Are White Men Wimps?

[jillian]

I think the white guys who are winps are the ones running around whining about how victimized they are.

 

[dilloduck]

Yes, I think white men are wimps. Probably not for the same reason you do, but they are wimps nevertheless.

oh please share with us, Ravi. This outta be good.

 

[editec]

White men, just like all other huge subsets of the population, are many things.

Some of us are wimps to be sure.

But we While Male wimps kicked the world's collective asses for about 500 years, so really...perhaps we're just tired of White man's burden.

 

[Ravi]

Yes, I think white men are wimps. Probably not for the same reason you do, but they are wimps nevertheless.

oh please share with us, Ravi. This outta be good.

See Jillian's post.

 

[dilloduck]

I think the white guys who are winps are the ones running around whining about how victimized they are.

bah---that's just a response that has been developed in reaction to all the other whiners. They don't expect anything to change nor anyone to believe them.

 

[editec]

White men are maligned inappropriately often by people who would NEVER make the same kind of race and gender based generalizations about other races and genders, that's for damned sure.

Most of us have broad shoulders. We can take it.

We understand that we are being held responsible for the outcomes of the ruling class of the West, which, let's face it, has mostly been White Males for the last 500 years.

But blaming White Males for the outcomes of our culture's master class is rather like blaming all Jews for Madoff, or all Blacks for Willy Horton, or all Chinese for Chairman Maa, or all White Women for the absurd blatherings of Ann Coulter.

 

[William Joyce]

I think the white guys who are winps are the ones running around whining about how victimized they are.

But when Jews whine about how victimized they are, they're what again?

This one is hard, because white men actually HATE playing the victim role, despite the fact that of all groups today, they have the biggest rightful claim to being a victim.

And I would say this: we now live in a world in which NOBODY can get any political traction without SOME CLAIM OF VICTIMHOOD. So, what else are white folks supposed to do, jillian?

Because whites might simply move forward on a platform of self-determination, but here's the thing:

The minute they try to do so, they're going to be hit with a barrage of demands, accusations, complaints, sit-ins, protests... basically, a crowd of opposition "running around whining about how victimized they are"!

And jillian wouldn't describe THEM as wimps... no, they're heroically standing up to white oppression!

Funny how that works, eh?

It's complete bullshit. Whites are going to be attacked as the bad guy whether they play victim, play victor or anything in between. There's no course we can take that will placate the Jewish/minority/liberal power structure.

So we might as well try different tacks.

The one thing I'm sure of is that the current tack is not working: staying silent, giving in, stepping aside, and being abused without complaint. White men are laying down in front of the "diversity bulldozer", and it's time we got up and threw a little sand in the gears.

Real things are at stake: our self-worth, our pride, our families, our lands, our peace and our prosperity. We have been completely shoved aside in the power structures: the White House, the DOJ, the newspapers, TV, colleges and universities... NOBODY is speaking up for us.

I think what really scares the system is the knowledge that while white men are currently wimps, when they they decide to fight, things go badly for the enemy. That's why it's so important for the demoralization of whites to continue in the media, the politics, etc. Beat them down mentally is the ticket.

I hope to rally whites mentally. Is it so bad that we would want to survive as a race?

 

[WilliamC]

Like all areas it depends upon your perspective.

If my failure to build my esteem by berating or diminishing yours makes me a wimp then so be it.
If my failure to aspire to a lifestyle which emulate racist thugs, drug dealers, criminals then yep thats me.
If my ability to find one beautiful woman, to share my life and bring my child up in a loving family environment, putting their needs before my own over a need to prove my "manhood" by bedding anything that moves and leaving a trail of children in my wake, yes guilty as charged.
If my ability to see the good in others to appreciate and, if not compatible with my own, to tolerate and if need be fight for their right to be different makes me a wimp , I am proud to be so.


There are racists and fools in all ethnic groups but from my experience they all seem to be small minded who seek to prove themselves or improve their perception amongst their like minded peers, usually at someone else's expense.

If my inability to trumpet how tough I am or to seek a lack of "respect" in others in order to resort to violence is a sign of my lack of manhood well, I will just have to live with that, but always remember how uncool it is when a wimp kicks your arse.

 

[editec]

One does not need to be a victim of injustice to recognize it as such.

For example, if I pointed out that the so called advances of woman's incomes, in relation to men's incomes, had more to do with the decline in men's incomes than in any real advances in women's incomes, would that make me someone claiming the mantle of victimhood?

If I suggested that affirmative action which is based on hiring less qualified minorities or women was not a sound policy, would that make me someone claiming victimhood?

I'm of the mind that when one's toes are steppped upon, complaining about it is no falw in character.

I didn't blame the Blacks when they bitched about how they are getting screwed, because they are.

I cannot blame women for bitching being how they've been screwed, because many women have been screwed.

And for a whole lotta white men, there are certain things going on in our society which are screwing us, too.

None of us who complain about things that are worthy of complain, are donning a mantle of victimhood.

We are merely point out things that we think are not fair and problems should be resolved.

While I'm not the sort of White MAN who is planning on skinning my head and crusising to beat up queers and niggars, I am not especially likely to apologise for being a WHITE MAN, either.

And I surely will not be cowed by ANYONE, who thinks my gender or race gives THEM some kind of moral superiority over me, either.

Now in the case of White separatists, I cannot help but note how most of my liberal chums think there's nothing wrong with other ethnics choosing separtism, but they are offended when some Whites want that, too.

I don't know what you guys call that...but I call that racism, too.

I want to live in an inclusive racially and gender-based and religion-based tolerant society.

But I know others don't and I think we all need to be tolerant enough to give these people someplace where they can live their lives as they choose.

They don't want to be like me, and I'm good with that.

If you're not, why not?

