NationStates Jolt Archive

The rouge nation of Lo-ha has declared war on Viritillius. It wants to expand its powerhouse economy. This nation has s repeatedly shown blatant disregard for civil rights and must be stopped. Give Viritillius your support today!!! ALL THOSE IN SUPPORT OF VIRITILLIUS, SHOW IT TODAY BY VOTING IN OUR POLL AGAINST WAR!!!

The rouge nation of Lo-ha has declared war on Viritillius. It wants to expand its powerhouse economy. This nation has s repeatedly shown blatant disregard for civil rights and must be stopped. Give Viritillius your support today!!! ALL THOSE IN SUPPORT OF VIRITILLIUS, SHOW IT TODAY BY VOTING IN OUR POLL AGAINST WAR!!!



In 1913 anybody who said the words, "Civil Rights" would at the very least be beaten senseless. I'm not sure that those words were even in the dictionary then.


This thread is at best a joke.

Option 3- Crush you all for your insolence.

As much as I hate to agree with CM, he's right. Civil rights, even for white women, were non-existent in 1913.

As much as I hate to agree with CM, he's right. Civil rights, even for white women, were non-existent in 1913.



Yes indeed, White women are much better off today. Where they are brainwashed into putting out on the first date, they are viewed as nothing but a methods to satisfy male lust. Women as a whole today have it far worse than ever. Divorce, VD, domestic issues, all are through the roof.

Women went from being placed on pedestal to basically becomming nothing but ways men satisfy lust.

Why would a man marry when he can have sex with easy women.

Why buy the cow when the milk is free.


"Womens lib" was the worst thing to happen to the american women.

Wow. Do you really mean that, or are you just really really drunk?

I disagree with you, CM. I feel that women deserve the same rights as men.

I am also wondering wheter one means the "rouge" nation, or whether that was meant to be a "rogue" nation...
If Lo-ha is a "rouge" nation, I am tempted to support them simply for the cosmetic benefits to the world at large.

I disagree with you, CM. I feel that women deserve the same rights as men.

What rights do women have today?


Men can knock them up, and then run away.


In the old days there were laws, if you seduced a woman into sleeping with you by promising to marry her, and you didn't follow through, you went to jail for up to 5 years.

Now women are just viewed as sex objects that require no responsibility or commitment.

Just have the sex, if they get pregnant, tell them "Get an abortion, I'll even pay for it."


That's what american society has become, a sick society.



The schools feminize men and masculinize women. That is why things are so messed up, the boys act like girls, the girls act like boys.

Divorce shows no signs of ever going down, it's on the rise. The family has been destroyed as an institution.


Rape has never been higher. Rapists used to be tried and hanged. And God forbid you tried to rape a white woman, they'd jump right to the hanging part and skip the trial.


Women deserve better than what they're getting today.

I don't think CM means that women are inferior, he means that they are being treated inferior. (I think) All his claims are correct, and they do happen.

It's really a choice.

Back then women were placed on a pedestal. Unfortunately, they also had -no-rights. No vote, no social rights, no nothing. A widowed woman would have been forced to sleep arond in order to feed her kids, or work from dawn to dusk in a mill. The fact of the matter is that what CM reffers to only applied to White, Middle/Upper class women. The vast majority of women were just as abused, just as over worked, and just as raped as anything you'll find today.

Women today have the ability to think, to vote, to work, and to make a choice.

I don't think CM means that women are inferior, he means that they are being treated inferior. (I think) All his claims are correct, and they do happen.


Women were told to rebel against the system. But what did they get? They got forced out of the families that loved and supported them and pushed into the cruel world outside the home.


So women can work? Big deal, most the women I know don't want to work, they have to work because the masses have been so thoroughly brainwashed into thinking they need 2 SUVs, 10 TVs, a vacation every month, etc. Materialism combined with the feminazi movement has basically crippled the american family as a viable institution.

Liberate women from what? Men who were willing to die to protect them. Now it is such that men just stand and watch when women are publicly defiled by rapist swine.

