Let's be reality: Black Wall Street was AAs attempt to Create a Self-sufficient Independent Nation

[jj23]

And white people Napalmed it. Bombed it to dust like they always do to all the developing majority black countries in Africa and Latin America/Caribbean.

If the black people living in the richest country in the world can't build anything without white people blowing it up, then is it possible for black people other places to build any independent black nation without white people attacking US and trying to destroy everything we have like demonic villains?

It's actually good you reminded black people of this

Never ever, believe the bullshyt argument about black people needing to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps", 'Cause when they actually did it in Tulsa, those evil motherfukkers razed it to the ground.
Pure hatred man - lyncing and torching
Then crack and the prison industry complex
now it feels like they want to go back to lynching and torching.

 

[K.Dot]

It was a reactionary movement, no different than the reason why HBCU's exist. I don't think we'd do something like that today but there is no reason why we can't have things similar to Chinatown, KoreaTown, JapanTown, little Italy ECT. Just look at Atlanta.

 

[HopeKillCure]

Okay, I see now. I wrongly assumed that you were inviting discussion to a problem that you've already deemed unsolvable, which I felt made the whole idea of a "discussion" pointless. But I was wrong, the stated problem was just a jumping point to establish that there is only one solution to the alleged problem, which is convincing others that its morally okay and most likely necessary for blacks to carry out mass killings of whites, if not out right genociding them all, because their own nefarious nature inherently poses a threat to the freedom and peace of blacks.

All around, interesting logic, reminds me of Hitler and his delusions regarding the Jews. Forgive me though, I think i'm going to pass on the ethnic cleansing. But good luck to you and others who see this as a viable solution, something tells me that you guys are going to have a tough time convincing others of the moral imperative to commit a substantial eradication of another group. I guess that's why you have to cite atrocities from almost over a century ago.

Are you jumping back and forth from accounts now...

Where is my logic shoddy? Please help me understand where I am wrong

My quote was a clear invitation for discussion.

I didn't deem anything unsolvable, I actually said the solution would be bloody and sad.

I never said go out and carry out mass killings, I said that mass killings would come as a result of inevitably being attacked by cacs.

I said that this attack was unavoidable as long as success was happening collectively for black people, because historically the attack has always happened and psychologically "whiteness" as an identity is tied into the opposite of whatever they try perceive black to be.

"Whiteness" can't exists to these people without black suffering to contrast it against.

Nowhere did I ever call for a white genocide, nowhere did I say hunt whites down because they are an inferior race.

I said, there will need to be mass killings when whites eventually attack black people who are building collectively and independently of whites. Attacks that always result from those actions.

Collectively, for cacs, their relationship with us is very Ying and Yang. Everything black that is good creates as perception that is bad in their own whiteness. This is why their needs to be a "white savior" to justify and make it acceptable to white people collectively when black people succeed or do good on large scales.

For example: "all the success in South Africa is down the white people's presence" but "all the dysfunction in Liberia is not down to white people's presence"

Those 2 ideas are comfortable for white people, despite the fact that they both have a presence in both countries and actually have historically had more involvement in Liberia from the ground up.

 

[K.Dot]

Asians don't give two fukks about the lives of black people

Idk why blacks want to take the moral highroad when it comes to leeching and co-opting. There is no reason why we can't use others the same way they use us. We should have been exploiting the Jewish for example, they have a powerful movement and agenda.

 

[jj23]

Are you jumping back and forth from accounts now...

Is as clear an invitation for discussion. I didn't deem anything unsolvable, I actually said the solution would be bloody and sad. I never said carry out mass killings, I said that mass killings would come as a result of inevitably being attacked by cacs. I said that this attack was unavoidable as long as success was happening collectively for black people, because historically the attack has always happened and psychologically "whiteness" as an identity is tied into tied into the opposite of whatever they try perceive black to be.

Nowhere did I ever call for a white genocide, nowhere did I say hunt whites down because they are an inferior race.

I said, there will need to be mass killings when whites eventually attack people's who are building collectively and independently of whites. Attacks that always result from those actions.

Collectively, for cacs, their relationship with us is very Ying and Yang. Everything black that is good creates as perception that is bad in their own whiteness. This is why their needs to be a "white savior" to justify and make it acceptable to white people collectively when black people succeed or do good on large scales.

