lictor616

specious nonsense argument- the revolting tribal mores of the Teotihuacan, as well as the Moctezuma, Machu Picchu, the Aztecs... none of these cultures remain. Meanwhile, I was in Gdansk, Lublin and Mazury lake 3 years back .... they still seem to speak their own language, eat similar meals and yes ... their culture has survived ... it was oppressed, subjugated beaten down but it persists today with NO BREAKS in its linear path.

this post could only have as its main purpose to defame Europeans, vilify them and to induce a Marxist resentment and jalousie in people. "viable cultures" obviously they weren't all that "viable" if they couldn't resist Cortez and his strong but tiny band of Iron Men. the question is nugatory to the point of vulgarity.

not to worry everyone knows that holocaust remembrance is a yearlong nonstop event. And if one "forgets" all he has to do is go to his local holocaust museum which is also there yearlong. I do wonder however, when the holocaust will stop being the central historical fact of the world ... its been a pretty good run, people are beginning to get a little weary of the whole mess.

more proof that liberalism and most leftist creeds (ie communism/ marxism) is simply a succedaneous religion that supplanted Christianity and is as unconcerned with reality and observed biological facts as the other desert dogmas. lemme guess: because "all men are created equal"... nonsense....

they are... I wish them success in heir bid to secede from a crumbling USA... before Texas becomes a colony of mexico.

that citation has no relationship with the bible...

One can scarcely visit a city or campus of a college or even high school these days without seeing and smelling the bands of unkempt young savages that slouch about in the academic cesspools (which for some reason are still called "universities"). They should excite no astonishment. They are precisely what our educational system have been working to produce ever since John Dewey in the US and his raucous gang of disgusting reprobates perfected their method of milking the taxpayers while leaching away the natural and moral instincts of Western children and aborting their minds. What is remarkable is that there still are some members of the "me" generation (the generation of my parents) that haven't completely lost all self respect and dignity. After the terrible collapse of western civilization during the "hippie" agitation years, the Rockefeller foundation and other "new world order" and crypto communist type organizations began to fund institutions in order to churn out male shrimps and emasculate western males. Our schools and mass media denied to children the rudiments a Western education (discarding from curricula the classics: i.e: Homer's Iliad and other essential literary works of our ancestors) and taught all children to be rootless, cosmopolitan and ruthless egalitarians. And the results are what we now could chance to see in more "progressive" cities: I.E.: unabashed epicene filth, exulting in an existence below the animal level. We haul and bus our children to schools who's main interest in unhinging the human personality and making moral basketcases out of healthy children. And the result is what you so correctly identify as the gender neutral gender confused multicultural morass of degenerates. Maybe many of the revolting generation of "hippies" "self effaced" themselves because they rejected a society that offered them no faith, no dignity, no hope- a crypto-communist type Ayn Rand hell hole with no possibility for a decent future. There must have been an innate decency in those young males that made them say, "damn it all" and, with a gesture of self-destruction, head for the "hippie" pestholes and the oblivion of consummated degradation. It is a pity that such young men were lost to themselves... and to us. The contempt you describe for emasculated liberal "males" is in the hearts of many a sober student who walk away in silent scorn. We know that we live in enemy occupied territory, a fetid liberal jungle where the incompetent, shiftless, the criminal, ugly, diseased and degenerate are venerated and even rewarded, and the honest and upright are scorned upon and hated as "reactionaries". That is an obscene spectacle that no clear-sighted man can behold without bitterness in his soul.

I suppose you're simply too authoritarian in spirit and too willing to follow the party line of Political Correctness to see any dissenters from it as anything other then "ridiculous". To you, a Politically Incorrect or (heaven forbid!) "intolerant" response is ridiculous because it is Blasphemy, they are statements of religious impiety to the religion of Political Correctness and hence "ridiculous". Such as claiming that not to believe in virgin birth or other miraculous nonsense in the new testament would evoke shudders and squawks in medieval times. To you an unorthodox response is ridiculous BECAUSE it is unorthodox and hence needn't be addressed.

Would you entertain a response if told you I did'nt? I suspect not.

Indeed, and you're doing pantomime and making a fool of yourself by not addressing supposedly absurd statements. So laugh away clown, laugh...

Exactly, for a reason. Guess which one.

