~ archived since 2018 ~

TRUTH... IS THE NEW HATE SPEECH

JohnnyTruthSeed2

April 1, 2017

78 upvotes

/r/PussyPass

Archived from /r/PussyPass

r/PussyPass is a modern phenomenon where by just owning a pussy gets you benefits.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/PussyPass archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	TRUTH... IS THE NEW HATE SPEECH
Author	JohnnyTruthSeed2
Upvotes	78
Comments	57
Date	April 1, 2017 4:20 PM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PussyPass
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PussyPass/comments/62tp15/truth_is_the_new_hate_speech/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PussyPass/truth-is-the-new-hate-speech.927192 https://theredarchive.com/post/927192

Comments

[–]like_a_tree 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hatredshmatred[🍰] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]BOOMBUDA 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The message is this; All races are not created equal. Each has their pros and cons. Some are better suited to live in a civilized society.

And yes, it's common sense. But there is also sound science to back this. Like the Fixation Index, which is the standard method used in taxonomical classifications of nearly all other known living species for measuring genetic-distances between species. Here's what various sources have to say about this, in regards to race:

Fixation Index Fixation index or FST, is a way to measure genetic distance between populations. https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/woodley-2009-is-homo-sapiens-polytypic-human-taxonomic-diversity-and-its-implications.pdf

The FST between Whites (British) and Blacks (Bantu) is 0.23. http://www.genetics.org/content/105/3/767.abstract

The FST between the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and the bonobo (Pan paniscus) is 0.103 - half the White-Black difference despite the two being classified as separate species. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018442X04700335

The FST between two gorilla species, Gorilla gorilla (Western) and Gorilla beringei (Eastern) is 0.04 or 1/6 the difference between Blacks and Whites. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/bioc/2005/00000014/00000009/00004781;jsessionid=ebk3f9ja9mb61.alexandra?format=print http://www.berggorilla.org/fileadmin/gorilla-journal/gorilla-journal-20-english.pdf

The FST between humans and Neanderthals is less than 0.08 or about 1/3 the Black-White difference. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018442X04700335 http://www.pnas.org/content/100/11/6593.abstract http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/8/1359.full

The FST between humans and homo erectus is 0.17, which is ¾ the Black-White distance. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018442X04700335

Thus, Whites and Blacks are more genetically distant than two different chimpanzee species, two different gorilla species, humans vs. Neanderthals and humans vs. homo erectus.

The average FST between different dog breeds is 0.154 which is nearly identical to the average FST between human populations at 0.155. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11773246 http://www.pnas.org/content/94/9/4516.abstract

Although wolves (Canis lupus) and dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) are a different species (lupus) than coyotes (Canis latrans), “there is less mt-DNA difference between dogs, wolves, and coyotes than there is between the various ethnic groups of human beings.” http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Domestic_Dog.html?id=I8HU_3ycrrEC

Dr. Stanley Coren, professor of psychology at the University of British Columbia, argues that “Different breeds [of dog] obviously have different types of instinctive intelligence.” [http://tinyurl.com/72opu45] So why couldn’t different human populations as well, if genetic distances between human races are just as significant as genetic differences between dog breeds!

Whether measured through genetics or physical traits the major racial divisions of mankind are always separated into distinct clusters or groups with extreme accuracy. These divisions generally always correspond to the standard and conventional major racial divisions of mankind. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14533184

[–]JohnnyTruthSeed2[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thetenman 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]hatredshmatred[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]porn_atheism_alt1 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]BigPigg points 9 years ago* [recovered] (16 children) | Copy Link

Is it just me or has this sub gone kinda..sideways lately. Like went from Mens right issues to like "ahh evil jews!" Like wtf?

[–]thetenman 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheEarlyMan 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+]BigPigg points 9 years ago* [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

No its just that the sub is called pussy pass. Its about women getting away with shit or until it fumbles and moves to PPD. I guess im just surprised at the amount of race issues when its meant to be gender issues.

[–]TheEarlyMan 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]BigPigg points 9 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Already unsubbed. Thx

[–]QuestionZion 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]gonnahike 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]QuestionZion 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MaunaLoona 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]BigPigg points 9 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

How is stating the number of Jewish households that had slaves a pussy pass either though. Im just saying this sub has been kind of drifting lately.

[–]thetenman 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]BigPigg points 9 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Wasnt aware of the change. Thx.

[–]thetenman 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JohnnyTruthSeed2[S] 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]BigPigg points 9 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

I did. I wasnt aware it changed last month i subbed a year ago.

[–]JohnnyTruthSeed2[S] 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Varyyn 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

Your own source lists Aborigine Australians and sub-Saharan Africans as more genetically distant that sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans. Blacks are more different to other blacks than they are to whites. We are genetically similar enough to all interbreed, unlike the two gorilla species by definition. Which the source does not say are more genetically different to each other than humans are in either study listed. SNP no. alone doesn't mean the differences are significant.

The comparisons to neanderthals and homo-erectus were based on inferred mitochondrial DNA, which cannot be compared to techniques that analyse the genome as a whole as it is a tiny fraction of the DNA and conserved much better than genomic DNA because it only has 37 essential genes.

edit: To illustrate this look at the bottom row of the table and the second to bottom row, one is mt DNA the other is autosomal and we see at 10 fold difference in the lower estimates. When comparing autosomal DNA between chimps/bonobos we see at least more than double the distance between the chimp/bonobos and africans vs europeans just at the lower estimate.

[–]JohnnyTruthSeed2[S] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Your own source lists Aborigine Australians and sub-Saharan Africans as more genetically distant that sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans. Blacks are more different to other blacks than they are to whites.

Don't make stuff up... Aboriginals and sub-Saharans are not compared in the study. If you actually read the studies instead of just looking at the pictures you'd know;

"Given the large offset in evolutionary rates of molecules and morphology seen in human evolution, Homo species are likely to be characterised by high levels of morphological variation and low levels of genetic variability. Thus, molecular data suggest the limits for intraspecific morphological variation used by many palaeoanthropologists have been set too low. The role of phenotypic plasticity (i.e. observable characteristics of an individual resulting from the interaction of its genotype with the environment.) has been greatly underestimated in human evolution."

In other words, these small differences matter greatly.

AND "Following the most stringent current standards for validation of ancient DNA sequences, we typed the mtDNA hypervariable region I of two anatomically modern Homo sapiens sapiens individuals of the Cro-Magnon type dated at about 23 and 25 thousand years ago. Here we show that the mtDNAs of these individuals fall well within the range of variation of today's humans, but differ sharply from the available sequences of the chronologically closer Neanderthals."

