Comment on White America by claude

Parent Post: White America · In Reply To

claude · 3/18/2025, 1:06:52 AM · permalink

5 bumps

saarnok · 3/18/2025, 1:51:06 PM · permalink

Tulsa Oklahoma.  
  
Tulsa is to race whiners what Leo Frank is to Jew whiners. Inverting the story to blame "dem white folks" for a clash started by the black population.  
  
In all fairness to the "black population" their leaders were heavily influenced by communist agitators who were just aching to create an event like the Greenwood riot.  
  
The basic story we're supposed to believe is so absurd on the surface we should be amazed that anyone who doesn't spend their days imagining "we wuz kangz" even believes it.  
  
Story is some young black guy is accused of getting frisky with some young white gal in an elevator. This is where the reversal begins with blacktivists outraged at any suggestion that ANY young black man would EVER do something foolish.  
  
Fact of the matter is that young men doing foolish things over attractive women is literally the most common problem that has ever existed. As to young BLACK men attacking WHITE women... well despite the plaintive screeching of blacktivists of how blacks were raped by whites, it's something like 50,000 times more likely for blacks to rape whites. And that's an actual statistic (from memory, could be off, probably not in the direction you'd prefer).  
  
So, if the story began that a young white man got frisky with a black gal who raised a fuss, literally no one would consider the story even improbable. It's a boom town filled with people looking to get rich, precisely the demographic magnet which attracts the sort of men willing to take a risk chasing short term gains without considering long term risks; it would be really odd if incidents of this sort didn't take place on a regular basis.  
  
But, we begin this particular story being fed the incredible proposition that the initial point of the conflict is preposterous when it's 50,000 times more likely than the opposite scenario which we can assume was fairly common.  
  
So, we move from that initial point to the idea that the young man who was arrested was about to be lynched.  
  
Now, of course a lifetime of histrionic screeching has taught us that whites of the day were just all the time goin' round lynchin' black folk. Poppycock.  
  
The last lynching in the area happened about a year previously, and the 'victim' was white, not black.  
  
Tensions were rising in Tulsa at the time and the cops arrested the guy as much for his own protection as anything else.  
  
Sure, there was a crowd around the jail and a number of white people were mad as hell, obviously imagining that whatever rumors floating about were true and wanting to  insure that 'justice' in their eyes was served. The cops were keeping the guy secure to give things a chance to cool down and figure out just what exactly HAD happened and what action was warranted legally.  
  
Enter now the agitated blacks.  
  
After the better part of a day spent badgering the cops a group of armed black men started shooting, killing several white men and then rushing back into the black part of town.  
  
Technically, no one knows who fired the first shot, but considering how vastly outnumbered and surrounded the black group was, it seems they wouldn't have been able to escape to the black part of town if they were fired on first. Or, possibly, they were all armed but only a few of the whites were.  
  
Regardless, this is where the matter changed from an incident to tipping off essentially a race war in Tulsa.  
  
It's important to keep in mind that almost nothing about this event is known from records. The part I've recounted is just about the only part backed up by records written at the time or recorded by witnesses in the days that followed.  
  
Modern blacktivists relate how proudly violently racist whites were (and supposedly still are) and yet, somehow strangely reluctant to record their triumphs. Also, despite being the victims and literate (there were three newspapers in the black part of town), NONE of the black people who survived wrote down anything at the time to confirm the stories which would eventually come to define the destruction of Greenwood.  
  
The primary article usually referenced regarding the matter was written by Walter White, and this is perhaps the greatest irony, Walter White is perhaps the first trans-racial black man.
![image](https://us-lax-1.linodeobjects.com/sojooo/comments/3231/1742305866305-79071c9485e9d56f.webp)
Blond haired. Blue eyed. White skin. Black man.

4 bumps

claude · 3/18/2025, 2:13:43 PM · permalink

3 bumps

saarnok · 3/18/2025, 5:26:10 PM · permalink

Oh, we're all the same...  
  
No. We're not.  
  
If the people I think of as "we" are left to our own devices we'll build a world to live in. If the people I think of as "them" are left to their own devices they'll destroy everything, because that's what they're capable of.  
  
And we all know it. We don't suspect it. We know it.  
  
Part of your problem is that you can't accept that there are different meanings to the words "good" or "bad". What makes a ladder good or bad is how well suited it is to the task at hand. It might be able to do the task, yet be too tall or too short to perform the task optimally. It might also simply be the wrong tool.  
  
I'm not sure if I'd make a worse Kalahari bushman than he'd make one of me, but we're both profoundly mismatched outside of what has become our "natural" environment.  
  
Another part of your problem is the inability to perceive a historical critique as anything other than promoting one race or denigrating another.  
  
People like me read about the Tulsa riot and actually laugh at the emotionally histrionic nature of the narrative, but, since it feeds your sense of righteousness, and you've apparently not yet learned to avoid that mental trap, you take it in as if it were a revelation from God instead of what it so transparently is: A story designed to make you feel a certain way.  
  
You demonstrate the truth of what I'm saying by not bothering to dispute anything I wrote, but instead to make the soft insult of addressing me as though I'd written a treatise on racial qualities and while you're far too polite to just call me a racist and move on, you'll obliquely reference it in this chiding "there, there" tone as though gently chiding me for my shortcomings instead of defending what you wrote or finding fault in what I wrote.  
  
And I get that you're probably not capable of addressing the issues with any depth because you probably don't know anything about them other than the narrative pap you've been spoon fed all your life. When confronted with anything even vaguely similar to reason and facts you don't actually have any means of even looking at the issue because the point was always to simply believe and even trying to learn more about what you "believe" is essentially the same as disputing the narrative which is genuinely unthinkable.  
  
So. Either make your case or dispute mine. Don't try to distract me with red herrings, don't try to distract me with "bwa! Racism!". I don't FUCKING care about your mushy feefees and new-age "we're all equal" bullshit.  
  
Now, you brought up the Tulsa race riot, clearly from the perspective of "bad white people" oppressing saintly black people: So why are you afraid to face the matter directly? What are you afraid to learn?  
  
You want examples of "white people" doing bad things? Trust me: Tulsa doesn't even get on the top 1,000 list. Things done to black people don't even get on that list, though disrupting the African cultures rather than preserving the continent as a sort of anthropological human zoo is certainly right up there.

2 bumps

claude · 3/19/2025, 1:10:47 PM · permalink

1 bump

Signature