They've turned women against their brothers, fathers, sons, and husbands who loved them.

They've turned families against themselves.

It's all a calculated part of the "Divide and Conquer."

The same method in which the youth are incited into class-warfare and incited against the older generations.

The same way the blacks in the south were stirred up against the whites, by outside agitators who would benefit financially from breaking the back of the white working class. They would benefit from turning the blacks into a massive voting bloc that they could exploit.


I hear blacks in California are complaining that they, like the whites, cannot find jobs because the mexicans are taking them all.

It is clear that the blacks are learning what the whites have always known, mass immigration is bad for america. Especially when the immigrants are from a land so close to the USA (Mexico borders us) and they have no urge or desire to assimilate. The traditional immigrants were from Europe and they wanted to leave the problems of Europe back in Europe. They wanted to leave wars, kings, and such behind.

The mexicans just want to morph the USA into Mexico Jr.

And if GW Bush gets his way, the mexicans will win. He's allowing millions to stay here as part of his amnesty plan. Just like the "Great Communicator" Ronnie Reagan, he was great at communicating lies into the something people would willingly accept. He could hand you a vile of strychnine and tell you, "Drink it, it'll perk you right up" and thousands of misled "conservatives" would drink it right down. Just like we're drinking down the suicidal immigration polices Bush is forcing on us.


It's time we take our country back.

And the first thing we need to start with is to break the hold that the enemy has over the women of this country. For far too-long they've been brainwashing our women and children. It's high time to say "No more, your game is over!" Our ancestors once told King George III "Get lost." Now it's time you tell "King George Bush" "Get Lost", it's time we tell "Comrade Kerry" "Get Lost" it's time we tell all those fat cats down there in Washington District of Criminals, "Get Lost."

It's time we take our land back.

Women today have the ability to think, to vote, to work, and to make a choice.



The can choose whether to be raped or resist and be murdered.


But I say choose option 3) Put a .45 into the SOB.

The anti-gunners would have a woman believe that shooting the attacker with a 45 will just make the situation worse. No it will just make it resolved.

It's really a choice.

Back then women were placed on a pedestal. Unfortunately, they also had -no-rights. No vote, no social rights, no nothing. A widowed woman would have been forced to sleep arond in order to feed her kids, or work from dawn to dusk in a mill. The fact of the matter is that what CM reffers to only applied to White, Middle/Upper class women. The vast majority of women were just as abused, just as over worked, and just as raped as anything you'll find today.

Women today have the ability to think, to vote, to work, and to make a choice.


For the record, about 1/4 of all recorded lynchings were black on black.

The black men used to protect their women like we white men used to protect our women.

But that was in the days when ideals were something people thought as of worth fighting and dying for.

Now in this what I call "The Coward's Generation" nothing is worth dying for, ideals are mocked and ridiculed, and the heroic ideal is decried as the stupidest of them all.

I don't want to sound like a nut but I agree with everything that CM has said. You're very good at articulating and debating a point CM. As long as your not one of those Aryan nation wackos I think you could have yourself a public speaking/blogging/writing career.

If you want to know where I think the ideals died.

The ideals that so inspired centuries of white men to fight for honor and causes greater than themselves, greater than anybody. Those ideals died in the trenches of WW1. What few ideals remained died in the cities of WW2. The last of the ideals died in the jungles of vietnam.


I spoke to an officer from vietnam, a white man. He was nearly fragged by a black soldier. They nearly killed him.

He said when he first started filling out forms for the army, they wanted race specified so that whites would get the best. Then a few months later, they did away with the whole specifying race, then a few months later, they brought it back so blacks would get the benefits.

The pendulum keeps swinging, white, black, rich, poor, straight, gay, male, female. It will never stop swinging, all groups will compete for resources, it has always happened and always will happen.

The idea that "Diverse" groups can live together, well that should been proven wrong when Rome fell, but it didn't. It should have gone away when Austria had to create the dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary, but it didn't.

It should have drowned in the blood of Yugoslavia when the most diverse nation of Europe tore itself to pieces in brutal war.