We are genetically similar enough to all interbreed, unlike the two gorilla species by definition.

That's incorrect. European blood-types are more likely to be negative for the Rh-factor. While Africans and Asians are more likely to be positive. Africa acquired more of it due to colonization. The Rh-factor is what the + and - of our blood-types is referring to. It means you are either positive or negative for the Rhesus monkey gene (No shit, look it up).

Until the RhoGam shot was invented, people having differing RH-factors who attempted to breed could not have more than one child. This is because the mother's womb will develop anti-bodies after the first child and her womb will attack the next one as if it's a foreign invader. Hence, we are only "genetically similar enough to interbreed", with drug-intervention.

See for yourself: https://imgur.com/a/Vqh6Q (And you thought we were just fucking around when we called you monkeys, huh? ;)

Also, I want you to know, that even though you've failed to grasp 5th grade biology, I think it's wonderful that you feel ambitious enough to lecture me on genetics.

The comparisons to neanderthals and homo-erectus were based on inferred mitochondrial DNA, which cannot be compared to techniques that analyse the genome as a whole

No, only the comparison between Human vs. Homo-erectus was inferred. The comparison between Humans vs. Neanderthals were not (You ain't gots to lie to kick it, playa).

Again, from my source: "Following the most stringent current standards for validation of ancient DNA sequences, we typed the mtDNA hypervariable region I of two anatomically modern Homo sapiens sapiens individuals of the Cro-Magnon type dated at about 23 and 25 thousand years ago. Here we show that the mtDNAs of these individuals fall well within the range of variation of today's humans, but differ sharply from the available sequences of the chronologically closer Neanderthals."

Thanks for stopping by.

[–]Varyyn -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

Don't make stuff up... Aboriginals and sub-Saharans are not compared in the study. If you actually read the studies instead of just looking at the pictures you'd know;

http://imgur.com/a/f6Gts I literally pointed out the line in the table where the two are compared, from the same source, the Salters paper. You realise this "picture" is taken from a paper right?

AND "Following the most stringent current standards for validation of ancient DNA sequences, we typed the mtDNA hypervariable region I of two anatomically modern Homo sapiens sapiens individuals of the Cro-Magnon type dated at about 23 and 25 thousand years ago. Here we show that the mtDNAs of these individuals fall well within the range of variation of today's humans, but differ sharply from the available sequences of the chronologically closer Neanderthals."

Do you actually understand what mitochondrial DNA is, and that they are comparing mitochondrial DNA to other mitochondrial DNA, not mitochondrial to chromosomal like the source has. Look at the chimp vs bonobo for mt and chromosomal genetic drift results, one is 10 times higher than the other, how much clearer can it be that these are incomparable.

That's incorrect. European blood-types are more likely to be negative for the Rh-factor. While Africans and Asians are more likely to be positive.

Do you not understand what interbreeding is? If two individuals from different populations can have a child then the groups can interbreed. As opposed to say humans and chimpanzees.

Europeans are more likely to be rhesus negative than Africans, but the overwhelming majority are still rhesus positive (like 85%). So a rhesus negative european mother is in the minority and still very likely to breed with a rhesus + person regardless of if the father is european or african, 85% chance vs 99%. So rhesus -/+ interbreeding happens all the time between Europeans. http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/mar2001/985200157.Ge.r.html

Even without Rho(D) immunoglobulin, the risk of isoimmunization from HDFN is only 17%. So less than 3% (0.16x0.17) of interracial pregnancies will be effected even without medication. So no, we don't need drugs to interbreed due to a blood type difference that doesn't exist most of the time and isn't problematic in the majority of cases when it does.

[–]JohnnyTruthSeed2[S] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

http://imgur.com/a/f6Gts I literally pointed out the line in the table where the two are compared, from the same source, the Salters paper. You realise this "picture" is taken from a paper right?

My bad, the version I went off of doesn't have the images. I forgot that was on there.

Regardless, that is just a straw-man argument. I never claimed whites had less genetic-distance with aboriginals than sub-Saharans. Showing that sub-Saharans have more genetic-distance with aboriginals than whites, only makes a case for African and Aboriginal nationalism. Also, I notice you're staying away from the evidence on chimps and gorillas. Why is that?

Do you actually understand what mitochondrial DNA is, and that they are comparing mitochondrial DNA to other mitochondrial DNA, not mitochondrial to chromosomal like the source has. Look at the chimp vs bonobo for mt and chromosomal genetic drift results, one is 10 times higher than the other, how much clearer can it be that these are incomparable.

Again... "Following the most stringent current standards for validation of ancient DNA sequences..."

You can demand perfection all you want. It doesn't exist in this matter. And you know it. Just like you know that I know the difference between mtDNA/mDNA and DNA stuffed chromosomes in a nucleus. Yet, you are making these irrelevant points in an attempt to discredit, anyway.

Do you not understand what interbreeding is? If two individuals from different populations can have a child then the groups can interbreed.

Yes, I do... It seems you do not.

Interbreed: "breed or CAUSE to breed with another of a different race or species"

If you cannot have enough children to even replace yourselves, you would go extinct. I would consider that a dead-end as far as propagation of your species would go. But RhoGam CAUSES us to be able to interbreed, having more than one child.

Europeans are more likely to be rhesus negative than Africans

Correct.

but the overwhelming majority are still rhesus positive (like 85%).

Do you think "die-versity" has something to do with this? (It does) What percentage of European families in America do you think have refrained from miscegenation?

European Americans have overwhelmingly maintained their purity, as compared to other races in America. http://newobserveronline.com/white-americans-remained-shockingly-european-despite-decades-pro-racial-mixing-propaganda-new-dna-study-reveals/ Of course, not many consider blood-factors as a factor in miscegenation. Hence, the mix we see in European Americans, today (They know not what they do). If your figure of 85% positive is correct, it seems about 15% of white, Rh-negative Americans refrain from Rh-positive partners, by choice or chance.

Even without Rho(D) immunoglobulin, the risk of isoimmunization from HDFN is only 17%. So less than 3% (0.16x0.17) of interracial pregnancies will be effected even without medication.

Yeah, the first pregnancy only...

Again, the mother's womb will develop anti-bodies AFTER the first pregnancy and they will attack the fetus of the second child and any subsequent children that are attempted to be birthed. Unless, mom gets a RhoGam shot.

we don't need drugs to interbreed due to a blood type difference that doesn't exist most of the time and isn't problematic in the majority of cases when it does.

(Face-palm)

Yes, we do... It's called RhoGam. It came into use in the 1960's (Right around when the time of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Immigration Act of 1965 took place (Probably just a coincidence, right?)

