Current Events in the News (commentary)

[woodworker]

[woodworker]

She was working a tough job just trying to do herself some good, when along came three niggers.

[woodworker]

They're unfit for polite society!  These young blacks will no doubt be let out once they reach the ripe old age of eighteen. 

But take heart,.. Another rape, or perhaps a murder or two, and they will be safely placed back in their cage once again. 

[KarenKraft]

Of course you're right, Woody.  That goes without saying.  But as a student of history, something has occurred to me lately.

We all know that the hostility between black people and white people in the South was NOT the result of the Civil War (for non-Americans, "The War Between the States").  This is never taught in schools.  The false narrative pushed in the schools was that the Civil War was about the abolition of slavery only and, when forced to be around people of color, nasty, bigoted, slack-jaw white crackers were outraged and have been taking it out on honest, decent black people ever since.  This is, of course, bullshit.

The mutual hatred, mistrust, and abuses came not as a result of the Civil War but as a direct and absolute result of Reconstruction.  If there is a guilty party here, it is Ulysses S. Grant, the 18th President of the United States.  During the Reconstruction Era, northern elements (including the Army) actively sought to disenfranchise former Confederate elected officials and to replace them with crooks.  Many of these crooks were blacks from the North or "freemen" (former slaves) and they set up a corrupt system to bleed and drain not only the economy of the South but of its culture and its dignity.  Most carpetbaggers were white, but at the local level, the corrupt "boss" (Mafia style) was often a black man. 

Blacks were allowed to abuse whites at will in many places.  It was that form of corruption that led to such things as the first KKK and other white protective organizations.  If a black man, for example, had money or connections, he could rape white girls and not be prosecuted.  Was this rampant?  Of course not.  But it did happen.  When it did, the offender was lynched (a person is said to be "lynched" when they are executed (usually by a mob or organized group of people) without due process of law.  There were nearly 2,000 lynchings in the South and the areas north of the Mason-Dixon line.  It was not become popular because white people were angry that black people lived next to them.  In the South, whites and blacks lived side by side within the cultural rules of Segregation.  Segregation was the salve that soothed the upheaval of Reconstruction Era abuses by blacks (and white carpetbaggers) of white people.

Segregation worked because it permitted and encouraged two separate (sometimes equal, sometimes not) parallel economies.  Blacks went to the black shoe maker, baker, doctor, grocery store, funeral home; whites went to the same services but only within their own, white, community.  Segregation protected both economies from encroachment by the other.

This system was held in place by the "Separate but Equal" doctrine, and was supported by the U.S. Supreme Court.  See, Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).  But in 1954, the Supreme Court killed off any hope of black entrepreneurial growth and development when, in BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) it mysteriously came to the conclusion that "separate is inherently unequal." 

"Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the Negro group...Any language in contrary to this finding is rejected. We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."

At first glance, this would appear to be a huge success for black people.  But as it turned out, it began the inevitable destruction of the black community, black economies, and black entrepreneurial life.  The nightmare of unintended consequences reared its head with a vengeance.  From school integration came hundreds of other instances where whites and blacks were forced to intermingle where many sought not to do so -- on both sides.

It's great to be able to eat at the lunch counter at Woolworth's Department Store in the white section of town.  It's so neat that the black diner in the black section of town goes out of business.  The black diner-owner and his family move north.  Same with the baker, barber, supermarket, etc. 

These things are just a continuation of the abuses of the Reconstruction Era.  For political reasons, Democrats have replaced black entrepreneurial systems and talents with a culture of dependency.  If you can't become a professional athlete, a famous singer, artist, or some other get-rich-quick career, sit on your ass, collect welfare, and augment your government benefits with some drug sales here and there.  The grandson of the black diner owner no longer lives in the South.  He lives in Baltimore and makes money the new way: selling drugs, selling girls, ripping somebody off someplace, looting, etc. 

When I see the cops facing down "angry" black jerks in the streets, I see the cops as the protectors of the American culture and the street-blacks as the homegrown carpetbaggers, exploiting anyone and everyone with the decadent zeal of a zombie. 

These people no longer have what some people call "a soul."  Black "soul" went out with granddad's music and grandma's down home cooking.  Today, "soul" is a synonym for "steal."

Sure, there are legitimate issues deserving of protest in every community.  But that's not what we are talking about.  We're talking about the worthless monkey who burns down the only drugstore in his community and now blames white people (read: the cops) because he has to take a 2-hour bus ride to get his baby-mama a package of diapers -- for the little piece of shit she claims is his son or daughter. 

This is a sub-human non-culture that can trace its original birth defect all the way back to the Reconstruction Era and the Grant Administration. 

Tell us again which about how the North were the good guys and how the South and its people -- black and white alike -- deserved to be under the jackboot of the U.S. government and its "Slavery Through Programs."

But that's just my opinion. 

I Might Be Wrong...

 

[TBG 150]

The only good _______ is a dead _______. Not much else to say about it. Fill in the blanks with your favorite word. Black, Liberal, Rag-Head, President, etc...  Whatever.

