http://www.wichita-massacre.com/

I read about this when it happened. A LONG time ago.

Yeah, it happened 6 years ago, and I do remember hearing about it.

There's a long article on Http:www.vnnforum.com about what happened to these people that night and how the media did minimal coverage about it.
There are many more "hush crimes" which are not widely reported to the public. I think the biggest thing about the "Wichita Massacre " we can learn is we must learn how to defend ourselves if we have to. These people cooperated and all four died. Terribly sad what happened to them.:( :mad:

There's a long article on Http:www.vnnforum.com about what happened to these people that night and how the media did minimal coverage about it.
There are many more "hush crimes" which are not widely reported to the public. I think the biggest thing about the "Wichita Massacre " we can learn is we must learn how to defend ourselves if we have to. These people cooperated and all four died. Terribly sad what happened to them.:( :mad:
:werd:

how can we not hear about it? you post it all the time :shrug:

:rolleyes:

Looks like the largest newspaper in Kansas (http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/news/special_packages/carr_trial/) was on top of it.

But, gee, there weren't any important national stories in late December of 2000 to cover.

yes, but no national coverage like the lacross story :o

yes, but no national coverage like the lacross story :o

Maybe there's a conspiracy against White People. The NWO is probably responsible for this conspiracy because its goal is to destroy the White Race.

yes, but no national coverage like the lacross story :o
Obviously you missed my sarcasm.

Let me spell it out for you (including the spaces):

T-H-E- -U-N-I-T-E-D- -S-T-A-T-E-S- -P-R-E-S-I-D-E-N-T-I-A-L- -E-L-E-C-T-I-O-N- -O-F- -2-0-0-0 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election%2C_2000)

Obviously you missed my sarcasm.

Let me spell it out for you (including the spaces):

T-H-E- -U-N-I-T-E-D- -S-T-A-T-E-S- -P-R-E-S-I-D-E-N-T-I-A-L- -E-L-E-C-T-I-O-N- -O-F- -2-0-0-0 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election%2C_2000)
kansas doesn't equal national coverage :hmm:

Maybe there's a conspiracy against White People. The NWO is probably responsible for this conspiracy because its goal is to destroy the White Race.i'm glad you're coming around, guido

yes, but no national coverage like the lacross story :o
This story has received the coverage it has because it involves a sports team from an expensive and well respected university. If the team was mostly comprised of black students, it would receive the same attention. Get over yourself.

This story has received the coverage it has because it involves a sports team from an expensive and well respected university. If the team was mostly comprised of black students, it would receive the same attention. Get over yourself.not true

Well with that fantastic argument, how could I disagree?!

not true

Correct. Clearly the media selects certain crimes that confrom to their agenda and ignores crimes that threaten their agenda. There really is a constant stream of anti-White "hate" crimes, but the generally accepted rule is that there is no "hate" crime when the victim is White. That is a function of the PC police and DA's around the country allegedly. The NYU student killed the other day in Harlem for example had no coverage on the liberal cable news stations just as that atrocity in Kansas got no coverage.

ALL crimes are "hate" crimes.

Here's (http://www.courttv.com/trials/bryant/index.html) another crime against a poor white person that was swept under the rug and forgotten about by the media:

Here's (http://watchingthetimes.********.com/2006/03/attractive-white-victim-gets-front.html) another story that bolster's your case.

Here's (http://www.courttv.com/trials/bryant/index.html) another crime against a poor white person that was swept under the rug and forgotten about by the media:

Don't forget the People's Princess, Natalie Holloway. What a shame that story never received the coverage it deserved.

And when that black football player iced his wife...OJ something-or-another? A black man dusts his white wife, and it never even made a blip on the radar of the damn liberal media. How typical.

......

Thumper, I just want to know, honestly: What do you do when people point out to you simple facts that just completly rip at the thread that is your logic?

I.E. -- This event occured right in the midst of the most lengthy, controversial and covered presidential election in history.

I.E. -- This story was front page news on most Kansas newspapers at the time.

I.E. -- I, and as is appearent, most people did hear about this.

I.E. -- There are still victims of this crime who would rather not let it be known that they had this happen to them, or witnessed this, but want a normal life.

What do you do in this situation? Are you seriously capable of simply ignoring all these very relevent points, which bassicaly dispel your posts? I mean damn man, yes, those were evil people. But they are not in any way shape or form representive of all people in their culture, and its a true shame you let yourself think that.

Correct. Clearly the media selects certain crimes that confrom to their agenda and ignores crimes that threaten their agenda. There really is a constant stream of anti-White "hate" crimes, but the generally accepted rule is that there is no "hate" crime when the victim is White. That is a function of the PC police and DA's around the country allegedly. The NYU student killed the other day in Harlem for example had no coverage on the liberal cable news stations just as that atrocity in Kansas got no coverage.:werd:

ALL crimes are "hate" crimes.

