Cracka or how anti-white totalitarism became acceptable.

Wigi

Veteran
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Messages
587
Cracka or how anti-white totalitarism became acceptable.

Wow this is 2020 propaganda for you guys and it's too big to stay unnoticed so I made a thread because this needs to be discussed:



There is a trailer for that movie and at some point of the video (1:10) the white neo nazi cliché drives a car and we quickly see "Trump 2020" flashing in that sequence. What the hell?!

First of all it begins with the premise that Africans never had been slaveholders and whites never were enslaved. That's revisionism and demonstrably false.
Even this article acknowledge the fact :

"From 1500 to 1800, historians estimate that as many as 1.25 million Europeans were kidnapped and enslaved by slave traders in North Africa.

Spanish author Miguel de Cervantes was among the most famous of the slaves captured by Barbary pirates, and was held captive for five years."


Second, I've just discovered that cracka is actually the equivalent of the n-word :
"A derogotory slur used by blacks to mock whites. But for some reason, it doesn't qualify as 'hate speech'"

You may think it's just one occurence with that unknown movie but the truth is, it follows a scary trend where whites are deshumanized simply because they can't be subject to 'systemic racism'.


And it's literally taking an AntiChrist turn right now:


So is this just about equality between men of all races or more about cultural destruction with, at some point, planned genocide of white conservatives?

I'm asking a genuine question.
 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
9,811
Cracka or how anti-white totalitarism became acceptable.

Wow this is 2020 propaganda for you guys and it's too big to stay unnoticed so I made a thread because this needs to be discussed:



There is a trailer for that movie and at some point of the video (1:10) the white neo nazi cliché drives a car and we quickly see "Trump 2020" flashing in that sequence. What the hell?!

First of all it begins with the premise that Africans never had been slaveholders and whites never were enslaved. That's revisionism and demonstrably false.
Even this article acknowledge the fact :

"From 1500 to 1800, historians estimate that as many as 1.25 million Europeans were kidnapped and enslaved by slave traders in North Africa.

Spanish author Miguel de Cervantes was among the most famous of the slaves captured by Barbary pirates, and was held captive for five years."


Second, I've just discovered that cracka is actually the equivalent of the n-word :
"A derogotory slur used by blacks to mock whites. But for some reason, it doesn't qualify as 'hate speech'"

You may think it's just one occurence with that unknown movie but the truth is, it follows a scary trend where whites are deshumanized simply because they can't be subject to 'systemic racism'.


And it's literally taking an AntiChrist turn right now:


So is this just about equality between men of all races or more about cultural destruction with, at some point, planned genocide of white conservatives?

I'm asking a genuine question.
Perhaps not so much a genocide as an obvious and heavy handed use of the Hegelian Dialectic (the Illuminati’s favourite unimaginative tool) to position white conservatives (so often in favour of a “national” rather than a “global” identity) as the bad guys?

All it takes is to get the uninformed youth to demand a NWO, then give it to them!
 






Last edited:
Joined
Apr 12, 2017
Messages
1,556
The usage of “cracker” in this context originated from American slaves and is shortened from whip-cracker. It didn’t refer to slave-owners, however. The ones cracking the whips were actually the hired farm hands who were far too poor to own slaves.
 






Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
2,272
Anti-white racism has been tolerated and even encouraged for many years now, and it wasn't even subtle. But if the past decade hasn't red-pilled some people, this surely should.




(for the old garde: )

April 26, 2013:
Artful Revealer said:
Reverse racism doesn't only exist, it's becoming the norm.

November 26, 2014:
Artful Revealer said:
It's pretty clear the elites are preparing the US, just as Europe, for a clash of civilizations. Of course the media attention this event (Ferguson) receives serves that agenda.

November 27, 2014:
Artful Revealer said:
Bottom line is, when you think of a racist, do you think of a coloured person?

I doubt it. The actual race war is being fed to the people by the media, not between ethnicities (aside from Jews). Divide = > clash of civilizations = > conquer.

The above question should qualify as ample evidence of how media has programmed us.

The media should address the act itself without introducing (like they always do when it's white on black) the racism card. I remember watching reports on the knock-out game black youngsters used to play and not once did racism enter the debate. Why not, I wonder?