For example: "all the success in South Africa is down the white people's presence" but "all the dysfunction in Liberia is not down to white people's presence"

Those 2 ideas are comfortable for white people, despite the fact that they both have a presence in both countries and actually have historically had more involvement in Liberia from the ground up.

Yeah, that poster made the white genocide jump when it wasn't there

If he was making it off the Lex Luthor silver bullet argument it would be quite a stretch, as you seemed to be clearly suggesting it would help to have a deterrent, so the privileged cacs don't assume they can destroy you when they feel like it and get away with it. Nothing wrong with that thinking. That's why countries keep nukes, to force the other country to consider the consequences of their action.

 

[Actually6Foot3]

Back then we had higher rates of marriage and many blacks owned businesses. Today we have the lowest rates of marriage (not complaing cause in 2017 narrative is a bad idea for most men) and lower rates of entrepreneurship. We're also heavily fractured. They did a successful job of turning it from blacks vs whites to blacks vs other blacks vs every other race vs whites.

 

[HopeKillCure]

Yeah, that poster made the white genocide jump when it wasn't there

If he was making it off the Lex Luthor silver bullet argument it would be quite a stretch, as you seemed to be clearly suggesting it would help to have a deterrent, so the privileged cacs don't assume they can destroy you when they feel like it and get away with it. Nothing wrong with that thinking. That's why countries keep nukes, to force the other country to consider the consequences of their action.

I was only saying that black people, if we every want to be free, successful, and independent again and live in peace, we have to prepare for a world where going to war with cacs is inevitable and mass murder is inevitable because cacs WILL ATTACK US.

There is no scenario where they will allow us to live in peace and build anything even remotely independent and successful. Mass murder is inevitably a part of black success, either we will defend ourselves and push back our cac attackers when they eventually come (like always) or they will mass murder us and put us back into a state of dysfunction and rebuilding from scratch every, single time.

 

[HopeKillCure]

They did a successful job of turning it from blacks vs whites to blacks vs other blacks vs every other race vs whites.

They will never let black people rise independently. They will either kill us again and again, or they will demand that a "white savior" be credited as the only reason we ever rise up (and that white people be eternally thanked for it)

 

[RitchieRatchett]

Asians are allowed to be free. Asians are not in a physical or cold war with white people. No other group is.

Black people are the only people on the planet earth whose existence is what white people use to define their "whiteness".

Cacs collective identity is literally the opposite of whatever black is in their minds. Their collective identity is attached to black suffering. Anything good about black people is an attack on white identity to these people

Too much truth in 1 post.......

 

[ridedolo]

Okay, I see now. I wrongly assumed that you were inviting discussion to a problem that you've already deemed unsolvable, which I felt made the whole idea of a "discussion" pointless. But I was wrong, the stated problem was just a jumping point to establish that there is only one solution to the alleged problem, which is convincing others that its morally okay and most likely necessary for blacks to carry out mass killings of whites, if not out right genociding them all, because their own nefarious nature inherently poses a threat to the freedom and peace of blacks.

All around, interesting logic, reminds me of Hitler and his delusions regarding the Jews. Forgive me though, I think i'm going to pass on the ethnic cleansing. But good luck to you and others who see this as a viable solution, something tells me that you guys are going to have a tough time convincing others of the moral imperative to commit a substantial eradication of another group. I guess that's why you have to cite atrocities from almost over a century ago.

Hmm you sounding real crackerish

 

[AJaRuleStan]

Are you jumping back and forth from accounts now...

My quote was a clear invitation for discussion.
.

First - I never said that you didn't want discussion, I said, initially, from my point-of-view, discussing the 'problem' as it was outlined in the OP seemed pointless. No assertion was made by me on what you felt in relation to that.

Second - Forgive me, at the time I wrote my first post itt, that quote had yet to exist, seeing as how you didn't write it yet...

I didn't deem anything unsolvable

Hence, "I wrongly assumed".

I never said carry out mass killings, I said that mass killings would come as a result of inevitably being attacked by cacs.

This accusation can't be directed at me or at my last post, so i'm just going to assume that this is meant for somebody else.