What?

White apologism is coming to an end. White people are coming around to the idea that their empire has crumbled and soon enough will fight back.

White apologism is coming to an end. White people are coming around to the idea that their empire has crumbled and soon enough will fight back.

A white people's empire is certainly worth fighting against.

Like previous empires, predominately white western civilization is sadly enough coming to an end. You may say that it is worth fighting against, and for some reasons I would agree. But there is also the example of the living conditions before and after the British handed over control of South Africa, and Hong Kong. Although not as extreme as we've seen in regard to living conditions as in South Africa, Hong Kong has already lost many of their valued freedoms previously unfettered by the UK.

Like previous empires, predominately white western civilization is sadly enough coming to an end. You may say that it is worth fighting against, and for some reasons I would agree. But there is also the example of the living conditions before and after the British handed over control of South Africa, and Hong Kong. Although not as extreme as we've seen in regard to living conditions as in South Africa, Hong Kong has already lost many of their valued freedoms previously unfettered by the UK.

The notion that one ethnic group should have sovereignty over other people based wholly or partially on ethnicity is a repulsive anachronism and contrary to the principles of a liberal democracy, which requires that the ethnicity be entirely irrelevant to any criteria of legitimacy in the exercise of state power and beyond that, to the availability of opportunities within civil society. Therefore, the idea of restoring a "white peoples' empire" is a ridiculous and highly offensive idea that is summarily rejected by all sane people.

Actually our liberal democracy makes all kinds of laws pertaining to race, therefore you are wrong in your assessment. Furthermore I never at any point said that one race should assert itself over another. I simply stated that "predominately white western civilization" manages society better than any other culture. Cultures (a way a group of people act, commonalities) being generally race based have strong and weak points. Eastern civilization including the Islamic middle east is horribly repressive and has little or no liberty. But take Kuwait for example, a country that by and large embraces Occidental ways, is much more successful and free on an individual basis than surrounding countries. The same is true of Israel, and explains why they flourish while the Palestinians were primarily tent dwellers until Israel started to build the territory.

Actually our liberal democracy makes all kinds of laws pertaining to race, therefore you are wrong in your assessment. Furthermore I never at any point said that one race should assert itself over another. I simply stated that "predominately white western civilization" manages society better than any other culture. Cultures (a way a group of people act, commonalities) being generally race based have strong and weak points. Eastern civilization including the Islamic middle east is horribly repressive and has little or no liberty. But take Kuwait for example, a country that by and large embraces Occidental ways, is much more successful and free on an individual basis than surrounding countries. The same is true of Israel, and explains why they flourish while the Palestinians were primarily tent dwellers until Israel started to build the territory.

First you say that I'm "wrong" when I'm obviously right, then you talk about something totally different from "white peoples' empire" (your words), as if you'd proven a point. Cultures aren't empires.

Certainly they are. The British Empire is by and large the largest contributing factor to what is considered Western civilization. It is a white nation. Therefore the British Empire and all of the countries it has at one time subjugated are influenced by, and primarily, with exceptions, ruled by the ideals and governmental structure if you will, of white peoples. No other empire propogated by any other predominate race has ever created a civilization that has provided in the long term a better sense of individual liberty than that of white people. It does not in my estimation make white people better people, just different in their ability to govern themselves and others, regardless of how they came to govern over others. My point that their Empire, or the "downfall of wstern civilization" as I like to put it, is the general Idea that instead of being equals, they have become apologists for what their ancestors did to weaker peoples in the past by letting themselves be taken advantage of now by people who themselves have never been enslaved or massacred.

And I meant you were wrong about the behavior of liberal government regarding race

:werd:
You may be the worst debater on this website.

I don't know about that, I've seen your posts.

Welcome to DA, smart guy!

Thanks for the warm welcome

A white people's empire is certainly worth fighting against.don't listen to the self-hating white liberal

don't listen to the self-hating white liberal

I agree with igofast's assessment, above:

You may be the worst debater on this website.

In fact, I don't really understand why you bother in the first place.

Appearantly you accept my superior knowledge on this subject and admit your utter defeat.

So much love on this thread.

Black guys do some repugnant, ****ed up shit, but then again so do a lot of white guys, but what Thumpy is really pissed off about is the balance of reporting .

Appearantly you accept my superior knowledge on this subject and admit your utter defeat.