Nice one here from our friend Koncrete: "Nobody whines about slavery, man." lol

February 2, 2017:
Artful Revealer said:
KoncreteMind said:
Nobody whines about slavery man. Thats a lazy analysis of the complaints that are being given. What they "whine" about is maltreatment that STILL goes on.
It's constantly about slavery. What are the reparations for, you think? For present maltreatment which is mostly a myth? Do they ask whites to pay money to the community who makes up 13% of the population yet is responsible for 50+% of the homicides? Yup, that deserves a reward if you ask me!
Another one:
Artful Revealer said:
KoncreteMind said:
Blacks are still being mistreated in America to this day
Blacks in the US are 3 times more likely to kill a person than Hispanics, 9 times more likely to kill than white people, and 17 times more than Asians. Tell us again who's mistreating who, please.

February 6, 2017:
Artful Revealer said:
Yeah, well forgive me if I'm fed up with people blaming everything on whites while accusing those same whites of being racist. As I said in my previously edited post, the biggest systemic racism in this current day and age in the Western world is against white people. I'm personally not a fan of battling it out for the trophy of suffrance, but that white-bashing, "blacks are eternal victims" seriously has to stop. Not because it's simply unproductive to fixate on skin colour, but because it's also a reversal of what's actually going on.
 






DavidSon

Star
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
1,030
Adam Green is always exposing the demographic he believes to be pushing the type of reverse racism we see in Hollywood, through Netflix, etc. I probably shouldn't be adding fuel for the paranoid right-wingers at this site but Green does an excellent job arguing his position against the BLM protests (among other controversial subjects):

 






Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
1,891
First of all it begins with the premise that Africans never had been slaveholders and whites never were enslaved. That's revisionism and demonstrably false.
Lets start with the revisionist history that the slave trade started in Africa and not America. Then we can get to it being WHITE PEOPLE who hide that they were slaves in Europe. Heck there were white slaves in America and black slaveowners but its white people who hide that history. Then they turn around complain about black people complaining about slavery when they could easily shut them up by saying that they too were once slaves in Europe. But if they did that then the question would come up "slaves of who?" and that answer is the reason why they keep that type of information away from the general public.

So is this just about equality between men of all races or more about cultural destruction with, at some point, planned genocide of white conservatives?

I'm asking a genuine question.
My question is, did not "whites" engage in the same acts that they are saying are starting to happen to them? Heres an example of "cultural destruction"

The Racial Integrity Act of 1924 required that all birth certificates and marriage certificates in Virginia to include the person's race as either "white" or "colored." The Act classified all non-whites, including Native Americans, as "colored."

And heres an example, of a genocide on a much smaller scale:
Wilmington Insurrection of 1898:
The white press in Wilmington originally described the event as a race riot caused by blacks. However, over time, with more facts publicized, the event has come to be seen as a coup d'état, the violent overthrow of a duly elected government, by a group of white supremacists. Multiple causes brought it about.[1][7][8][9][10][11][12] It is claimed to be the only such incident in American history,[13][14] (other late Reconstruction Era violence did not result in a direct 'coup' or removal and replacement of elected officials by unelected individuals).

The coup occurred after the state's white Southern Democrats conspired and led a mob of 2,000 white men to overthrow the legitimately elected local Fusionist government. They expelled opposition black and white political leaders from the city, destroyed the property and businesses of black citizens built up since the Civil War, including the only black newspaper in the city, and killed an estimated 60 to more than 300 people.

So the same things that are starting (hasnt even really started yet) to happen to this empire, this empire once put on other people. Isnt that fair? if you stole someone elses land, shouldnt your land be stolen? If you take someone elses life, shouldnt yours be taken? The same things that this empire once enacted on others is going to be enacted on them. Eye for an eye keeps everyone in check right?
 