It should have been cut to pieces as when in Rwanda when the hutus and tutsis who had lived together, worked together, and even inter-married for generations took up arms to hack each other to pieces.

It is an idea that has been thoroughly discredited time and time again, but like communism, people keep saying, "We have yet to see the real deal, it works in theory."

Well in theory you can travel the speed of light. Although nobody has any real ideas on how.

The idea of diversity goes contrary to human nature. People of Tribe A, want to be with others from Tribe A, not tribe B. And when the tribes are forced into close quarters, tensions and eventually conflict will result.


If governments really wanted peace they'd stop sending their people into other lands, they'd stop allowing other people into their lands. They'd attempt to establish homogenous states where the people have common ground and a common understanding. Where they can share in common racial, religious, and cultural experiences.

Celebrating differences only makes people jealous, angry, upset, and often disgusted.

Hindus believe cows are not to be eaten, Muslims eat cows and believe pigs are not to be eaten. How can you simultaneously please both groups?

In the Netherlands, the gays are allowed to marry, but the muslims attack them and are outraged. How do you please both groups?

France which prides itself on allowing anybody into their nation and prides itself on protecting their jews has to answer the question, how can they allow 10 million muslims to live in France, but yet keep protecting the jews. The reports are that anti-jewish violence has surged in France due to the massive influx of north african muslims into france.

You cannot please everybody, to try to do so is a pipe dream.

Basically the message we are told is, "Everybody love everybody, play nice." Then the second the government and police aren't looking, "Bam!" "He hit me", "No he hit me first", then the whole argument of who is to blame for racial tensions starts. The government says, "Whites must give up this in the name of diversity." It seems the last 40 years have been, "Okay white man, give this up, we can make this idea work, it works in theory. Give this up, give your guns up, give this up, just one more, just one more." It's been all give on the part of the whites.

That is what sickens me about my people, they're not had the backbone to standup and say, "Whoa there, you're turning our lands from homogenous and stable states into lands that will eventually go the way of Yugoslavia."


If the USA really wanted to maintain stability, they'd do something about the immigration policies.

The old days of Italians and Slavs who barely knew english, moving here, flying our flag, sending their kids to school, learning english from their kids, then starting a small business and eventually their sons join our armies; those days are over.

Now we have largely Mexicans moving here, they fly their flags, they refuse to learn english, they demand welfare, they refuse to fight for the country, they celebrate their own holidays, they refuse to take an active role in helping the nation. They seldom contribue anything of value to the nation and rather they take, they take, they take, and they give little. Aboveall, they remain Mexicans, or at best "Mexican-Americans" refusing to ever fully assimilate, but refusing to abandon their roots in Mexico. They exist somewhere inbetween as "citizens but not quite citizens", they're a people without an identity. They love Mexico, but they live in and hate the USA.


I remember a recent anti-immigration rally in California, white and black veterans were marching against immigration. The mexicans showed up, started burning the US flag, then charged the old veterans and beat them. The police did nothing.

bump

In most of those cases, it was a small group of extremists that tore the nations apart and polarized them. Small grous of extremists are the ones that usually rip nations apart. The masses who rally behind them are just sheep.

White men's 'honor', I've found over the years, is one where the 'white man' beats on the weak, then justifies his/her crimes by racist religion.

I've lived in NYC all of my adult life, and I can't say that it is bursting apart because it has so many people from so many places in it.

In most of those cases, it was a small group of extremists that tore the nations apart and polarized them. Small grous of extremists are the ones that usually rip nations apart. The masses who rally behind them are just sheep.

White men's 'honor', I've found over the years, is one where the 'white man' beats on the weak, then justifies his/her crimes by racist religion.


In the name of honor, the sons of Europe have butchered each other time and time again. In the name of honor, the sons of Europe ran headlong into the guns of the opposing armies. Honor is what has gotten millions of white men killed. Most of the victims of wars started by whites, are other whites.

That's my point.