And exactly how did the "natives" have any real "legal" claim to the territories of north america? You (like so many other self hating "Euro-canadians") seem blinded by the infectious hallucination about "ONE WORLD," which teaches that every biped anthropoid are to the tenth decimal equal and furbished with equal "rights". Many hapless Canadians are so inhibited by the fiction about "human rights," presumably ordained by some unnamed God or supernatural force, so that they can't face the fact that there can be no rights except those a society, whether a tribe, a nation, or a country, bestows on its members and may deem it expedient to extend in part to such aliens as it tolerates in its midst. The natives had no legal conception of private property and land. They raided each other and conquered territory CENTURIES before the first white man ever came. They certainly recognized no right for fellow natives to retain their property... and why should this standard be different for Europeans? And why not ask our "gallant little democratic ally" Israel about the validity of "Terra Nullius" in our modern age? Or the East timorese perhaps? Or Darfur? Or Turkey? you see dear fellow countryman, there ARE no rights except those a society, whether a tribe, a nation, or a country, bestows on its individual members. Human Rights did'nt prevent Rwanda, Human Rights are figments of the imagination. Rights cannot exist without force. you can't depend on anything but force in statecraft. Diplomacy works only if it's backed up by force. Diplomacy itself is about force: the threat of it, the use of it, the direction of it. Whether people are fair or "nice" or equitable is irrelevant. Our choice is to be feared or to be the victim. There is no other choice.

M.Dancer, if you could (for a change) actually explain your arguments, describe how a statement of mine is "x or y or z". If you don't feel like it ... then why bother responding at all? Its not like your imposing on me much. Either show me the error in my thinking or ignore me. You may have a point- but at least make a case for it. Stop keeping your reasoning a secret.

The term 'American' properly applies only to Europeans in the United States, members of the ethnicity that took the country from the savages and "made themselves" the first people. The term could etymologically apply to every bit of land and every inhabitant of the Western Hemisphere, from the North Pole to Cape Horn, but it is theirs by prescriptive right: they took if for themselves, having no distinctive name, and Americans have an unquestioning right to the land so long as their are willing *AND ABLE* to defend it as such. That is the law of life and nations. Israel was likewise "stolen" but who dream to say that the Jews in Israel aren't in their own country? So long as they are able to maintain themselves on it ... it is theirs.

does first nation also include the Ancient Solutreans (a European people from northern Spain) that inhabited the east coast of the US and Canada 17 000 years ago?

how about not permitting them to come in in the first place? Oh i'm sorry, please excuse my insensitivity and intolerance. Let them all in- give them sharia courts, and be damn thankful for the privilege of being mocked and spat upon by the filthy and savage anthropoids to whom you are giving away your country. now THAT'S the canadian liberal way!

The problem is that "diversity" of the kind that we forced to celebrate in Canada (racial, religious, cultural etc), seems quite illogical, fatuous and even suicidal to other nations. Other nations (Japan, China for instance) know and understand that "diversity" is not a source of strength but of bottomless weakness. They regard the new western liberal societal mores as idiocy and degeneracy incarnate. They correctly see it as a log rolling and problem CAUSING institution and quite rationally aim to avoid it. As far as a conference against so-called "racism" is concerned, such an inane conference could not impose on the more rational and objective nations in the world today (of which sadly, Canada and the US cannot claim membership). "Racism" has no fixed definition, or rather is has hundreds of subjective and silly definitions and approximations- "racism" is itself an abstract notion. What is racism? the belief that genes and heredity play a role in people's abilities, physical aptitudes, mental faculties, susceptibility to specific diseases? Nearly every biological anthropologist believes in races or at the very least (given the stigma and ultra taboo status that racial differences has in our crumbling culture) in a "cline type" of racial taxonomy. (see: the consensus laid out here http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001951.html) "Race" or human "CLINES" as they are increasingly referenced to as (given the quasi illegality of the concept of race in the western world today), is a real, immediate and immutable biological fact. We should regard any effort to make "racism" disappear as inherently foolish and childishly naive. Akin to believing that santa claus exists. And mentioning obama as some sort of proof that America or Canada have gone beyond or moved away from racism: consider that 96% of black voters voted for Obama. Consider secondly that nearly every honest analyst understands that Obama was NOT elected REGARDLESS of race: but rather precisely BECAUSE of it. Consider also how Obama's favorite ideologue: James Cone- who believes in a doctrine of black supremacy in which he believes honestly: that "whites" were created in labs as slaves near the earth's core by Ethiopian scientists 6000 years ago "but something went wrong with the experiment"... consider this as proof that America has not at all gone "beyond race".... far from it.