Wigi

Veteran
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Messages
587
Lets start with the revisionist history that the slave trade started in Africa and not America. Then we can get to it being WHITE PEOPLE who hide that they were slaves in Europe. Heck there were white slaves in America and black slaveowners but its white people who hide that history. Then they turn around complain about black people complaining about slavery when they could easily shut them up by saying that they too were once slaves in Europe. But if they did that then the question would come up "slaves of who?" and that answer is the reason why they keep that type of information away from the general public.
Except in that movie it implies that none of these things has happened and it says 'You took our breath', 'you did this and that' now 'We take your freedom'.
What do you think it's saying?

My question is, did not "whites" engage in the same acts that they are saying are starting to happen to them? Heres an example of "cultural destruction"

The Racial Integrity Act of 1924 required that all birth certificates and marriage certificates in Virginia to include the person's race as either "white" or "colored." The Act classified all non-whites, including Native Americans, as "colored."

And heres an example, of a genocide on a much smaller scale
So for you racial equality is about doing to whites what happened in the past? Or maybe i'm misundertanding your point because your reaction to that sounds a lot like 'well that's unfortunate but does it really matter?'

The same things that this empire once enacted on others is going to be enacted on them. Eye for an eye keeps everyone in check right?
Well I don't believe we need diversity in oppression and with eye for an eye, the whole world becomes blind. Two wrongs don't make a right, at least that's what I believe.
One can't say he's against injustice then say some people deserve injustice.
 






rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,072
Outside of the fact that Netflix is obviously not an open forum, I actually find this concept interesting. Slavery was real. It’s not like they are making up the history that they are taking a creative spin on.

I guess it is interesting because it could just as easily been in reverse and producing it really does demonstrate that much of what this history represents, is behind us, which I also really like seeing. There is positive when you get past the emotion coming from people who passionately support that they are still fighting a battle equal with the people who were slaves or people who are passionate about how people should basically stop bringing it up.

slavery is horrendous and you could say it was really just a stroke of luck that prevented history from going in a different direction. You could say that it was something besides luck too, but it still leads to the same result. The shoe could have been on the other foot, and it is an interesting concept to consider.
 






Last edited:
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
2,272
So the same things that are starting (hasnt even really started yet) to happen to this empire, this empire once put on other people. Isnt that fair? if you stole someone elses land, shouldnt your land be stolen? If you take someone elses life, shouldnt yours be taken? The same things that this empire once enacted on others is going to be enacted on them. Eye for an eye keeps everyone in check right?
The good old Old Testament spirit.
 






Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
1,891
Except in that movie it implies that none of these things has happened and it says 'You took our breath', 'you did this and that' now 'We take your freedom'.
What do you think it's saying?
No not the movie. Your history books themselves imply none of these things happened. So why be surprised when no one takes them into account?

So for you racial equality is about doing to whites what happened in the past? Or maybe i'm misundertanding your point because your reaction to that sounds a lot like 'well that's unfortunate but does it really matter?'
Im for sovereignty not racial equality. Forced equality is socialism.

And my reaction is "its unfortunate but their empire did do these things to other people while alot of them turned a blind eye towards it". With that said, there are those that didnt turn a blind eye to it. There are those that fought against it. There are those that risked their lives, or straight up lost it for going against it. All those things will be taken into consideration so its not like its an all or nothing thing.

Well I don't believe we need diversity in oppression and with eye for an eye, the whole world becomes blind. Two wrongs don't make a right, at least that's what I believe.
One can't say he's against injustice then say some people deserve injustice.
Heres my stance. If I steal your wallet, and you come take it from me, can I play the victim? The same thing I did to someone else, is being done to me, and Im going to cry foul? Now maybe had I stolen your wallet, and returned it with an apology, that would be different. But no apology. No making amends. No returning of the wallet, yet I want to cry foul when its taken from me? Thats where my thinking comes from...

And Im not telling you what I WANT to see. What I wanted to see is everyone just get along. We all eat, sleep, shit, laugh, cry, hurt, love etc.... so in all actuality the best thing to do for ALL of us is to work together for the common things we all want. But thats a utopia/idealistic view of life that doesnt fit in reality. In reality some things went down in the past that have to be answered for. And not answer to me, but they know who they have to answer to. And alot of the constituents of the empire (goes beyond just "white" people btw) will feel the brunt of those consequences.
 






rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,072

check posts #37 and #40.
I’m not quite sure what your suggesting by directing me to these posts that seem to be about the history of the civil war.