Any woman who has had a child can tell you all about it. This is common-knowledge.

http://www.rhogam.com/faq/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rho(D)_immune_globulin

EDIT: Typo

[–]Varyyn -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Clearly you're failing to grasp the difference between chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA or you would understand why variations within them can't be compared to one another. Mitochondrial DNA is 16,000bp long, chromosomal DNA is 2 lots of 3,000,000,000bp long, it's about 400,000 times longer. The genetic distance is caused by random mutations, which are obviously going to occur more often due to random errors in the massive chromosomal DNA than the tiny mitochondrial DNA. Not only this but the mtDNA contains 37 crucial proteins that can't be significantly mutated without death whilst chromosomal DNA is half junk that has zero effect when mutated. This is why all the numbers in that table for mtDNA are so much smaller than SNP/autosomal etc.

I've said this 3 times now and it's not getting through, it's actually laughable to say im ignoring the chimp and gorilla data. This is why the chimp vs bonobo numbers are x10 smaller for mt than chromosomal. The chromosomal number for chimps vs bonobos (0.49 minimum) when compared to Europeans vs Africans (0.24) is larger indicating more genetic difference between chimps/bonobos than africans/europeans, so your post is wrong. The exact same thing is seen in the gorrila species, 0.38 when using nuclear loci rather than mitochondrial.

Again... "Following the most stringent current standards for validation of ancient DNA sequences..." You can demand perfection all you want.

It's not an issue of perfection, or with the original paper your quoting that from, the paper isn't comparing mtDNA to autosomal, the source is misapplying the papers data comparing it to an entirely different paper and method to draw its own false conclusions for the reasons I've listed above. It's comparing apples and planets.

Again, the mother's womb will develop anti-bodies AFTER the first pregnancy and they will attack the fetus of the second child and any subsequent children that are attempted to be birthed. Unless, mom gets a RhoGam shot.

85% percent of white people are rhesus+ and always have been and can breed with blacks with no blood group complications whatsoever, hardly incompatible. Not going to go extinct when 85% of the population can successfully interbreed without complications.

You seem to be under the false impression that HDFN develops in every case after the first birth. This is not the case, the antibodies only harm the baby if it comes into contact with the mothers blood containing the antibodies. Which only occurs, like I said 17% of the time. It's also not 100% fatal when it does occur. RhoGam reduces this further, so everyone in the modern world obviously takes it. But it isn't necessary for survival.

[–]JohnnyTruthSeed2[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Clearly you're failing to grasp the difference between chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA or you would understand why variations within them can't be compared to one another. Mitochondrial DNA is 16,000bp long, chromosomal DNA is 2 lots of 3,000,000,000bp long, it's about 400,000 times longer. The genetic distance is caused by random mutations, which are obviously going to occur more often due to random errors in the massive chromosomal DNA than the tiny mitochondrial DNA. Not only this but the mtDNA contains 37 crucial proteins that can't be significantly mutated without death whilst chromosomal DNA is half junk that has zero effect when mutated. This is why all the numbers in that table for mtDNA are so much smaller than SNP/autosomal etc.

(Face-palm)

No, I'm not...

I'm starting to see your angle here. You are telling me things I already know, at length, in an attempt to establish some kind of intellectual credibility through show of vocabulary. Yet, you continue to ignore the crux of the argument.

Also, you are misleading readers when you illustrate the difference in length of mtDNA and chromosomal DNA, which you say is "400,000 times longer", then admit half of the chromosomal DNA is junk.

Also, you are ignoring other variants, such as the breeding-patterns between humans, chimps and bonobos. It is expected that we will see more variation coming from wild-animals. It seems chimps and bonobos are more "opportunist-breeders". I think you can agree, the breeding patterns of chimps and humans differ greatly. However, can you admit that breeding-patterns between whites and blacks vary greatly, as well?

Besides that, you are basing your ENTIRE argument on this single image from the article which refers to ONE study out of the 16 studies/sources cited, while ignoring the remaining data.

I've said this 3 times now and it's not getting through, it's actually laughable to say im ignoring the chimp and gorilla data. This is why the chimp vs bonobo numbers are x10 smaller for mt than chromosomal. The chromosomal number for chimps vs bonobos (0.49 minimum) when compared to Europeans vs Africans (0.24) is larger indicating more genetic difference between chimps/bonobos than africans/europeans, so your post is wrong. The exact same thing is seen in the gorrila species, 0.38 when using nuclear loci rather than mitochondrial.

More vocabulary-showcasing, telling us the obvious and already known. I see what you are saying... AGAIN, I understand the difference between mDNA and chromosomal DNA, but you're still arguing an irrelevant point. The genetic proximity of humans and chimpanzees has been used to suggest these species are congeneric (same genus). And, published genetic distances between common chimpanzees and bonobos, along with evidence for interbreeding, suggest they should be assigned to a single species and classified as Homo. We get it.

You are arguing; that because chimps and bonobos have more genetic variation between them when chromosomal DNA is compared, than do blacks and whites, that human-races will necessarily show the same variation-distances when compared similarly. This is an assumption, not a fact. And relies on assuming humans would show similar deviations. We cannot say this for certain. And, given breeding-habit differences, it's more likely we'd see less variation with humans, than with chimps, bonobos, Homo-erectus or Neanderthal. "Following the most stringent current standards for validation of ancient DNA sequences...", my conclusion stands. Your conclusion rests on a hypothetical, that requires the assumption of humans breeding like wild-animals.

85% percent of white people are rhesus+ and always have been

Incorrect... Ever heard of the Basque people? (Over 50% Type O- blood). They were isolated for a long period of time and it's said they preserved the oldest blood-lines. "Since the Basque language is unrelated to Indo-European, it has long been thought to represent the people or culture that occupied Europe before the spread of Indo-European languages there. A comprehensive analysis of Basque genetic patterns has shown that Basque genetic uniqueness predates the arrival of agriculture in the Iberian Peninsula, about 7,000 years ago."

"Some scholars have suggested a Celtic etymology based on bhar-s-, meaning "summit", "point" or "leaves", according to which barscunes may have meant "the mountain people", "the tall ones" or "the proud ones." (AKA, the ones that didn't fuck monkeys).

"Even before the development of modern genetics based on DNA sequencing, Basques were already noted for distinctive genetic patterns, such as possessing the highest global apportion of the Rh- blood type (35% phenotypically, 60% genetically). Additionally, the Basque population has virtually no B blood type, nor the related AB type. They have a high rate of O blood group but this is probably due to isolation.