No, I just get bored "debating" white nationalists, so I don't bother most of the time. However,

You talked about restoring a white peoples' empire. I take that to mean a system of political sovereignty that provides unequal political power to white people on the basis of their ethnicity. If it has to do with some idiotic drivel about "white culture," I'm not even interested in discussing it. I then stated that this concept of white peoples' sovereignty, like any idea of ethnic sovereignty (such as zionism, black nationalism, the morons who are doing ethnic cleansing in Sudan, etc.) is unacceptable to sane people who believe in western values, such as the idea of a liberal democracy or a constitutional republic. This is not even controversial; it's obvious, but if you'd like to debate it, feel free.

It's simply white apologism run amok. I'm sorry but slavery ended over a hundred years ago, time to get your **** together.

I'm not particularly a white nationalist I just think the loudest segments of our society produce the least contributions.

Don't forget the People's Princess, Natalie Holloway. What a shame that story never received the coverage it deserved.

And when that black football player iced his wife...OJ something-or-another? A black man dusts his white wife, and it never even made a blip on the radar of the damn liberal media. How typical.

But our point is there are thousands of robberies, rapes and murders committed against whites by blacks that are not reported or the racial angle is left out. The OJ trial was unusual since they did cover it so extensiively, very unusual. The Natalie Holloway case is not about black suspects so yes the msm will follow it closely. According to the DOJ statistics, approximately 90% of interracial attacks is black on white, but the media doesn't want to show that, so yeah the bias is there. If you read about what's happening in this country on www.Amren.com or www.vnnforum.com you see it.

But our point is there are thousands of robberies, rapes and murders committed against whites by blacks that are not reported or the racial angle is left out. The OJ trial was unusual since they did cover it so extensiively, very unusual. The Natalie Holloway case is not about black suspects so yes the msm will follow it closely. According to the DOJ statistics, approximately 90% of interracial attacks is black on white, but the media doesn't want to show that, so yeah the bias is there. If you read about what's happening in this country on www.Amren.com or www.vnnforum.com you see it.

vnn has some cool interracial porn. I went there and jerked off several times.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v491/beausoleil/Internet%20funnies/NotMyBabyBitch.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v491/beausoleil/Internet%20funnies/NotMyBabyBitch.gif:D :D :D :D :bowrofl: :bowrofl: :bowrofl: :bowrofl: :bowrofl: :bowrofl:

http://www.smiliesftw.com/x/grouphug.gif

vnn has some cool interracial porn. I went there and jerked off several times.sure, you may have walked in on your mother engaged in an interacial gangbang as a child, but that doesn't mean there aren't better ways to deal with it

http://www.smiliesftw.com/x/happysad.gif

The notion that one ethnic group should have sovereignty over other people based wholly or partially on ethnicity is a repulsive anachronism and contrary to the principles of a liberal democracy, which requires that the ethnicity be entirely irrelevant to any criteria of legitimacy in the exercise of state power and beyond that, to the availability of opportunities within civil society. Therefore, the idea of restoring a "white peoples' empire" is a ridiculous and highly offensive idea that is summarily rejected by all sane people.


yea, but you can't argue with facts . Well you can argue with facts, but it's illogical .

I don't think it's the color of skin that makes the white man more successfull than all others in history . I think it's the dissapline and Godly laws that did it [ they are now ignored and whites will be enslaved soon for leaving the protection of God and his laws ] .

Whites built great nations because they were educated , determined and mostly good . Other nations left Gods laws and chose to live by their animal instincts . even when brought out of captivating third world poverty and ignorance , most want to resort back to instict . Then if it hurts they always have the white man to blame it on . Alot more white men educated and fought in wars for blacks and other minoritys than any who owned slaves or abused the races . But you never hear about them at there rallys or lobbys or groups like,UNCF , NAACP , NOI . or Black Panthers .

No matter what color you are if you previously live in America in past 50 yr.s didn't prosper, it's your own fault .

Also the only thing you need for hate crimes against whites is the prison files of black , latino and asian crimes on whites and the prison populations of these groups . Less crime of asians than other two groups . But almost non existant in immigrants from Japan . Wonder why ? Could it be because Japanese have pride in their accomplishments and dissapline in education and work ?

who said anything about one group having domination over another? oh wait, that's just Guido setting up another strawman.

yawn.

Actually our liberal democracy makes all kinds of laws pertaining to race, therefore you are wrong in your assessment. Furthermore I never at any point said that one race should assert itself over another. I simply stated that "predominately white western civilization" manages society better than any other culture. Cultures (a way a group of people act, commonalities) being generally race based have strong and weak points. Eastern civilization including the Islamic middle east is horribly repressive and has little or no liberty. But take Kuwait for example, a country that by and large embraces Occidental ways, is much more successful and free on an individual basis than surrounding countries. The same is true of Israel, and explains why they flourish while the Palestinians were primarily tent dwellers until Israel started to build the territory.