I’m not sure what this has to do with using creative license to look at the situation in reverse. Plenty of authors have done this before, which is why I find it interesting.

I just don’t feel like this has to be about pointing a finger from a modern perspective as though it were the same as saying nothing has changed. I also don’t see how it suggests the idea that all white people supported slavery throughout history.

even if all slave owners didn’t behave the the way the main character appears to be portrayed, some did. American Horror Story did a season where they made an character based on a historical figure like this. It was in the season with the witches. Her name in real life was delphine lalaurie and she tortured and murdered slaves.

she was severely rejected by her community for this and fled to France, so it wasn’t like everyone was sitting around laughing with her as she shared her stories of torture. These people were often rejected even then once these things came to light.

“LaLaurie's life after the 1834 fire is not well documented. Martineau wrote in 1838 that LaLaurie fled New Orleans during the mob violence that followed the fire, taking a coach to the waterfront and traveling, by schooner, to Mobile, Alabama and then to Paris.[25] By the time Martineau personally visited the Royal Street mansion in 1836, it was still unoccupied and badly damaged, with "gaping windows and empty walls".


So I don’t know how they are going to portray this, but I would imagine that the focus will be on a main character who would be more or less representing someone like lalaurie as well with a twist.

Highlighting a character is not the same thing as saying all white people are racist. There is some degree of legitimately inheriting from situations of real abuse that occurred that this might help process, and there is no real reason the shoe is not on the other foot that I can see.

however, that is not the same thing as saying the shoe should be on the other foot either. It should be possible to see that no matter who represents a lalaurie personality, the damage it creates demonstrates how it is never something that is ever going to benefit society. Putting the shoe on the other foot is not going to be a solution and considering the outcome of this period of history, I find it hard to see how this storyline would be able to conclude with a spin that would spread a message that the world would be a better place if these roles were reversed in a past or future sense.
 






polymoog

Star
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
3,977
I’m not quite sure what your suggesting by directing me to these posts that seem to be about the history of the civil war.
you said it was a stroke of luck that the slaves would be freed. it wasnt luck. slavery was bound to fail. those posts i selected explain why in detail.
the short answer is that slavery wouldve disappeared by itself, with or without the civil war.
 






Lurker

Star
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
3,333
you said it was a stroke of luck that the slaves would be freed. it wasnt luck. slavery was bound to fail. those posts i selected explain why in detail.
the short answer is that slavery wouldve disappeared by itself, with or without the civil war.
More importantly, without the war (of northern aggression).
 






rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,072
you said it was a stroke of luck that the slaves would be freed. it wasnt luck. slavery was bound to fail. those posts i selected explain why in detail.
the short answer is that slavery wouldve disappeared by itself, with or without the civil war.
I get what your saying, but that’s not what I meant. I was basically saying that things happen behind the scenes for reasons that can’t be explained in 3D. I wasn’t talking about slaves being freed specifically, but more or less being slaves at all. there no real way to explain why people from Africa became slaves or have been recognized for this history as slaves the way they have, and not another nationality even when they have a history of being enslaved.

people can have their theories, but there is no real way to know for certain, which isn’t the same thing as assuming it was luck that caused them to be free. However, even if we were to say that a natural progression would have led to the abolition of slavery. There is no real way to explain that sort of progression either that would not become abstract or somewhat mythologized so that some might say it were meaningless. It’s not entirely, but there is no way to test many things that create trends. Some aspects of trends are clearly the result of social pressure, but some of what we call creativity can’t be explained on the surface.

I have always found the presence of trends throughout history to be interesting because they had limited access to information. How a renaissance was even possible without the internet can’t be completely explained. I hope this makes some sense. It was more about why two nations didn’t trade places than why slavery ended.
 






Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
1,891
What's your point?
Think about the context of the thread and what youre seeing you're about to go thru. The original black/blacque/blacc man was you before it was changed to someone else. So the magic in chanting "black lives matter" is its an actual protest for YOU and YOUR life because YOU are the original "BLACK" man.

And what's your ethnicity?
Umm... American? Not sure how you want me to answer this given what I just provided....
 






Top