 

[Red Dawn]

I think the white guys who are winps are the ones running around whining about how victimized they are.

god damn right sister!


that made me lol


white dudes are what, 35% of the population, and yet 80% of the US congress and 90% of corporate management? LOL, any white dude whining about being oppressed is a total pussy

 

[del]

William,

I'm reading book by Patrick Buchanan, I think you might find interesting:

Chuchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War
How Britian Lost its Empire and
The West Lost the World​

It starts out by maing the argument that the First World War was a tragic mistake that almost nobody (except Winston Chuchill) wanted.​

Then it discusses the tragedy of the Treaty of Versailles which set the stage for World War II.​

I'm finding it an interesting read.​

I think you might as well, given the person whose name you've taken as your nom d' plume​

i'm reading a new bio of churchill right now. if mr buchanan is of the opinion that churchill wanted the 1st world war, he is very much mistaken. certainly he prosecuted it, as first lord of the admiralty, to the best of his abilities, and probably derived some pleasure from a job well done, bu he in no way wanted it. below is a quote from his diary 7/24/1914-

"Everything trends towards catastrophe and collapse. I am interested, geared up and happy.Is it not horrible to be built like that?The preparations have a hideous fascination for me. I pray to God to forgive me for such fearful moods of levity-yet i will do my best for peace and nothing would induce me wrongfully to strike the blow-i cannot feel that we on this island are in any serious degree responsible for the wave of madness which has swept the mind of Christendom. I wondered whether those stupid Kings and Emperors could not assemble together and revivify Kingship by saving the nations from hell, but we all drift on a kind of dull cataleptic trance"

doesn't sound hellbent for war to me.

"I think he (Churchill) was the only Minister of the Crown who wept in the House at the declaration of war"- Shane Leslie, MP

sorry to be off topic.

 

[editec]

William,

I'm reading book by Patrick Buchanan, I think you might find interesting:

Chuchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War
How Britian Lost its Empire and
The West Lost the World​

It starts out by maing the argument that the First World War was a tragic mistake that almost nobody (except Winston Chuchill) wanted.​

Then it discusses the tragedy of the Treaty of Versailles which set the stage for World War II.​

I'm finding it an interesting read.​

I think you might as well, given the person whose name you've taken as your nom d' plume​

i'm reading a new bio of churchill right now. if mr buchanan is of the opinion that churchill wanted the 1st world war, he is very much mistaken. certainly he prosecuted it, as first lord of the admiralty, to the best of his abilities, and probably derived some pleasure from a job well done, bu he in no way wanted it. below is a quote from his diary 7/24/1914-

"Everything trends towards catastrophe and collapse. I am interested, geared up and happy.Is it not horrible to be built like that?The preparations have a hideous fascination for me. I pray to God to forgive me for such fearful moods of levity-yet i will do my best for peace and nothing would induce me wrongfully to strike the blow-i cannot feel that we on this island are in any serious degree responsible for the wave of madness which has swept the mind of Christendom. I wondered whether those stupid Kings and Emperors could not assemble together and revivify Kingship by saving the nations from hell, but we all drift on a kind of dull cataleptic trance"

doesn't sound hellbent for war to me.

"I think he (Churchill) was the only Minister of the Crown who wept in the House at the declaration of war"- Shane Leslie, MP

sorry to be off topic.

You might want to read Buchanon's book after you're done with you bio of Churchill.

I cannot do the argument made about Churchill justice here.

Well I could, but it would take far more effort than I'm prepared to make to explain it to you.

Churchills bellicose nature isn't exactly a secret in history. This book merely documents in some detail exactly how his actions helped bring England into the war that basically none of the Monarches and few of the ministers of any nation in Europe really wanted.

 

[del]

William,

I'm reading book by Patrick Buchanan, I think you might find interesting:

Chuchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War
How Britian Lost its Empire and
The West Lost the World​

It starts out by maing the argument that the First World War was a tragic mistake that almost nobody (except Winston Chuchill) wanted.​

Then it discusses the tragedy of the Treaty of Versailles which set the stage for World War II.​

I'm finding it an interesting read.​

I think you might as well, given the person whose name you've taken as your nom d' plume​

i'm reading a new bio of churchill right now. if mr buchanan is of the opinion that churchill wanted the 1st world war, he is very much mistaken. certainly he prosecuted it, as first lord of the admiralty, to the best of his abilities, and probably derived some pleasure from a job well done, bu he in no way wanted it. below is a quote from his diary 7/24/1914-

"Everything trends towards catastrophe and collapse. I am interested, geared up and happy.Is it not horrible to be built like that?The preparations have a hideous fascination for me. I pray to God to forgive me for such fearful moods of levity-yet i will do my best for peace and nothing would induce me wrongfully to strike the blow-i cannot feel that we on this island are in any serious degree responsible for the wave of madness which has swept the mind of Christendom. I wondered whether those stupid Kings and Emperors could not assemble together and revivify Kingship by saving the nations from hell, but we all drift on a kind of dull cataleptic trance"

doesn't sound hellbent for war to me.

"I think he (Churchill) was the only Minister of the Crown who wept in the House at the declaration of war"- Shane Leslie, MP

sorry to be off topic.

You might want to read Buchanon's book after you're done with you bio of Churchill.

I cannot do the argument made about Churchill justice here.

Well I could, but it would take far more effort than I'm prepared to make to explain it to you.

Churchills bellicose nature isn't exactly a secret in history. This book merely documents in some detail exactly how his actions helped bring England into the war that basically none of the Monarches and few of the ministers of any nation in Europe really wanted.

no, it isn't, but to say it's been overblown isn't without truth. if mr buchanan is arguing that wilhelm didn't want war, i don't think i'm going to be persuaded. i'll check it out after i finish the d'este book, which is wworth a read as well.