I agree except for the reasons that whites in west and Israelis have prospered .

Gods laws and basically obeying them is what made these two peoples great . Israel and the West has left God and are now loosing their place in first world nations . They have both turned into people ruled by insticts and lust and greed . They are now being invaded , [ just as God predicted they would if they turned their backs on God ] by third worlders .

The reason for all this ' hate crimes ' against whites and Israelites is because they have weakened themselves with evil .

yea, but you can't argue with facts . Well you can argue with facts, but it's illogical .

I don't think it's the color of skin that makes the white man more successfull than all others in history . I think it's the dissapline and Godly laws that did it [ they are now ignored and whites will be enslaved soon for leaving the protection of God and his laws ] .

Whites built great nations because they were educated , determined and mostly good . Other nations left Gods laws and chose to live by their animal instincts . even when brought out of captivating third world poverty and ignorance , most want to resort back to instict . Then if it hurts they always have the white man to blame it on . Alot more white men educated and fought in wars for blacks and other minoritys than any who owned slaves or abused the races . But you never hear about them at there rallys or lobbys or groups like,UNCF , NAACP , NOI . or Black Panthers .

No matter what color you are if you previously live in America in past 50 yr.s didn't prosper, it's your own fault .

Also the only thing you need for hate crimes against whites is the prison files of black , latino and asian crimes on whites and the prison populations of these groups . Less crime of asians than other two groups . But almost non existant in immigrants from Japan . Wonder why ? Could it be because Japanese have pride in their accomplishments and dissapline in education and work ?

The alleged "success" of one race or another has absolutely nothing to do with the moral legitimacy of efforts to establish ethnic sovereignty. "Success" is an empirical criterion (even if it's nearly meaningless in this context), whereas moral legitimacy is a matter of principle.

Pappy&Me, what does the Bible say about people who aid evil doers, like Guido?

The alleged "success" of one race or another has absolutely nothing to do with the moral legitimacy of efforts to establish ethnic sovereignty. "Success" is an empirical criterion (even if it's nearly meaningless in this context), whereas moral legitimacy is a matter of principle.



Moral legitimacy has to be earned . It is not cheap . Like the word itself ,' legitimate ' can only be acommplished by action of dissapline.

Twisting words and phrases around won't make you right, it will just make you look foolish .

Moral legitimacy has to be earned . It is not cheap . Like the word itself ,' legitimate ' can only be acommplished by action of dissapline.

Twisting words and phrases around won't make you right, it will just make you look foolish .

Moral legitimacy is a concept of political and moral philosophy, and has nothing to do with earning. It has to do with being consistent with moral principles.

Pappy&Me, what does the Bible say about people who aid evil doers, like Guido?


Ha Ha, Thumper, I'm sure no authority on the Bible ,but it says all kinds of things about this, imo. None of which are good .

Moral legitimacy is a concept of political and moral philosophy, and has nothing to do with earning. It has to do with being consistent with moral principles.


Whos moral principles ? :confused: Legitimate means to qualify in ome form or other .

Moral legitimacy is a concept of political and moral philosophy, and has nothing to do with earning. It has to do with being consistent with moral principles.
here's the point he's driving at: whites need to adopt non-whites into their society because being their keeper is the 'moral' thing to do. Kind of like stray animals or something :shrug:

here's the point he's driving at: whites need to adopt non-whites into their society because being their keeper is the 'moral' thing to do. Kind of like stray animals or something :shrug:


We seem to be getting screwed more and enjoying it less . Or maybe we do enjoy being guilty all the time .

here's the point he's driving at: whites need to adopt non-whites into their society because being their keeper is the 'moral' thing to do. Kind of like stray animals or something :shrug:

You have absolutely no idea how to participate in a discussion of political or moral principles. For you, politics is just a matter of your personal preferences, which usually boil down to your various prejudices, as if you were talking about the vegetables you don't like to eat. You are incapable of actually applying concepts or principles, because your personal aesthetic preferences are irrelevant to political concepts and vice versa. That's why your threads never lead anywhere interesting; they always lead back to you, i.e., "I don't like ____." That's why racists tend to be such superficial people.

You have absolutely no idea how to participate in a discussion of political or moral principles. For you, politics is just a matter of your personal preferences, which usually boil down to your various prejudices, as if you were talking about the vegetables you don't like to eat. You are incapable of actually applying concepts or principles, because your personal aesthetic preferences are irrelevant to political concepts and vice versa. That's why your threads never lead anywhere interesting; they always lead back to you, i.e., "I don't like ____." That's why racists tend to be such superficial people.spare us the mindless rhetoric. at the end of the day, white people are 'responsible' for the welfare of minorities.

this is why you oppose WN'ism, because self-determination undercuts that.