Although they are genetically distinctive in some ways, the Basques are still very typically European in terms of their Y-DNA and mtDNA sequences, and in terms of some other genetic loci. These same sequences are widespread throughout the western half of Europe, especially along the western fringe of the continent." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basques

Not going to go extinct when 85% of the population can successfully interbreed without complications.

Well, human/Rhesus-monkey hybrids certainly won't have complications. I'm talking about people who are negative for the Rhesus-factor. We are being erased.

This is some "Planet Of The Apes", shit. Lol

You seem to be under the false impression that HDFN develops in every case after the first birth. This is not the case, the antibodies only harm the baby if it comes into contact with the mothers blood containing the antibodies. Which only occurs, like I said 17% of the time.

And you seem to be under the false-impression that HDFN is the only threat posed to a fetus (and the mother).

Rho(D) immune globulin is a medication used to prevent Rh isoimmunization (which is HDFN) in mothers who are Rh negative and to treat idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), a type of thrombocytopenic purpura defined as isolated low platelet count, in people who are Rh positive. There are also a myriad of noted possible side-effects from RhoGam, both for the child and mother.

In the 1980's RhoGam began being administered during pregnancy, where as before this it was only used AFTER pregnancy. (When did autism in children start to rise drastically?)

the antibodies only harm the baby if it comes into contact with the mothers blood containing the antibodies. Which only occurs, like I said 17% of the time.

"In a pregnancy where the mother is D-negative and the father is D-positive, there is a 50%-100% chance, depending on whether the father is heterozygous or homozygous for RhD, that the fetus will be D-positive and the mother is therefore at risk for D alloimmunization." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rho(D)_immune_globulin

It's also not 100% fatal when it does occur.

No, but when it doesn't it may incapacitate kids... Do you know what percentage of autistic children are born to Rh- mothers? Why is this number so much higher?

RhoGam reduces this further, so everyone in the modern world obviously takes it.

"A study conducted by the University of California in Davis has revealed that MAR antibodies in the mother´s blood are responsible for 25% of autism cases in the United States.

Let´s look at it this way:

Back before there was an Anti-D shot, an rh positive fetus of an rh negative mother would simply die or “vanish” if the mother already had antibodies (i.e. a natural-barrier to interbreeding) Now that after 28 weeks of gastation the shot is being administered, we are dealing with 7 months of potential damage being done. If a fetus survives, then the brain activity can be harmed by those antibodies." http://www.rhesusnegative.net/staynegative/studies-indicate-higher-risk-of-autism-amongst-children-of-rh-negative-mothers/

P.S. I'm very much enjoying our debate. I appreciate a challenge.

[–]Varyyn 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm really using as simple language as possible to discuss this, these are as close to laymans terms as I can get without losing the meaning.

Also, you are misleading readers when you illustrate the difference in length of mtDNA and chromosomal DNA, which you say is "400,000 times longer", then admit half of the chromosomal DNA is junk.

The fact that half of it is junk means it accumulates MORE errors since mutations here don't kill the organism ever so get passed on. This isn't an "admission", it supports my point that mitochondrial results will be so disparate from chromosomal. Junk DNA is really effective for detecting ancestry.

but you're still arguing an irrelevant point.

From source

The FST between Whites (British) and Blacks (Bantu) is 0.23. Chromosomal result based on SNPs in chromosomal DNA

The FST between the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and the bonobo (Pan paniscus) is 0.103 - half the White-Black difference despite the two being classified as separate species. MT chimp result, compared to human chromosomal result, I've listed chromosomal vs chromosomal result in previous comment

The FST between two gorilla species, Gorilla gorilla (Western) and Gorilla beringei (Eastern) is 0.04 or 1/6 the difference between Blacks and Whites. again MT result compared to chromosomal result, again as I said above when compared to the nuclear loci result (which is based on partial chromosomal data)

The FST between humans and Neanderthals is less than 0.08 or about 1/3 the Black-White difference. whats this? MT vs chromosomal again?, This time there isn't chromosomal data available to compare

The FST between humans and homo erectus is 0.17, which is 3/4 the Black-White distance. and again, mt vs chromosomal

Irrelevant point, you think this is an irrelevant point? This is literally the entire numeric justification for claiming that western/eastern gorilla and chimpanzee/bonobo are more dissimilar than european/african.

You are arguing; that because chimps and bonobos have more genetic variation between them when chromosomal DNA is compared, than do blacks and whites, that human-races will necessarily show the same variation-distances when compared similarly. This is an assumption, not a fact. And relies on assuming humans would show similar deviations. We cannot say this for certain.

It's not an assumption, SNP data is chromosomal. Autosomal data is chromosomal just without the sex chromosomes which are less than 10%. These results ARE comparable, mt vs chromosomal is not.

Also if you claim this is an assumption and not fact, how in the holy fuck do you justify claiming TRUTH: Science shows whites and blacks are more dissimilar than gorrilla species or chimp/bonobos? So it's an assumption when I do it but not when your sources does it comically incorrectly?

[–]JohnnyTruthSeed2[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm really using as simple language as possible to discuss this, these are as close to laymans terms as I can get without losing the meaning.

You don't need to speak in layman's terms to me. I'm just saying it's better to speak wisely without eloquence, than eloquently without wisdom.

This isn't an "admission", it supports my point that mitochondrial results will be so disparate from chromosomal.

"So disparate" is not equal disparity to the others. Again, you are assuming a common-divergence inside groups like humans and chimps.

The FST between Whites (British) and Blacks (Bantu) is 0.23. Chromosomal result based on SNPs in chromosomal DNA The FST between the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and the bonobo (Pan paniscus) is 0.103 - half the White-Black difference despite the two being classified as separate species. MT chimp result, compared to human chromosomal result, I've listed chromosomal vs chromosomal result in previous comment The FST between two gorilla species, Gorilla gorilla (Western) and Gorilla beringei (Eastern) is 0.04 or 1/6 the difference between Blacks and Whites. again MT result compared to chromosomal result, again as I said above when compared to the nuclear loci result (which is based on partial chromosomal data) The FST between humans and Neanderthals is less than 0.08 or about 1/3 the Black-White difference. whats this? MT vs chromosomal again?, This time there isn't chromosomal data available to compare The FST between humans and homo erectus is 0.17, which is 3/4 the Black-White distance. and again, mt vs chromosomal. Irrelevant point, you think this is an irrelevant point? This is literally the entire numeric justification for claiming that western/eastern gorilla and chimpanzee/bonobo are more dissimilar than european/african.

