James Watson's Ordeal & The Left Control Of Discourse.

On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 09:32:18 -0800, "R. Steve Walz"
wrote:

Way Back Jack wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 09:32:06 -0800, "R. Steve Walz"
wrote:


$6 trillion for negro causes since 1965.
----------------------
YOU

paid my fair share of that $6 tril.

No more.

On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 09:23:00 -0800, "R. Steve Walz"
wrote:


Hear hear!!!


(...)

To see the real truth of the matter, let us take a look at the
Department of Justice document Criminal Victimization in the United
States, 2005. (Go to the linked document, and under "Victims and
Offenders" download the pdf file for 2005.)

In Table 42, entitled "Personal crimes of violence, 2005, percent
distribution of single-offender victimizations, based on race of
victims, by type of crime and perceived race of offender," we learn
that there were 111,590 white victims and 36,620 black victims of rape
or sexual assault in 2005. (The number of rapes is not distinguished
from those of sexual assaults; it is maddening that sexual assault, an
ill-defined category that covers various types of criminal acts
ranging from penetration to inappropriate touching, is conflated with
the more specific crime of rape.) In the 111,590 cases in which the
victim of rape or sexual assault was white, 44.5 percent of the
offenders were white, and 33.6 percent of the offenders were black. In
the 36,620 cases in which the victim of rape or sexual assault was
black, 100 percent of the offenders were black, and 0.0 percent of the
offenders were white. The table explains that 0.0 percent means that
there were under 10 incidents nationally.

The table does not gives statistics for Hispanic victims and
offenders. But the bottom line on interracial white/black and
black/white rape is clear:

In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually
assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black
females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man.

What this means is that every day in the United States, over one
hundred white women are raped or sexually assaulted by a black man.

(...)

"Way Back Jack" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 09:29:58 -0800, "R. Steve Walz"
wrote:



I wonder why these people aren't cowering when I call them
racist.

Many whites would sooner cut their kids' throats than risk being
called racist.

Not all of us, tho.

Not every man in America has been castrated, or had his blood replaced
with soy milk....

The racist will have to hide from it, as a coward.

The racist lacks the intelligence to understand the
points made in such scholarly works as "Guns,
Germs, and Steel: the Fates of Human Societies",
by Jared Diamond.

It's the 'born on first base, imagines he hit a triple'
form of fallacy that has the racist fooled, this time.

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 00:51:15 GMT, (Way Backward Jackass)
wrote:

Anyone with any common sense ...

You can't realize that's fallacious.

http://www.adl.org/hate-patrol/racism.asp


http://www.endracism.org/


No matter how absurd the falsehood, the racist is
eager to kneel and swallow it.

The racist can be duped into believing scams
and lies because he's irrational with hysteria.

On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:00:10 GMT, (Way Backward Jackass) wrote:

...HOAX

All you can do is kneel, suck, and swallow.

"civil rights movement, equal rights movement, free speech movement, environmental
movement, the labor movement, and others all have one thing in common: They put power in
the hands of the individual. This is incompatible with the fascist ideal of the transfer
of power to the state elite and the individual serving as the raw material for the state
machine to function on. Most often, fascist propaganda places the lump sum of the blame
for a nations troubles on the shoulders of the liberals. It's worth noting that in Nazi
Germany the communists, labor organizers, and liberals were purged before the gays, Jews,
gypsies, and homosexuals."

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14_pts_2.htm

On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 19:06:21 GMT, (Way Backward Jackass) wrote:

Human ...

You hate humans because you're unable to understand them.

On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:04:54 GMT, (Way Backward Jackass) wrote:

Borderline Retarded ...

No doubt that's your best excuse for your
support of Bush, as well as for your error
of racism.

There's a connection between fascism and racism:

http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRig...randneo-Nazism

Bush is a fan of Hitler. It's a family tradition of treason.

http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Racism.asp

On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 13:10:58 GMT, (Way Backward Jackass) wrote:

...persecution complex ...

You are, after all, very weak and fearful,
as well as inferior.

The racist is also crime-prone.

"Why do racists have low IQs?"

http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/sayar/riqs.htm

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 13:45:06 GMT, (Way Backward Jackass) wrote:

Fond ...

You're far-too fond of your own failures.

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:59:58 -0600, Dopeass wrote:

crime rates ...

There are black populations with lower crime
rates than mixed populations.

Just another pesky fact that disproves the
myth-based belief of the inferior racist.

Notice the utter incapacity of the inferior
racist to dispute the facts.


The racist isn't up for reasoning.


Obviously, he isn't up for a web search, either,
or he'd have located "Barbados".

He couldn't even read that for comprehension.

The racist is truly inferior.

