly executed.
9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call "feelings of inferiority" and "oversocialization." Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.


Feelings of Inferiority
10. By "feelings of inferiority" we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strictest sense but a whole spectrum of related traits: low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.

11. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights advocates, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities. The terms "negro," "oriental," "handicapped" or "chick" for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. "Broad" and "chick" were merely the feminine equivalents of "guy," "dude" or "fellow." The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal rights advocates have gone so far as to reject the word "pet" and insist on its replacement by "animal companion." Leftist anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the word "primitive" by "nonliterate." They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the hypersensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)

12. Those who are most sensitive about "politically incorrect" terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any "oppressed" group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual, white males from middle-class families.

13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals), or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit it to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not suggest that women, Indians, etc., ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology).

14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.


http://www.davesag.com/unabomber/2leftism.html

Comments

  • LuxJigabooLuxJigaboo Regular
    edited March 2011
    I also do not like how every modern liberal is put in the same category as Marxists or Communists.
  • KatzenklavierKatzenklavier Regular
    edited March 2011
    I hate liberal faggots who say they hate liberals but secretly know that they are liberal faggots.
  • skomskusskomskus New Arrival
    edited March 2011
    They all deserve to be show or at least sent to Africa to live with the niggers they love so much. Their entire philosophy is based on feelings of white guilt and guilt in general. Ted Kaczynski better known as the Una Bomber summed it up perfectly imo. Keep in mid by leftist I'm referring to the "Social Marxist" ways of most modern liberals that would make Karl Marx and all true great revolutionary's spin in their grave. These people are just as bad as capitalists. I think every limp wristed politically correct liberal that has hijacked the Left needs to be publicly executed.



    http://www.davesag.com/unabomber/2leftism.html

    Even though I disagree with most of the things you decide to share, I do agree with the concept of white guilt and how useless it is. It is really prominent in American society though, the idea of feeling sorry for races that we find inferior. If you've seen Avatar, total white guilt flick.
  • edited March 2011
    vozhde wrote: »
    I also do not like how every modern liberal is put in the same category as Marxists or Communists.

    Isn't that only Fox news (And their ilk) who says stuff like that?
  • TSAoDTSAoD Regular
    edited March 2011
    I hate Liberals but I'll put a mass murdering as my avatar.
  • dr rockerdr rocker Regular
    edited March 2011
    I think 'white guilt' is a manifestation of individuals insecurities and lack of ambition. Much as a follower (note, not a believer) in communism / socialism, feels this offers the best risk/reward benefit, so do propenents of the idea that whites should feel guilty.

    The white race reached its zenith around 1904 - after that, although we did gain more, we never gained at the rate we did. Some would argue this was down to the lack of available territories to conquer, however, we could have gone on and taken everything.

    A mindset developed amongst the upper middles classes that we had gone too far and had abused our natural ability to solve problems. I would argue we should have exploited this ability - other races still expliot their natural talents and feel no guilt what so ever.

    Individuals lacked the drive to reach their full potential - the overlords of the savages - and due to self turmoil and social embaracement proposed the idea of white guilt to make those who reached potential some how feel guilty (a useless emotion in the persuit of perfection) and to turn the minds of the general population.

    We still have a lot of people that strive for this perfection. It is more than a coincidence that Nietzsche developed the idea and classification of the Übermensch. It is strange and ironic that feudalism and monarchy relied on god to control, capitalism allowed people to worship the god they wanted but the ideas of marx and his followers totaly rejected a higher being.

    Ironic in that he ideas of marx came about before Nietzsche's idea that 'god is dead, man makes the rules', however, the ideals of marx were not put into practice before the 'god is dead' idea could be espoused and then bastardised to 'god never existed and if he did, he is of no relevence'.

    Only once white ethics were smashed like a pair of jeans in a tumbler with rocks could socialism take off. Take away all that is known (holy) and a man shall follow - not only did men follow a false ideal, they turned on everything that was great about themselves.

    It could be a subconciouse thing - an affront to god by wasting a talent he bestowed - is it not a sin to waste a god given tallent? - a test if you will, of the ultimate insecurity - Am I Bigger Than God?

    By not believing (or knowing of his existence - and yes, god can only be a man, or part man and as such a man, but that is a different discussion) in god, man must reject everything holy - belief in ones own abilities and the sniping of the abilities of others being a foundation that was set out to be destroyed.

    White guilt came about because some whites did not have the balls to go out and grab the world by the throat and found it easier to deride the actions of those that could.

    However, this greatness does come with flaws of charecter, but these should be ignored. By some happy accident, the white male brain 'suffers' with autism more than any other race. Autism is a way of selling snake oil to those that do not want singlemindedness within society.