Nowhere did I ever call for a white genocide, nowhere did I say hunt whites down because they are an inferior race.

You are not too good at thinking abstractly are you? Its the concepts that i'm getting at, regardless of the specified deficiency asserted by the "morally justified" group onto the "bad" group, the idea is that the cause is inherent in the nature of the "bad" group for why the assertion is made. Its fixed, thus, the "morally justified" group is limited in how it can handle the "bad" group because they will always be the "bad" group, its in their nature after all. That's were the parallel lies between your thinking and genocidal maniacs of the past, the concept is the same.

 

[HopeKillCure]

First - I never said that you didn't want discussion, I said, initially, from my point-of-view, discussing the 'problem' as it was outlined in the OP seemed pointless. No assertion was made by me on what you felt in relation to that.

Second - Forgive me, at the time I wrote my first post itt, that quote had yet to exist, seeing as how you didn't write it yet...


Hence, "I wrongly assumed".


This accusation can't be directed at me or at my last post, so i'm just going to assume that this is meant for somebody else.


You are not too good at thinking abstractly are you? Its the concepts that i'm getting at, regardless of the specified deficiency asserted by the "morally justified" group onto the "bad" group, the idea is that the cause is inherent in the nature of the "bad" group for why the assertion is made. Its fixed, thus, the "morally justified" group is limited in how it can handle the "bad" group because they will always be the "bad" group, its in their nature after all. That's were the parallel lies between your thinking and genocidal maniacs of the past, the concept is the same.

You are trying to simplify something much more complicated into a "good vs evil" argument and it's deeper than a duality.

I will repeat the same thing for you again. For black people to survive and be left alone by white people to rise and enjoy success and growth free of white peopl, we need to be prepared to inevitably face an attack from white people that will lead to mass white casualties or mass black deaths.

This is how it always happens. We don't make the rule. Their reaction to black people being successful and independent of them as "white saviors" in their mind is to bomb us and napalm everything to the ground.

In their minds they are not monsters. Our survival and freedom to live in peace does not depend on us convincing white people that they are monsters ( psychology alone says that won't happen because they would just double down) but us seeing that monsters can't help themselves in their need to harm us because their indentity is positively connected to our harm consciously ( if you believe cacs are #inherently) or subconsciously ( if you believe cacs don't know what they are doing)

 

[AJaRuleStan]

You are trying to simplify something much more complicated into a "good vs evil" argument and it's deeper than a duality.

It seems clear to me that you're not able to differentiate between when i'm discussing a concept versus an instance of that concept in reality. Good and Bad are just variable identifiers that I just happen to choose for reasons, I could have easily said Group A and B, or Group X and Y, because i'm not referencing any specific instance of the idea in reality, i'm actually talking about the idea itself.

You see, you were confused by the Hitler parallel and proclaimed that there is no connection in your ideologies because the specifics don't match. As if your observations are legitimate and his wasn't. But that's not relevant. He viewed the Jews as threat to German prosperity and advancement because of X, and you view cacs as a threat to black because of Y. What you fail to see is that the fundamental idea here is that X and Y, which are being used for moral justification of an action, are embedded in the nature of the opposing groups.

In conclusion, i'm not, in that particular passage, talking about the precise claims you're making about the unavoidable threat that blacks/black ethno-state will face from whites in some future hypothetical. I'm talking about the essential idea that you're arguing, and history is full of ppl like you who have made that argument before, and the results from these arguments are pretty clear and consistent but that's neither here or there.

Now, if you're wondering why I felt it was necessary to move away from discussing the specific case of cacs and blacks and deal with the general idea of the issue, you must remember, I had no idea what the point of making this thread was until you responded to my first post because it was presented in such a doom and gloom way that I thought there was no point. Plus, little off-topic, but recently I was in a discussion with a love one about the idea that I think Jamaica(parents are Jamaican) could be a prosperous black ethno-state, similar to japan if the cream of the crop Jamaicans would stop leaving Jamaica and going to other countries(Canada,UK, America) to create wealth, or at least return once they got said sills or adequate amount of wealth. (A special on the golden crust fast food chain triggered the discussion). I initially felt you were making a similar case as this love one,which prompted me, but you weren't.