On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:19:53 -0800, "R. Steve Walz"
wrote:

Way Back Jack wrote:

On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 09:33:24 -0800, "R. Steve Walz"
wrote:

Way Back Jack wrote:

Your white trash fambly owned negroes and now you feel guilty.
-------------------------
We "owned"

That's what I said.

On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:22:09 -0800, "R. Steve Walz"
wrote:

Way Back Jack wrote:

On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 09:28:31 -0800, "R. Steve Walz"
wrote:

By 1655 there were slaves in America.

No America in 1655.
-----------------------

By 1655 there were slaves in America.

No America in 1655.

Musta failed history as well as math.

The Origins Of The Slave Trade


In 1807 Britain outlawed slavery. In 1820 the king of the African
kingdom of Ashanti inquired why the Christians did not want to trade
slaves with him anymore, since they worshipped the same god as the
Muslims and the Muslims were continuing the trade like before.
The civil rights movement of the 1960's have left many people with the
belief that the slave trade was exclusively a European/USA phenomenon
and only evil white people were to blame for it. This is a
simplicistic scenario that hardly reflects the facts.
Thousands of records of transactions are available on a CDROM prepared
by Harvard University and several comprehensive books have been
published recently on the origins of modern slavery (namely, Hugh
Thomas' The Slave Trade and Robin Blackburn's The Making Of New World
Slavery) that shed new light on centuries of slave trading.
What these records show is that the modern slave trade flourished in
the early middle ages, as early as 869, especially between Muslim
traders and western African kingdoms. For moralists, the most
important aspect of that trade should be that Muslims were selling
goods to the African kingdoms and the African kingdoms were paying
with their own people. In most instances, no violence was necessary to
obtain those slaves. Contrary to legends and novels and Hollywood
movies, the white traders did not need to savagely kill entire tribes
in order to exact their tribute in slaves. All they needed to do is
bring goods that appealed to the kings of those tribes. The kings
would gladly sell their own kins.
This explains why slavery became "black". Ancient slavery, e.g. under
the Roman empire, would not discriminate: slaves were both white and
black (so were Emperors and Popes). In the middle ages, all European
countries outlawed slavery (of course, they retained countless
"civilized" ways to enslave their citizens, but that's another story),
whereas the African kingdoms happily continued in their trade.
Therefore, only colored people could be slaves, and that is how the
stereotype for African-American slavery was born. It was not based on
an ancestral hatred of blacks by whites, but simply on the fact that
blacks were the only ones selling slaves, and they were selling their
own kins. (To be precise, Christians were also selling Muslim slaves
captured in war, and Muslims were selling Christian slaves captured in
war, but neither the Christians of Europe nor the Muslims of Africa
and the Middle East were selling their own kins).
Then the Muslim trade of African slaves came to a stop when Arab
domination was reduced by the Crusades. (Note: Arabs continued to
capture and sell slaves, but only in the Mediterranean. In fact,
Robert Davis estimates that 1.25 million European Christians were
enslaved by the "barbary states" of northern Africa. The USA bombed
Morocco, Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli in 1801 precisely to stop that
Arab slave trade of Christians. The rate of mortality of those
Christian slaves in the Islamic world was roughly the same as the
mortality rate in the Atlantic slave trade of the same period.)
Christians took over in black Africa, though. The first ones were the
Portuguese, who, applying an idea that originally developed in Italian
seatrading cities, and often using Italian venture capital, started
exploiting sub-Saharan slaves in the 1440s to support the economy of
the sugar plantations (mainly for their own African colonies of Sao
Tome and Madeira).
The Dutch were the first, apparently, to import black slaves into
North America, but black slaves had already been employed all over the
world, including South and Central America. We tend to focus on what
happened in North America because the United States would eventually
fight a war over slavery (and it's in the U.S. that large sectors of
the population would start condemning slavery, contrary to the
indifference that Muslims and most Europeans showed for it).
Even after Europeans began transporting black slaves to America, most
trade was just that: "trade". In most instances, the Europeans did not
need to use any force to get those slaves. The slaves were "sold" more
or less legally by their (black) owners. Scholars estimate that about
12,000,000 Africans were sold by Africans to Europeans (most of them
before 1776, when the USA wasn't yet born) and 17,000,000 were sold to
Arabs. The legends of European mercenaries capturing free people in
the jungle are mostly just that: legends. A few mercenaries certainly
stormed peaceful tribes and committed terrible crimes, but that was
not the rule. There was no need to risk their lives, so most of them
didn't: they simply purchased people.
As an African-American scholar (Nathan Huggins) has written, the
"identity" of black Africans is largely a white invention: sub-Saharan
Africans never felt like they were one people, they felt (and still
feel) that they belonged to different tribes. The distinctions of
tribe were far stronger than the distinctions of race.
Everything else is true: millions of slaves died on ships and of
diseases, millions of blacks worked for free to allow the Western
economies to prosper, and the economic interests in slavery became so
strong that the southern states of the United States opposed repealing
it. But those millions of slaves were just one of the many instances
of mass exploitation: the industrial revolution was exported to the
USA by enterpreuners exploiting millions of poor immigrants from
Europe. The fate of those immigrants was not much better than the fate
of the slaves in the South. As a matter of fact, many slaves enjoyed
far better living conditions in the southern plantations than European
immigrants in the industrial cities (which were sometimes comparable
to concentration camps). It is not a coincidence that slavery was
abolished at a time when millions of European and Chinese immigrants
provided the same kind of cheap labor.
It is also fair to say that, while everybody tolerated it, very few
whites practiced slavery: in 1860 there were 385,000 USA citizens who
owned slaves, or about 1.4% of the white population (there were 27
million whites in the USA). That percentage was zero in the states
that did not allow slavery (only 8 million of the 27 million whites
lived in states that allowed slavery). Incidentally, in 1830 about 25%
of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more
slaves: that is a much higher percentage (ten times more) than the
number of white slave owners. Thus slave owners were a tiny minority
(1.4%) and it was not only whites: it was just about anybody who
could, including blacks themselves.
Moral opposition to slavery was widespread even before Lincoln, and
throughout Europe. On the other hand, opposition to slavery was never
particularly strong in Africa itself, where slavery is slowly being
eradicated only in our time. One can suspect that slavery would have
remained common in most African kingdoms until this day: what crushed
slavery in Africa was that all those African kingdoms became colonies
of western European countries that (for one reason or another)
eventually decided to outlaw slavery. When, in the 1960s, those
African colonies regained their independence, numerous cases of
slavery resurfaced. And countless African dictators behaved in a way
that makes a slave owner look like a saint. Given the evidence that
this kind of slavery was practiced by some Africans before it was
practiced by some Americans, that it was abolished by all whites and
not by some Africans, and that some Africans resumed it the moment
they could, why would one keep blaming the USA but never blame, say,
Ghana or the Congo?
The more we study it, the less blame we have to put on the USA for the
slave trade with black Africa: it was pioneered by the Arabs, its
economic mechanism was invented by the Italians and the Portuguese, it
was mostly run by western Europeans, and it was conducted with the
full cooperation of many African kings. The USA fostered free
criticism of the phenomenon: no such criticism was allowed in the
Muslim and Christian nations that started trading goods for slaves,
and no such criticism was allowed in the African nations that started
selling their own people (and, even today, no such criticism is
allowed within the Arab world).
Today it is politically correct to blame some European empires and the
USA for slavery (forgetting that it was practiced by everybody since
prehistoric times). But I rarely read the other side of the story:
that the nations who were the first to develop a repulsion for slavery
and eventually abolish slavery were precisely those countries
(especially Britain and the USA). As Dinesh D'Souza wrote, "What is
uniquely Western is not slavery but the movement to abolish slavery".