These are not all results from mtDNA and chromosomal DNA comparisons. We already covered this. For instance, in the case of the Gorillas, mtDNA was compared to mtDNA. Chromosomal DNA is not mentioned. (I'm certain, because the links to the gorilla-studies are broken). In the case of human vs. neanderthal, mtDNA was again compared to mtDNA.

I agree, we may see more variations with full chromosomal DNA. Just not at the same rate as chimps, bonobos and the rest. But, let's assume this is the case.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Sub-Saharan Africans and Eurasians would show more genetic-variance when viewing SNPs rather than mtDNA alone (agreed), and would have genetic-distances more like the chimpanzee and bonobo when their autosomal DNA is compared (not agreed). Is that a fair assessment?

Even if this were true (which I will not concede on assumption)... In disproving the meme, you would also be proving a vastly higher genetic-distance between blacks and whites than I initially was claiming, and that is currently commonly accepted among white nationalist circles. So... Run with it. I won't stop you.

We'd rather make that more relevant point anyway! ;)

It's not an assumption, SNP data is chromosomal. Autosomal data is chromosomal just without the sex chromosomes which are less than 10%. These results ARE comparable, mt vs chromosomal is not.

You're doing it again. I don't need the definitions. I have Google. Regurgitating definitions is not an argument. Hence, we can shorten your response down to:

These results ARE comparable, mt vs chromosomal is not.

(Sigh).... You are ASSUMING parallel deviations between the various groups, when comparing mtDNA vs chromosomal DNA. This is not the case when comparing many species. AND, you are basing your entire argument off of the image alone and the studies it cites. The MANY sources cited below in the article show a bit more data.

For instance, after selecting the appropriate extant human D-loop data sets, Oxford used the "maximum-likelihood principle for model selection and parameter estimation to perform a novel phylogenetic reconstruction".

In layman's terms, these Oxford boys came up with a new and interesting way to model the evolution of species using mtDNA alone. And, are able to estimate genetic-variation, using only mtDNA, with astounding accuracy.

I know, right? Science... It's fascinating shit!

Also if you claim this is an assumption and not fact, how in the holy fuck do you justify claiming TRUTH: Science shows whites and blacks are more dissimilar than gorrilla species or chimp/bonobos?

I am not basing my claims on an assumption. I'm basing my claims on "the most stringent current standards for validation of ancient DNA sequences..." As stated several times now.

There is no supreme court of science that exists. Things are only held to be true, pending further evidence. In this case, "the most stringent current standards for validation of ancient DNA sequences" are in my favor.

[–]VagMaster69_4life 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Varyyn 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The post says blacks are more different to whites than xyz. The source for this is a tumblr post in the bottom right which links to the table in my comment.

In this table it measures "Comparative pair wise genetic distances between various biological species and subspecies" This is what this post is using to state that blacks are whites are more dissimilar than humans vs neaderthals etc.

However the top row of this table compares Aborigine australians to sub-saharan africans with a result of a genetic distance of 0.33. Whilst the second row compares Sub-saharan africans to European english, with a result of a genetic distance of 0.24. Which you'd expect since it's a hell of a lot easier for africans and europeans to interbreed than africans and australians, so naturally were more similar to africans than africans are to australians, despite skin tone.

It's 1am so I'm not going to look through the methods right now, but the table title claims it is between species, so presumably linked to genetic markers. Your free to reject the source if you choose, but that would mean rejecting this image since it's based on it.

[–]VagMaster69_4life 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ayyyylmao42069 -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]JohnnyTruthSeed2[S] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

In a major Jewish history of the early Americas called, "New World Jewry, 1492-1776", one can find the following passage:

They came with ships carrying African blacks to be sold as slaves. The traffic in slaves was a royal monopoly, and the Jews were often appointed as agents for the Crown in their sale….[They] were the largest ship chandlers in the entire Caribbean region, where the shipping business was mainly a Jewish enterprise….The ships were not only owned by Jews, but were manned by Jewish crews and sailed under the command of Jewish captains.

Many Jewish writers chronicled the Jewish role in slavery, often boasting of their shrewdness in the business.

The West India Company, which monopolized imports of slaves from Africa, sold slaves at public auctions against cash payment. It happened that cash was mostly in the hands of Jews. The buyers who appeared at the auctions were almost always Jews, and because of this lack of competitors they could buy slaves at low prices. On the other hand, there also was no competition in the selling of the slaves to the plantation owners and other buyers, and most of them purchased on credit payable at the next harvest in sugar. Profits up to 300 percent of the purchase value were often realized with high interest rates….If it happened that the date of such an auction fell on a Jewish holiday the auction had to be postponed. This occurred on Friday, October 21, 1644.

Although certainly indefensible by today’s moral standards, slavery in the United States was many times preferable to the incredibly cruel and murderous conditions of African slavery. The greatest inhumanity of Black slavery is associated with the passage to America. Some say that 10 to 15 percent of Black slaves died in the cramped and filthy conditions on the ships. Since the Jews have dominated the slave trade from ancient times, I realized that it is not only Blacks who have suffered from those inhuman conditions, but also untold numbers of White people of the Mediterranean region. It should also be pointed out that not only were Jews the principal slave traders, they had a markedly higher per capita holding of slaves than non-Jews.

All through the eighteenth century, into the early nineteenth, Jews in the North were to own black servants; in the South, the few plantations owned by Jews were tilled with slave labor. In 1820, over 75 percent of all Jewish families in Charleston, Richmond, and Savannah owned slaves, employed as domestic servants; almost 40 percent of all Jewish householders in the United States owned one slave or more. There were no protests against slavery as such by Jews in the South, where they were always outnumbered at least 100 to 1….Very few Jews anywhere in the United States protested against chattel slavery on moral grounds.

http://davidduke.com/if-the-white-race-is-to-be-condemned-in-the-liberal-press-why-are-not-the-jewish-people-condemned-the-worlds-leading-role-in-the-slave-trade-over-the-last-2000-years/

[–]mattrbchi 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

Hey Duke minion, Whites enslaved Jews during world war two so stop deflecting. Muslims created the slave trade. Europes ships eventually overpowered the Muslim slave trade routes. Christian rulers and their Christian subjects fostered and gained wealth from this trade. All of the conquistadors including Columbus raped and pillaged for slaves and used their Christian God as a pretext for the act. Jews only got involved in the trade because Jews were forced into crappy professions by Christian Sharia-like laws that were common in Europe.

All this talk by you about the Jews being huge slave owners in the South but I find from Wikipedia

In 1830 there were only four Jews among the 11,000 Southerners who owned fifty or more slaves.