In the name of 'honor', Germany butchered millions of Russian civilians. In the name of 'honor' and 'progress', the European powers ruthlessly exploited Africa and Latin America and Asia. In the name of all Christendom the Crusaders slaughtered countless Christians in Israel and Palestine. Those were not 'whites'. Those were other HUMAN BEINGS. It is a distinction all too many of my fellow Americans are apt to forget.

It was a good day when we drowned the 'honor' that you speak so highly of, because it brought so much bloodshed for the amusement and profit of so few.

That's my point.

In the name of 'honor', Germany butchered millions of Russian civilians. In the name of 'honor' and 'progress', the European powers ruthlessly exploited Africa and Latin America and Asia. In the name of all Christendom the Crusaders slaughtered countless Christians in Israel and Palestine. Those were not 'whites'. Those were other HUMAN BEINGS. It is a distinction all too many of my fellow Americans are apt to forget.

It was a good day when we drowned the 'honor' that you speak so highly of, because it brought so much bloodshed for the amusement and profit of so few.



And how many whites have died in Africa, trying to bring them civilization, medicine, religion, and such.

Before the europeans arrived in sub-saharan africa, most blacks died from malaria. The white man's quinine ended that though.

qui·nine (kwº“nºn”) n. 1. A bitter, colorless, amorphous powder or crystalline alkaloid, C20H24N2O2·3H2O, derived from certain cinchona barks and used in medicine to treat malaria. 2. Any of various compounds or salts of quinine.



The population of sub-saharan africa never exceded 40 million before whites arrived. A few centuries after we arrived in ballooned to over 100 million, and kept growing. Today it is 800+ million.





You seem to forget the north african moors terrorized europe for centuries. Being stopped in 732 at Tours from expanding into France. Only being driven out of Spain in 1492. For 100s of year, into even the 1600s, they sailed as far as England, raiding small towns, and they took an estimated 1 million white slaves to north africa.

And those 800 million Africans are living in conditions that are for the most part just about as bad as they were two hundred years ago. The 'white man' brought in his medicine because he needed a cheap labor force. The whole exploration of Africa was a grab for resources, not a mission to spread culture or religion. The missionaries and others came only later. And you cannot argue that the people who died in in the European mines, factories, fields, and wars were any less courageous or honorable than the Europeans themselves.

I have no interest in arguing this any further . . . Because the second thing that I've learned over the years is that a person who truly believes in what he/she says cannot be convinced otherwise. Maybe you're right . . . who knows . . .

My personal belief is that distinguishing people on the basis of race or anything else is just an animal reflex that most people don't overcome, primarily because of the comfortable set of explanations that have been made instead. Religion justifies supremacy very nicely . . . "If G0d is backing us, then why do we have to tolerate anyone besides ourselves?" I think this is one of the lessons of WW1 -- if both sides worship the same G0d, then how can he/she/it take sides?

And those 800 million Africans are living in conditions that are for the most part just about as bad as they were two hundred years ago. The 'white man' brought in his medicine because he needed a cheap labor force. The whole exploration of Africa was a grab for resources, not a mission to spread culture or religion. The missionaries and others came only later. And you cannot argue that the people who died in in the European mines, factories, fields, and wars were any less courageous or honorable than the Europeans themselves.

I have no interest in arguing this any further . . . Because the second thing that I've learned over the years is that a person who truly believes in what he/she says cannot be convinced otherwise. Maybe you're right . . . who knows . . .

My personal belief is that distinguishing people on the basis of race or anything else is just an animal reflex that most people don't overcome, primarily because of the comfortable set of explanations that have been made instead. Religion justifies supremacy very nicely . . . "If G0d is backing us, then why do we have to tolerate anyone besides ourselves?" I think this is one of the lessons of WW1 -- if both sides worship the same G0d, then how can he/she/it take sides?


I don't care to argue this any further either. But I know that God, I know that "HE" is on the side of Christian Western Civilization (Note that since the USSR collapsed I include Russia and eastern europe in the "Western Civilization" because the Russians are now involved in the Crusade of Christ)