(To be completely fair, what was also unique about the western slave
trade is the scale (the millions shipped to another continent in a
relatively short period of time), and, of course, that it eventually
became a racist affair, discriminating blacks, whereas previous slave
trades had not discriminated based on the color of the skin. What is
unique about the USA, in particular, is the treatment that blacks
received AFTER emancipation, which is, after all, the real source of
the whole controversy, because, otherwise, just about everybody on
this planet could claim to be the descendant of an ancient slave).
(That does not mean that western slave traders were justified in what
they did, but placing all the blame on them is a way to absolve all
the others).
To this day, too many Africans, Arabs and Europeans believe that the
African slave trade was an USA aberration, not their own invention.

By the time the slave trade was abolished in the West, there were many
more slaves in Africa (black slaves of black owners) than in the
Americas.

On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:28:00 -0800, "R. Steve Walz"
wrote:

Jim wrote:

Not every man in America has been castrated, or had his blood replaced
with soy milk....
---------------------
Your head is full of ****.

Your head is full of dreams of pre-teen boys.

On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:07:55 -0800, "R. Steve Walz"
wrote:

Way Back Jack wrote:

On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 09:29:58 -0800, "R. Steve Walz"
wrote:

I wonder why these people aren't cowering when I call them
racist.

Actually I said, what's the percent of nigros in your town.

Well, in the town where I grew up, it's 2/3, yet they are 99% of the
murderers and 90% of the murder victims.

On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:10:04 -0800, "R. Steve Walz"
wrote:


Actually I said, what's the % of whites in your town?

Where I grew up= 33% yet they commit 1% of the murders.

And these are low income whites; otherwise they'd escape the cesspool
that my city has become.

On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:10:56 -0800, "R. Steve Walz"
wrote:



I wonder why negroes behave worse today with
Civil Rights and even preferential treatment
than during the worst days of Jim Crow.

A lot of it has to do with the lies that libes and black hustlers feed
the stupid *******s about being victims.