    We only need look at two of the greatest men ever to walk the planet (both of recent times, this is why I chose to mention them), Rhodes and Churchill to see why people who have as much backbone as old lettuce feel insecure - they were men with flaws, but they were more than made up for in the brilliance they displayed.
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited March 2011
    TSAoD wrote: »
    I hate Liberals but I'll put a mass murdering kike as my avatar.

    Trotsky rejected judaism stop being a dumbass:facepalm:
  • TSAoDTSAoD Regular
    edited March 2011
    Trotsky rejected judaism stop being a dumbass:facepalm:

    I'm gonna reject my race.
  • RemadERemadE Global Moderator
    edited March 2011
    They all deserve to be show or at least sent to Africa to live with the niggers they love so much. Their entire philosophy is based on feelings of white guilt and guilt in general.

    word_gangsta_granny1.jpg

    Seriously.
  • Darth BeaverDarth Beaver Meine Ehre heißt Treue
    edited March 2011
    But liberals are socialists. :confused:
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited March 2011
    TSAoD wrote: »
    I'm gonna reject my race.

    Jews are white.

    But liberals are socialists. :confused:

    No liberals are a bastardized form of the left and have nothing to do with Socialism.
  • Darth BeaverDarth Beaver Meine Ehre heißt Treue
    edited March 2011
    That is merely your own personal view of liberals and socialism. From a true conservative's point of view liberals are socialists.
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited March 2011
    That is merely your own personal view of liberals and socialism. From a true conservative's point of view liberals are socialists.

    Their are similarities abut also large differences between the 2. I consider myself far from a liberal.
  • RemadERemadE Global Moderator
    edited March 2011
    Can't we drop the labels and realise we're all Human? Fuck politics. Fuck Anarchy. Covering both my arses there.

    *jumps to cover in DS-proof bunker*
  • ImmaChrgnMaLAZRImmaChrgnMaLAZR Regular
    edited March 2011
    RemadE wrote: »
    Can't we drop the labels and realise we're all Human? Fuck politics. Fuck Anarchy. Covering both my arses there.

    *jumps to cover in DS-proof bunker*

    Can I join? I gots cookies and semen
  • TSAoDTSAoD Regular
    edited March 2011
    Jews are white.

    You can't even keep your story straight. Worst troll ever.
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited March 2011
    TSAoD wrote: »
    You can't even keep your story straight. Worst troll ever.

    So obviously you have nothing to counter my point that they are white and instead you call me a troll. I have a problem with religious Jews but racially they are white so an Atheist Jew such as Trotsky is not a problem. Below is a study on their DNA
    DNA studies have permitted to categorize all humans on Earth in genealogical groups sharing one common ancestor at one given point in prehistory. They are called haplogroups. There are two kinds of haplogroups: the paternally inherited Y-chromosome DNA (Y-DNA) haplogroups, and the maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroups. They respectively indicate the agnatic (or patrilineal) and cognatic (or matrilineal) ancestry.

    Haplogroups are divided with different letters, and then with numbers. Thus, we have haplogroup I, which is then further subdivided into I1 and I2. They could be (and are) further divided to achieve more specific definitions and you can arrive at something like Q1a3a1 (Tinuna and Wayuu Amerindians).

    In this blog I will try to define the “borders of whiteness”, where the white race begins and ends geographically and which populations should be classified as Caucasian.

    Let’s begin by saying that religion should not be used as a guide on race. Chechens, for instance, were once Christian but are Muslim today. When they converted from Christianity to Islam, they did not change their DNA, just their beliefs. Similarly, when Indians in Mexico converted to Catholicism, they did not become genetically similar to the Poles.

    Arguments have also been made that only those originally from Europe could be classified as white. The argument is false, genetically-speaking.

    The same mtDNA haplogroups (Six Daughters of Eve that derived from haplogroup R as well as haplogroups X, I and W) that are present in Europe are also present in the Near East.

    In Europe and the Near East, mtDNA haplogroups are quite evenly spread over the continent, and therefore cannot be associated easily with ancient ethnicities.

    It is impossible to decide to classify a person’s race based on arbitrary geographic borders of a continent or a country. Two people in the same mtDNA and Y-DNA haplogroups must be part of the same race.

    For that reason, Europe and the Near East must be part of the same race.

    Even the distribution of haplogroups is very similar. Among just about everyone in Europe and the Near East, H is more common than U which is more common than J. (One major exception are East European Jews, about a third of whom belong to haplogroup K, which normally is highest in western Europe and British Isles, but isn’t present in such high numbers among those populations, indicating a recent, West European, female founder. Otherwise, everyone else I’ve researched shows very similar distribution patterns.)