Only 4.

How would you like it if I forced you to work a crappy job because of religious based apartheid?

[–]JohnnyTruthSeed2[S] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Hey Duke minion

Hey, Juden.

Whites enslaved Jews during world war two so stop deflecting.

Hahahaha... Oh, we're counting internment during war as slavery now? I guess America owes Japan and Germany for reparations, huh? (Face-palm).

Muslims created the slave trade.

I never said they did or didn't. However, Jews dominated the slave-trade since at least before Roman times.

Europes ships eventually overpowered the Muslim slave trade routes. Christian rulers and their Christian subjects fostered and gained wealth from this trade.

No... An overwhelming amount of slave-ships in the AST were owned by Jews and manned by Jewish crews. And you are fucking delusional if you think Christians "fostered" this trade. Christians (westernized ones, not African savage-Christians) were mere temporary participants in a slave-trade from the 16-18th centuries. Meanwhile, Semites (Jews AND Arabs) and Africans have engaged in the slave-trade from the 4th century to the present!

In fact, white people are the only people known in history to have abolished slavery. Not only did they do this, they then set out to liberate the oppressed around the world. (Africans, Jews and Arabs didn't like that though, did they?)

All of the conquistadors including Columbus raped and pillaged for slaves and used their Christian God as a pretext for the act.

Okay, so you just called Christopher Columbus a rapist. And "ALL" conquistadors (So, all of the Spanish are rapists, according to you). Got a source for that, Schlomo? I'd love to see it.

Jews only got involved in the trade because Jews were forced into crappy professions by Christian Sharia-like laws that were common in Europe.

BAHAHAHAAA... Now that is the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard. SOURCE??? Lol

In 1830 there were only four Jews among the 11,000 Southerners who owned fifty or more slaves... Only 4.

(Face-palm)... Please cite your (((wikipedia))) source, so I can tear it to shreds. Kinda funny that you admit Jewish involvement in the slave-trade, then go on to claim that only 4 Jews owned slaves in the American south. Unfortunately, the US Census Bureau say you're full of shit. (It's cited in the article I posted, confirming the claim I made).

How would you like it if I forced you to work a crappy job because of religious based apartheid?

NEWS-FLASH: When you declare war on Germany, and openly call for the extermination of the German people, even writing books about it that are praised by publications like the "Jew York Times", you don't get to cry when Germans put your bitch-ass in internment camps (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZOOrOJjiWI&index=121&list=PLlmsOP10VIaB8bjAsZXevYWxrCEvGPYzb).

Especially, when Jews literally just murdered and tortured over 66 million people in Russia (The Bolsheviks, look it up).

Keep playing your little violin, Schlomo. No one is buying your bullshit anymore!

[–]mattrbchi 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

internment during war

Jews were Slavery for whites during world war 2. Spielberg made a movie called Schindler's list which shows the labor.

Jews dominated the slave-trade since at least before Roman times.

You are saying Jews dominated Slavery in Africa for over 3000 years? The queen of Sheba, Ethiopia must have converted to Judaism under duress then?

An overwhelming amount of slave-ships in the AST were owned by Jews and manned by Jewish crews.

Wikipedia talks about how Jews were jobless because after Spain kicked out all non Christian people, Jews only could do shitty jobs.

By the time the worldwide slave trade and European sugar-growing reached its peak in the 18th century, Jewish participation was dwarfed by the enterprise of British and French planters who did not allow Jews among their number. During the 19th century, some Jews owned some cotton plantations in the southern United States.

Then Wikipedia talks about how Jews were later stopped from even doing the shitty job of slave trader. See at the time Jews were not allowed to do jobs that normal Christian people were able and therefore Jews naturally came into the practice. The reason why Jews were able to survive it all that time even though not able to get a good job was because Jews are taught very young that education is most important. This is why 20% of all the Nobel prizes are given to Jewish people yet only are only less then 1% of 1% of the population. I'm guessing your first thought is all of the Nobel Prize award system is clearly a Jewish conspiracy. That could be true but none the less the awards are of a distinguished nature and it is a feat that cannot be matched.

Jews were not able to do such as blacksmithing, Large scale farming, and leather making. Jews were forced into menial jobs such as trading crappy goods or items that Christians wouldn't trade such as gold. Back then banking and gold trading was deemed unchristian

Muslims ran the trade from a time just after Muhammad's death until the 1500s, then Europe crafted bigger transatlantic ships which lead to the overpowering of the smaller Muslim pirate boats. During a 200 year period after the Sephartic Jews were expelled by the queen are the only time Jews were involved in this trade. Then during the 1700s, according to the wiki on this topic, Christians completely took over the trade. You are merely embellishing and lying by constructing a narrative that Jews were involved in the AST anytime other than the time frames that I'm referring to.

Meanwhile, Semites (Jews AND Arabs) and Africans have engaged in the slave-trade from the 4th century to the present!

Arabs weren't involved in the slave trade until after Mohammed was around. Before Mohammed was around Arabs lived side-by-side with black people. Mohammed thought black people were the devil and that's why they should be enslaved. He was a white Prophet who owned black slaves.

Earlier you said that Jews were involved in African slavery before Roman times and now you're saying 4th century. You make stuff up as you go along.

white people are the only people known in history to have abolished slavery.

Minion just makes up more stuff.

Chinese and Indians cultures crafted the first Slavery abolition in history. Way before white people.

Okay, so you just called Christopher Columbus a rapist.

He was also part of the oldest continuous hatred which is Anti-Semitism. Columbus advised the Spanish monarchs in his letter dated November 27, 1492 to forbade Jews, Muslims, heretics and recent converts from entering the New World.

Not only did Columbus pioneer sex Slavery but he invented the AST and was a pedophile.

Unfortunately, the US Census Bureau say you're full of shit.

Now you're splitting hairs over semantics because we're talking about Jews holding over 50 slaves and you're talking about Jews holding less than fifty slaves. There's nothing to tear to shreds. You just fail to find justifiable means to prove that there's some sort of high slave count Jewish Southern ownership cabal.

In fact the only thing that's proven is that some Jews were part of it but not many.

You haven't answered if you would feel bad if you were forced into a job because of religious-based apartheid?

When you declare war on Germany, and openly call for the extermination of the German people.

Are you talking about multiculturalism because Jews have nothing to do with it? Those policies were enacted by the citizens in those countries which might I add are 99% not Jewish.

Jew York Times

Did you figure out that cutting play on words or did you copy that from your overlord Duke?

you don't get to cry

I'm not crying I'm just saying that there was internalised pro-Christian apartheid Within Europe for over a thousand years and you're trying to portray as if that never happened.