It was until later that I got what you were trying to advocate by citing black wall street and etc. If I figured that out from the start, I would have never responded because I have no interest in arguing about if whites, in general, contain some malevolent, envious characteristic that forces them to act out in rage at the sight of black success, because I find the entire idea delusional and born out some pathetic racial inferiority complex, which is the job an psychologist to fix, not me. Anyway, good day sir.

 

[ORDER_66]

shyt we're gonna need our own planet, space ships and technology to develop to just build away from these fukkers...

 

[HopeKillCure]

It seems clear to me that you're not able to differentiate between when i'm discussing a concept versus an instance of that concept in reality. Good and Bad are just variable identifiers that I just happen to choose for reasons, I could have easily said Group A and B, or Group X and Y, because i'm not referencing any specific instance of the idea in reality, i'm actually talking about the idea itself.

You see, you were confused by the Hitler parallel and proclaimed that there is no connection in your ideologies because the specifics don't match. As if your observations are legitimate and his wasn't. But that's not relevant. He viewed the Jews as threat to German prosperity and advancement because of X, and you view cacs as a threat to black because of Y. What you fail to see is that the fundamental idea here is that X and Y, which are being used for moral justification of an action, are embedded in the nature of the opposing groups.

In conclusion, i'm not, in that particular passage, talking about the precise claims you're making about the unavoidable threat that blacks/black ethno-state will face from whites in some future hypothetical. I'm talking about the essential idea that you're arguing, and history is full of ppl like you who have made that argument before, and the results from these arguments are pretty clear and consistent but that's neither here or there.

Now, if you're wondering why I felt it was necessary to move away from discussing the specific case of cacs and blacks and deal with the general idea of the issue, you must remember, I had no idea what the point of making this thread was until you responded to my first post because it was presented in such a doom and gloom way that I thought there was no point. Plus, little off-topic, but recently I was in a discussion with a love one about the idea that I think Jamaica(parents are Jamaican) could be a prosperous black ethno-state, similar to japan if the cream of the crop Jamaicans would stop leaving Jamaica and going to other countries(Canada,UK, America) to create wealth, or at least return once they got said sills or adequate amount of wealth. (A special on the golden crust fast food chain triggered the discussion). I initially felt you were making a similar case as this love one,which prompted me, but you weren't.

It was until later that I got what you were trying to advocate by citing black wall street and etc. If I figured that out from the start, I would have never responded because I have no interest in arguing about if whites, in general, contain some malevolent, envious characteristic that forces them to act out in rage at the sight of black success, because I find the entire idea delusional and born out some pathetic racial inferiority complex, which is the job an psychologist to fix, not me. Anyway, good day sir.

First off! Fukk your bytch and the clique you claim.

Second, I got it the first 2 times that you were simplistically drawing a comparison based on X thing and Y thing and trying to childishly connect the two completely different ideas.

Hitler's ideology, while similar to others, is unequivocally unique and can never be duplicated. All those observations throughout time that you are trying to dumb down in X and Y to create "well, it's kinda the same when you really think about it" are wildly unique from each other and you'd see that if you took the time to analyze them.

Every snowflake looks the same when it falls, any fool can see that, it's when we take a closer look that we learn that the structure of things (like the snowflake) is different and unique. Your comparison to Hitler was disturbing and dishonest.

I never advocated going out and commuting mass murder, but you tried to link me to Hitler on the flimsiest of similarities that we share concern that 1 group of people are a threat. Literally, it's like you're saying Cats are like Hitler because they pose a threat to mice collectively, that's how stupid and dishonest your argument was by trying to link my call to defense to fukking Nazi Cac general Hitler.

As for the important part of your post that you buried at bottom ( probably to have people guild over it or miss it all together)
I'm not arguing if whites are all those things you mentioned, you can believe they #inherently are or subconsciously are( I mentioned this in another post already) but they will ATTACK, they always have. I'm discussing the historical probability of whites Attacking blacks.

based on "inferiority complex" ...which I guess comes from the ability to tell the truth and not murder and oppress innocent people based on something as juvenile as the color of their skin, and my ability to read history.

White people will Attack for those reasons, because they have historically AlWAYS attacked for those reasons and more than likely will continue to attack black people for those reasons you mentioned.