[KarenKraft]

The only good _______ is a dead _______. Not much else to say about it. Fill in the blanks with your favorite word. Black, Liberal, Rag-Head, President, etc...  Whatever.

We all agree.  That said, however, we also remind newly arrived readers that we distinguish between law-abiding Christian black folk and niggers.

[TBG 150]

There are bad of all kinds. No individual race, creed or color is exempt. It's just that the 2 specific ones that have captured the Liberal medias' spotlight are 2 of the most hated on the planet at the present time. Everyone gets their chance. The Germans, the Russians, Indians, Korean, Chinese, whatever.

Blacks and Mussies that don't conform to society's general rules of life are wearing the target and will be for years to come.

[Foamy T. Squirrel]

This thread is not about racism. It's about cultures. And governments who wish to control us.

If a human individual treats another human individual with respect, and it is met with respect, that is a good thing.

The race thing is bullshit, both politically and genealogically. We are human individuals, none of us had a choice about our DNA, and we should not allow politically powerful greedy assholes to divide us.

[KarenKraft]

Memorial Day

I have a question: We all know that news reports are but the first draft of history.  Then comes news spin, documentary films and shows, politically-motivated “docu-dramas,” e.g. Oliver Stone crap, etc.  In the end, we are taught that there were no good and decent people in the [u.S.] antebellum South, that the “filthy Japs” had somehow been transformed into the victims of WWII, and so on.

It is generally accepted “common knowledge” that, as the war in Vietnam was winding down and finally over for the U.S., the soldiers who came home – wounded and otherwise – were spat on, called “baby-killers,” etc.  Oliver Stone’s Born of the Fourth of July (1989), for example, tells the tale, as does Jane Fonda’s Coming Home (1978).  Considering the political bent of Stone and Fonda, I began wondering if, except for a few isolated incidences in places like Berkeley, etc., did that really happen?  It’s out of character for the pre-Vietnam American population and the post-Vietnam population, as far as I can see.

I was not around when all that was going on, and it’s hard to get reliable, untainted information.  Yes, I know that the U.S. Government failed to provide adequate V.A. support for returning veterans with both physical and emotional wounds – I think that was the case since the Revolutionary War (the American Revolution).

So, my question is this:  but for news-spin and left-wing propaganda films and shows, how wide spread was the animosity toward our returning Vietnam veterans?  Were they spat on and called “baby-killer” as a general rule by rabid and uncharacteristically involved civilians?    Were they shunned and ostracized to any significant extent (as I say, more than the few isolated events in the usually suspected left-wing places?  I mean from your own personal remembrance.  Not from some news story you read ten years after the war was over.  Do you know any returning Vietnam vets who were mistreated by family, friends, or strangers – wounded or unwounded? 

My nose for bullshit tells me, based upon the people who suddenly became so compassionate in the entertainment industry toward Vietnam vets (the same people who hate our current military) being the very same people (or equivalents) who opposed the war in Vietnam in the first place.  Is this real or just left wing spin?

[KarenKraft]

The Railway Man.

** choke ** 

** puke **

A simple-minded leftish interpretation of a stupid story, a morality play in fact, wherein a British WWII prisoner of war was hideously tortured by a Japanese guy.  Due to the trauma of that, the British fellow couldn’t cut the mustard with his wife (Nicole Kidman).  Anyway the way the movie industry has twisted the tale, the real enemy was war itself and when the torturer and the tortured finally met up to confront each other, they exchanged touching letters of contrition and forgiveness.  As the tears roll down Kidman’s face, the two guys, a bit older now (this a few years after the end of the war), embrace and become BFF. 

Right.  I’m so sure.  How touching.  Oh, and just to let everybody know, they refused to tell the audience what horrific, nasty, unspeakable thing was done to the Brit in The Room…. Duh duh duh duuuuh!  We see the beatings and the arm braking and endless torture but nobody could utter a word about the gross and monstrous thing that they did to the fellow in The Room.  This being the movie business, can you guess what the ultimate torture was?

Wait for it…….

Wait for it…….

Right:  waterboarding. 

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

The funniest part of the movie was when one of the Brits comrades hanged himself from a bridge and, after several days of stupid melodrama, they show him still hanging there, like a salami aging in North Beach.

This movie is a piece of shit.

[Foamy T. Squirrel]

My goodness, KK, sometimes you renew my faith that the younger generation has a few people in it who think, question, and analyze issues.

Yes, when they came back home, Vietnam vets were treated like evil baby killers -- by the American leftists. (Can you say John Kerry? Sure, I knew you could.)

Add to this the fact that Korean War veterans were altogether forgotten.

Somehow, Middle East vets get a break from this leftest animosity, but only because the Leftist propaganda machine can't make this "blame the sailor, marines, airman, and soldiers" crap work in their favor.

If anybody should be spit on, it would be the US Congress. None of these people have had the guts to declare a war since WW2, and probably never will, even if the US is clearly attacked.

Please note that WW2, amazingly, was also the last time the US was on the winning side of a war.

[woodworker]

Don't ever look for a win with the current crop of Democrats today.  There isn't a Truman within a hundred miles of these incompetent traitors anywhere!