Especially, when Jews literally just murdered and tortured over 66 million people in Russia.

Any Jews that were part of the Communist Party we're in fact following the ideas which were prominent within the Communist thought. That thought being that wanted to divorce himself from religion once they join the communist Party and ideology. Therefore you can't subject yourself to thinking that Judaism and Jews who believe in Judaism were projecting their Jewish ideals onto the people who are subjugated by communism. Israel doesn't even like socialism. Jews want nothing to do with that concept. For you to claim that somehow people of Jewish origin had some benign plan to kill Christians under the guise of Communism is a complete bullshit idea.

Keep playing your little violin, Schlomo.

Keep using your generic hate filled canards. It makes you seem incredibly unique and interesting to the rest of the world. /s

No one is buying your bullshit anymore!

Zionism is the oldest continuous national Liberation movement. It's gonna be around till after you die.

[–]JohnnyTruthSeed2[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Jews were Slavery for whites during world war 2. Spielberg made a movie called Schindler's list which shows the labor.

Because (((Speilberg))) said so... Lmao (Shakes head).

You are saying Jews dominated Slavery in Africa for over 3000 years?

I said Jews dominated the slave-trade since at least before Roman times. Don't put words in my mouth.

...Jews only could do shitty jobs.

Like, man crews of slave-ships.

Jews are taught very young that education is most important.

Actually, Orthodox Jews are prohibited from visiting museums, and from knowing words like, "universe" and "dinosaur". Here's an Orthodox Jewish family telling you all about it: https://youtu.be/TQWLJhsl-t4?t=3m38s (I even time-stamped it for your convenience).

Jews are given more Nobel Peace Prizes because of money and power. Nothing more.

I'm guessing your first thought is all of the Nobel Prize award system is clearly a Jewish conspiracy. That could be true...

I see you agree.

You are merely embellishing and lying by constructing a narrative that Jews were involved in the AST anytime other than the time frames that I'm referring to.

Except, I can cite sources to back my claims, and all you can do is throw a temper-tantrum about it... Suck to be you! :)

Arabs weren't involved in the slave trade until after Mohammed was around.

I disagree with that statement... But are you suggesting that the religion of Islam, which was started by Mohammed, is responsible for world slavery? Please clarify...

Minion just makes up more stuff... Chinese and Indians cultures crafted the first Slavery abolition in history. Way before white people.

Ashoka encouraged people to treat slaves well but did not abolish slavery itself in the Maurya Empire, covering the majority of India, which was under his rule.

Abolition lasted less than a year in the Qin Dynasty, and less than 3 years in the Xin Dynasty.

(Slow clap)

I don't think it counts when you simply run a political campaign based on ending slavery to gain favor of the populace, then turn around and enslave people once power is fully secured by your family. But, if you're proud of that, run with it... Never mind that it took non-Europeans until 1368 to again "abolish slavery", with the Ming Dynasty. However, no one followed the law, so they just limited the number of slaves people could have. (Thumbs up dude).

He [Christopher Columbus] was also part of the oldest continuous hatred which is Anti-Semitism

I hope you have some proof to show of this, otherwise, you're just making yourself sound completely nuts... Source?

Columbus advised the Spanish monarchs in his letter dated November 27, 1492 to forbade Jews, Muslims, heretics and recent converts from entering the New World.

Sounds like a smart-move. And he was JQ'd and writing about it? Awesome... Good for him.

Not only did Columbus pioneer sex Slavery but he invented the AST and was a pedophile.

Again... This is a VERY wild and malicious accusation of Columbus. I really hope you have a credible source to back up this claim. Source?

There's nothing to tear to shreds.

Yeeeeeaaahhh.... I guess that's why your scared to share your source (that doesn't exist). You're not very good at this, are you?

You just fail to find justifiable means to prove that there's some sort of high slave count Jewish Southern ownership cabal.

I never made THAT claim... Again, don't put words in my mouth. I can see how you want to win this losing argument of yours by deception, but it won't work. Your Jew-Fu is no good here.

In fact the only thing that's proven is that some Jews were part of it but not many.

By all means... Please cite some source for us all to see, of YOUR choosing, that show the number of Jewish households that owned slaves in America.

Enlighten us.

Are you talking about multiculturalism because Jews have nothing to do with it?

No, I wasn't in that particular case (And, you CLEARLY didn't view the link I gave you).

You are not retarded are you? I mean... How did you take away anything related to "multi-culturalism" from me saying, "When you declare war on Germany, and openly call for the extermination of the German people"???

The Jewish-led Bolsheviks had just murdered over 66 million in Russia and were claiming they were going to exterminate all Germans. Fuck your sympathy for these savages and your defense of their crimes...

Although, multiculturalism is a concern, as well. And yes, Jews have much to do with it. Ever heard of the Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan? http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2016/10/the-coudenhove-kalergi-plan-white-genocide-by-design-part-1/

Perhaps the words of (((Barbara Spectre))) will make it clear for you: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2010/09/kevin-macdonald-jews-play-a-leading-role-in-promoting-multiculturalism-in-europe/

I'm not crying I'm just saying that there was internalised pro-Christian apartheid Within Europe for over a thousand years and you're trying to portray as if that never happened.

Oh, weird... You mean, when a bunch of savages invaded white nations, bringing cultures and habits that were incompatible with civilized peoples, they didn't want to associate with them. How shocking...

I take it... you are PRO open-borders for Israel?

Any Jews that were part of the Communist Party we're in fact following the ideas which were prominent within the Communist thought.

No shit. And that's a pathetic excuse for them murdering over 66 million people.

Therefore you can't subject yourself to thinking that Judaism and Jews who believe in Judaism were projecting their Jewish ideals onto the people who are subjugated by communism.

No, no, no... JUDAISM = COMMUNISM = BOLSHEVISM = CULTURAL-MARXISM... It's all the same. Please, try to deny it again and I will drown you in quotes from Rabbis themselves equating Judaism with communism.

Israel doesn't even like socialism. Jews want nothing to do with that concept.

Haha, no kidding... Not in Israel, anyway. And certainly not Marxian-socialism. Oh no... Jews would rather piss on their neighbors than give them charitable-aid. Although, they seem to want everyone else to have socialism, don't they? (The Marxian kind) Especially, white nations. Hmmmm... Weird.

For you to claim that somehow people of Jewish origin had some benign plan to kill Christians under the guise of Communism is a complete bullshit idea.

(Face-palm) You're doing it again... You keep twisting my words and putting words in my mouth. Is it because you are Jewish that you cannot help being deceptive? (It is.)