    The most common haplogroup among Europe is H, with about 40% of the population. About a quarter of Near Eastern Arabs are part of haplogroup H and the Jews are between the Arabs and the Europeans (about 40% of Russian Jews and 33% of Romanian Jews are in haplogroup H or the closely related HV).

    People of different races (Pacific Islanders, for instance) belong to completely different haplogroups.

    The distribution is somewhat different when it comes to Y-chromosome DNA and not as evenly spread.

    Haplogroup I is in northern Europe as well as in the Balkans, R is in the middle of Europe and J stretches from western Portugal and southern Spain along all of southern Europe and into Israel and the Arab states.

    It has been argued by some amateur “racialist” geneticists that J1 haplogroup should be classified as non-white because while it is very common among the Arabs, it is not common among the Europeans and somewhere in between among the Jews. (Ashkenazim are 19% J1 and 23% J2;. Sephardim are 12% J1 and 29% J2, but also 29.5% western European R1b.)

    This is false logic, however, based on the idea that arbitrary geographic definitions determine genetics.

    J2 Europeans (many Greeks, Italians, Spanish and Portugese, as well as southern French) are closer to J1 Arabs than to R1a Europeans, so classifying J2 with R1a as one race, and J1 as a separate race makes no sense at all. It makes even less sense to classify as separate races a J2 Italian and a J2 Lebanese just because they are on different continents.

    Whatever differences may exist between J1 and J2, they pale in comparison to real racial differences with Orientals, Amerindians and sub-Saharan Africans. For people to be part of another race, at the very least they shouldn’t be part of the same haplogroup.

    Also, the southern J haplogroup and the northern I haplogroup both descended from IJ and are therefore closely related, closer in fact than either is to haplogroup R.

    Arabs, therefore, should not be defined as non-white due to their Y-DNA. Instead, they should be classified as a mixed (Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid) race of people due to the high influx of African and (east and south) Asian DNA.

    About 20% of Arab mtDNA comes from Africa and another 18% from the East, with only 62% being white. With so much outside DNA, I would classify the Arabs as the first “border” population, a mixed race between whites and non-whites.

    (The so-called Arabs in northern Africa are a different issue. They belong mostly (50-80%) to the E haplogroup, which is indigenous to the region. Being Arab seems to be more a matter of tradition than genetics for the North Africans.

    Sephardim, on the other hand, are white despite theories pushed on Stormfront. A mix of mostly J2 and R1b is white whether we are talking about Spaniards or Sephardim.

    Classifying Sephardim as non-white and the Spanish as white also flies in the face of genetic studies that show that 23% of Spanish mtDNA is non-white, more than among the Sephardim.)

    In the North, the Asian N haplogroup is present among 58.5% of Finns, 42% of Lithuanians, 38% of Latvians and 34% of Estonians.

    About 23% of Russians are also in haplogroup N. However, these 23% aren’t spread evenly among the whole Russian population.

    Just as Turks from the east of their country have more Asian blood than those from the west, the same is true for Russians. Russians west of Ural, where R1a haplogroup is largest, should no doubt be classified as white in most cases. Those east of Ural, on the other hand, are mostly a mixed race Caucasoid-Mongoloid people, more mixed in some regions than others.

    Likewise in Finland, those in the south of the country are Caucasian (I1 haplogroup), while those in the north are a Caucasoid-Mongoloid mix.

    Again we see that drawing the genetic line along Europe’s borders makes no sense. Northern Finland and northwestern Russia are in Europe, yet the populations there are racially mixed.

    So looking at the genetic map, I would classify the “borders of whiteness” from northern half of Finland stretching along northern Russia, going down along eastern Russia in Siberia and the Far East, stretching back southwest into to eastern Turkey and the Arab states. These people (northern Finns, northern Russians, eastern Russians, eastern Turks and the Arabs) are predominantly a mix of whites and others. On one side of them are whites. On the other are non-whites (sub-Saharan Africans, Central Asian Orientals, and so on).

    All the people inside the map I just drew would have to be classified as white, including not just Europeans but also Anatolian Turks, Jews (Ashkenazi and Sephardi), Kurds, Dagestanis (who are technically in Europe, are are culturally Middle Eastern) and others.

    http://ethnicgenome.wordpress.com/2009/03/03/mapping-out-the-borders-of-whiteness/
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited March 2011
    Dysgraphia wrote: »
    4chan.com

    Thanks for your useless post:rolleyes:
Sign In or Register to comment.