Yeah another historical whopper.... apparently the dirt poor Shtettle jews in eastern europe had billions in swiss banks (yet for some reason failed to use their wealth to pack up and leave). This hoax has been thoroughly debunked by professor Finkelstein and others as just another "victim racket" and brazen extortion. There COULDN'T have been much wealth left over by jews ... everyone who had liquidity BOOKED IT way before Kristalnacht. http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?ar=22&pg=3 It was simply a show put on by powerful Jews which threatened the Swiss banks with unrelenting media defacement if they did'nt pony up and pay. see this video:

does anyone seriously debate anymore that liberals are the would be commissars or "red guards" of tomorrow? How much more PC insanity and encroachment on personal liberty will it take before we resolve fight back?

thank you for the geography lesson- of course for the purpose of this discussion: we are talking about NORTH AMERICA... Pre literate ... I like that... you meant "oral tradition" or another euphemism... but yes... there where the Blackfoot, the Iroquoi, the Apache, the Cherokee, the Algonquins etc etc ad infinitam nauseam. The populations were not EXTERMINATED so much as they contracted disease they had no immunity to. This happened primarily when Cortez and his strong and valiant band of Iron men conquered the Aztecs and toppled their sacrificial pyramids. The evidence however is not conclusive: we cannot know exactly how many lived or died. so any claim to the contrary is simply a hateful attack on Europeans. and excuse me .... Ancient Greece developed nearly independently. There was some sharing from levant states (that was reciprocal) but who would dream to think that Ancient Europeans had nothing to do with their own advancement as a Civilization. Again that is simply slanderous FILTH from an overheated brain. Perhaps you could explain why the countries from whom the Greeks borrowed (and modified) for instance their numeral and alphabetical - systems, presumably from Ancient Babylon- why these places never could develop as did the Europeans.. . And yes black powder explosion was developed by Chinese- europeans modified the technology to make the most usable rifles... but then again what does that have to do with anything?

haahah the IHR is not neo nazi. Either way i provided you with 4 other links (including one from mainstream media)... a documentary film no less. but apparently since the IHR commented on it... its all tinfoil hat flat earth society drivel. ... keep telling yourself that if it comforts you.

no it was called "SETTLING" the territory. The indians and their lifestyle and tribal mores were seen as hopelessly incompatible with the Western Civilization that was ebing implanted in the new world. And the Indians were not exterminated. And btw, they positively were in the process of exterminating each other WAY before the first european. The Indians had permanent torture facilities in some tribes and did enjoy many forms of torture... they weren't exactly the peace-loving, happye carefree cartoons the liberal media and lefties despicably make them out to be. They were like us in many ways, virile, aggressive and sometimes violent. One things for sure though: this continent would not be the powerhouse it is... a nation where everyone wants to live had our european forefathers decided to be "diverse" and "multicultural" with the indians.

actually it was even closer then that: there was actually a vote made on the official language of the US during its foundation: the decision was between English and German.... english won by vote if I remember correctly: 5 to 4.

what is it with you dancer? Why do you so thoughtlessly reject out of hand widely accepted truths? You seem too unwilling to accept reality when that reality is unpleasant. in January 1941, almost a full year before the attack on Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt incited the Japanese by informing "in strict confidence" the Portuguese Ambassador (thourgh Francisco Higino Craveiro Lopes) that the Portuguese need not worry about their colonies in the Orient (Timor et al) because the United States was going to attack Japan when her military forces were extended to the limit and most vulnerable, and would thus destroy Japan. The Ambassador of course then relayed the great news to his government in his most secret code, which the Japanese had compromised and were reading currently. And the success of Roosevelt's scheme was confirmed 9 days later when the Portuguese message was quoted in Japanese diplomatic messages that American cryptanalysts were reading. The Japanese were thus led to believe that the Americans would soon attack them, and that they should therefore gain the advantage of surprising the enemy that intended to surprise them. And we also know how conspicuously close was the American fleet in the pacific - indeed why park valuable battleships, destroyers, submarines, and aircraft carriers so near and in the face of danger if one's intentions is not OFFENSIVE? No serious historian today seriously debates the pearl harbor ploy. more information is available from "FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT AND THE AZORES DILEMMA, 1941 Donald Stevens Donald Stevens is professor of history at Kings College in Wilkes- Barre, Pennsylvania. " http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n6p19_Chamberlin.html also: http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html there's an interesting documentary about this very subject here: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/pearl_harbor.htm even as mainstream and liberal a channel as the History Channel produced a documentary about it: http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-7736750907069936394 (the movie confirms that the US KNEW that Japan was going to attack - but deny its implications)

That's quite true. The essential aspect was still Germany's right to have more economic freedom (entertain the prospect of colonies) fair tariffs and deference, and also the erasure of intentionally misplaced borders in continental Europe.