I didn't say "Christians". I think I made it pretty clear that they murdered Russians and Germans (white people). Even this Rabbi admits you all fucked up and should be ashamed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTYSv_YQOVo&index=18&list=PLlmsOP10VIaB8bjAsZXevYWxrCEvGPYzb

Why can't you admit it? Quit perpetuating the lies of your father... the devil. (Hey, Jesus said it first)

Keep using your generic hate filled canards. It makes you seem incredibly unique and interesting to the rest of the world. /s

Sure caught your attention... Schlomo.

Zionism is the oldest continuous national Liberation movement. It's gonna be around till after you die.

Wait... I thought we were all conspiracy theorists for believing in some Zionist-movement taking place?

(Oops)... Dumbass.

[–]mattrbchi 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Because (((Speilberg))) said so... Lmao (Shakes head).

Do you need to have some special needs type accommodations like Braille where you need to put some perentheses to signify Jews? It's as if you are a poser but can't really come to terms with your identity as one and still think you are independent minded by entering the syntax.

Don't put words in my mouth.

You said some stupid shit about perpetual Jewish slavery over millennia with no facts.

Actually, Orthodox Jews are prohibited from visiting museums, and from knowing words like, "universe" and "dinosaur".

That's ultra Orthodox. Which is a small subset of the Orthodox. I used to date an orthodox woman and we went to the museum all the time.

Maybe it's best for you not to analyze ethnic groups which you are not affiliated with and you have no understanding of what so ever. It's as if you gloss over everything and extrapolate information that suits your your hate filled mind. They've done studies on people that hold racist feelings and they found that they live at least a few years less than people who aren't perpetually hate-filled and racist. I would recommend ceasing from these feelings to avoid having to have your life expectancy go down. I will note that sitting constantly also lowers your life expectancy and I'm guessing you do that a lot. You should take my Jewish advice because if you don't you're going to die sooner. Ignore this Jewish advice at your peril.

Abolition lasted less than a year in the Qin Dynasty, and less than 3 years in the Xin Dynasty.

Now you can admit white people didn't invent abolition.

I hope you have some proof to show of this,

Just like how Jews are banned in many Middle Eastern countries from entering and it being Anti-Semitism. It's the same hate if it's done by a person in a letter to a ruler.

Sex Slavery of minors by Columbus. AST pioneer and Pedophile. Although I won't be hearing a peep from you about him being somehow I seedy character because he's not Jewish obviously.

You are not retarded are you? I mean... How did you take away anything related to "multi-culturalism" from me saying, "When you declare war on Germany, and openly call for the extermination of the German people"???

Many of your minion believe that the multiculturalism that was brought about in Germany led to Muslim immigrants who are raping or killing Germans for the purpose of adhering to Hijrah goals.

Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan? Barbara Spectre?

Never heard of them. You must dig deep into the holes of irrelevance to prove your point because it's all you got.

You mean, when a bunch of savages invaded white nations

Israel is considered one of the most advanced nations in the world with all the accoutrements of the first world nation. To insinuate that the people of Israel are somehow Savage when they have achieved the feat that you have witnessed would merely an attempt by you to show your jealousy for Jewish peoples strength.

you are PRO open-borders for Israel?

No open borders for non Jews because Israel is the only safe Haven for Jews.

JUDAISM = COMMUNISM = BOLSHEVISM = CULTURAL-MARXISM..

The idea that communist oppression was somehow Jewish in nature is belied by the record of communist regimes in countries like China, North Korea, and Cambodia, where the Jewish presence was and is minuscule.

Jews would rather piss on their neighbors than give them charitable-aid.

Israel is the only level 1 trauma center the region that can help with Syrian migrants who crossed the border for humanitarian purposes.

Why can't you admit it? Quit perpetuating the lies of your father... the devil. (Hey, Jesus said it first)

I'll never admit it it's all bullshit. Also Jews don't believe in a hell, only dark angels.

Sure caught your attention... Schlomo.

I take it you think that it's a quality to have your anti Jew syntax but in fact it's just some sort of nervous glitch that makes you seem weak.

Zionism

Zionism is the right of Jewish self-determination. It's not a conspiracy, it's only vilified by people who seem to think that any -ism is merely a figment of the past.

Dumbass

You are so triggered by my Jewry you need to make snide remarks lol. Basement dwelling can be harmful to your psyche.

[–]JohnnyTruthSeed2[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Do you need to have some special needs type accommodations like Braille where you need to put some perentheses to signify Jews? It's as if you are a poser but can't really come to terms with your identity as one and still think you are independent minded by entering the syntax.

In other words, your claiming of a Spielberg movie as a source got BTFO... And was pretty fucking comical.

Not going to bother with the rest of this bullshit. You have been proven to be a Jew-shill talking out of your ass, and you have no facts or credible sources. You obviously are one of these people who will never admit they were wrong and continue sliding the argument until they find some singular victory to claim they won over. It's weak as fuck... You got fucking rekt.

Now, go back to Israel, Schlomo.

Oh wait, I HAVE to touch on this:

You are so triggered by my Jewry you need to make snide remarks lol. Basement dwelling can be harmful to your psyche.

Says I'm "triggered" because I made a "snide remark". Makes a snide-remark.

Classic Jew.

[–]mattrbchi 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]JohnnyTruthSeed2[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thealtright 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thetenman 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NoradII -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]thetenman 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blackbarby -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]JohnnyTruthSeed2[S] 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Is that 4.8% of the total population, just the south?

I believe it's actually 4.8% in slave-holding states only, and around 1% in total (Being very conservative with my figures).

How was this measured?

US Census Bureau... The original article I grabbed this from has been shoa'd, but this one relays the same info and cites sources at the bottom of the article in full:

"To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters." https://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm

How many surveyed?

Couldn't tell ya... Look it up. The numbers are from the last year prior to the Civil War. It may even say in that article I posted... Lift a finger.

Don't believe everything that's in bold letters and on reddit

Don't believe some asshole that implies you shouldn't believe something when he IMPLIES it's incorrect, but CAN'T SHOW WHY it's incorrect. (Especially, when the other guy CAN SHOW WHY it's accurate).

Thanks for stopping by.

[–]Blackbarby -4 points-3 points-2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thetenman 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blackbarby -4 points-3 points-2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]thetenman 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheEarlyMan 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Blackbarby 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

TRUTH... IS THE NEW HATE SPEECH

Comments

READ THE SIDEBAR!

READ THE SIDEBAR AGAIN!

BAHAHAHAAA... Now that is the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard. SOURCE??? Lol