You Have Awoken A Sleeping Giant

[Faun]

You're saying the Democrats figured out how racist he is but Republicans couldn't until they elected him.

His past affiliations with the KKK were well known.

I did not say that.

This is what I said, of which you addressed nothing.


The way I remember it, the National GOP was shocked when they started dealing with him and realized what he was.

That was well after he won that state election.

GHWBush repeatedly made the point that Duke was lying about his past.

Duke's story was that he was born again and had repudiated his racist past.

Why do you think he claimed to have repudiated his racist past?, Even running in the Deep South?

Why do you think that after the National Party publicly disavowed him and ran against him, and worked to widely spread information on his racist past that he lost and never won again, even in the Deep South?

Of course that's what you said. He ran as a Democrat in three elections. His association with the KKK widely known since it was part of the opposition against him.

Democrats rejected him all three times. He then ran as an independent and was again rejected. He then ran as a Republican and won. According to you, Republicans aren't racist -- they're ignorant and gullible. They couldn't tell he was racist until they elected him. That's what you're saying.

Please support your claim that his association with the Klan was widely known in those earlier races.

And make sure you factor if his claims to have been born again and to have repudiated his racism was believed.

Please stop telling me what I am saying, when it is not what I am saying.

Why would I include his claims of being born again when he wasn't making such claims at the time? In fact, he was still a leader in the KKK when he ran.

The Dukes— David and Chloe — appeared in ads as the perfect blonde, Aryan couple. He was convinced he had a real chance to win the election and wanted the public to regard him as a stable family man. Although he never mentioned the Klan in any of his campaign literature, he made no attempt to hide his racist affiliation. The Baton Rouge Morning Advocate carried numerous articles dealing with all Senate races. Whenever he was mentioned, Duke was identified as the grand wizard of the Klan.

David Duke, Evolution of a Klansman​

Why do you think he claimed to have repudiated his racist past?, Even running in the Deep South?

You would have to ask him why, I don't speak for David Duke. Whatever his reasons were, Democrats rejected him. When he switched to the Republican party, they elected him.

1. Posting a claim that the Baton Rouge Morning Advocate, circulation unknown, mentioned him as a Klansman, does not establish that his Klan background was well known.

2. Bullshit. You don't hesitate to speak for people when it serves your ideological purposes.
The obvious reason he claimed to have repudiated his racist past was that Mr. Klan himself thought that his Klan days was a problem for him, not a plus. Which supports what I've been saying. White Racism is irrelevant in today's America and today's GOP.

Complete nonsense. He was an active grand wizard at the time he ran. He could not hide that from the public nor did he. While he didn't include it in campaign literature, he talked about it openly when interviewed. His opposition was well aware of it and believed Duke was no competition. And despite your attempt to minimize the distribution of the Morning Advocate, now known as the Advocate, advertises itself as Louisiana's leading daily publication. As far as speaking for others, you do not speak for Duke. But even if one were to accept your reasoning, that bodes poorly of the right who were easily duped by a known racist. Even looking beyond his claims of repentance, one would find his policies outed his true racist feelings. The left was smarter and didn't fall for it.

 

[I amso IR]

How many 1st world countries are there in Africa?

About 1500. Why do you ask?

Homes, why are you going to lie?...lol.

Hell, there aren't 1,500 countries in Africa...LMAO

If it wasn't for white folks, America wouldn't exist.

You clown, people lived in the Americas long before our ancestors showed up and raped their civilizations then carted in slaves to build new ones..

And, what was here? Nothing.

Mexico City was far larger, far cleaner and far more educated than any city in Europe in 1519.

Yes and look at it today! You endorse going backwards, much?

 

[JakeStarkey]

About 1500. Why do you ask?

Homes, why are you going to lie?...lol.

Hell, there aren't 1,500 countries in Africa...LMAO

If it wasn't for white folks, America wouldn't exist.

You clown, people lived in the Americas long before our ancestors showed up and raped their civilizations then carted in slaves to build new ones..

And, what was here? Nothing.

Mexico City was far larger, far cleaner and far more educated than any city in Europe in 1519.

Yes and look at it today! You endorse going backwards, much?

I endorse putting things in context, then and now. You don't much?

The Spanish tore down another civilization and turned into what it is today.

 

[I amso IR]

Homes, why are you going to lie?...lol.

Hell, there aren't 1,500 countries in Africa...LMAO

If it wasn't for white folks, America wouldn't exist.

You clown, people lived in the Americas long before our ancestors showed up and raped their civilizations then carted in slaves to build new ones..

And, what was here? Nothing.

Mexico City was far larger, far cleaner and far more educated than any city in Europe in 1519.

Yes and look at it today! You endorse going backwards, much?

I endorse putting things in context, then and now. You don't much?

The Spanish tore down another civilization and turned into what it is today.

You got it Jakey. Central and South America are absolutely loaded with stories of the Mayan, Aztec love stories as to how they treated other tribes and their fellow man. Their brilliant societies feasting upon the hearts and organs of captives and their own people. I will admit that they were builders but other than that the art work is at best 3d grade and ugly. Oh wait, it was the "Space Aliens" responsible for that period, was it not? They were losers as are the losers who admire them. And then there was their astronomical genius, we must not forget that. Read much Eric Von Danekin do you? Space is truly void, particularly between the ears you possess. They worshiped torture and death Jakey. Get a grip! Much like the man Stalin whom you seem to admire from the way you think. Spanish indeed!

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are writing as if the Spaniards were superior in morality to the natives.

They were not. They worshiped gold and treasure and prestige, so they imprisoned, whipped, tortured, and murdered millions directly and indirectly.

So when goofs like @I amso IR tell their specious lies, the best response is "you are a stupid tool."

 

[I amso IR]

Love revisionist much?

 

[JakeStarkey]

. . . . "does not establish that his Klan background was well known" is the continuing mind-dumb refrain of Correll.

It has been proven time and again that the voters knew that Duke was a klansman, when he ran as a Democrat and when he ran as a Republican.

Correll continues a refrain of lies, fabrications, and evasions.

There is no significant anti-white racist efforts in this country.

Any person who keeps up this nonsense, like Correll, is a big time racist, like Correll.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The revision is that the Europeans did not kill 90% of native America in 100 years.

That revision? That lie?

 

[I amso IR]

Exactly what I wanted. Now, cite your authority for that history you rely upon. Please cite the authority(s) who were witness to these events and recorded the same. Please, no second hand accounts from a person who could neither read nor write. Please Jake, "Show Me" the unvarnished proof that the Spaniards murdered 90 percent of the population. Not something of conjecture from a student of ancient South / Central American history but rather perhaps Queen Isabella herself or one of her Ministers. Go for broke Jake! I stand by "the Spanish indeed". History also records that these local tribes were rapists, killers, thieves themselves. Or, did the Spanish introduce those traits also? Yep, revisionist history at work! Did a Spanish soldier kill a native, most assuredly. Did the natives kill a Spaniard, yes. That I will agree to, but on the scale you boast, balderdash! The Spanish needed workers and likely would have been wiped out had they so violently treated the natives as they were outnumbered 10,000 to one or perhaps more. You are a brain washed revisionist as are a huge number of North Americans today. Young, dumb and without a clue. Young except for yourself, that is. You are simply a bucket stirring device. Fable much, do you?

 

[JakeStarkey]

And that's why you lose. The European invasion destroyed cultures and peoples in their millions and millions, and no one has to prove a thing to you. Whether you approve or not of the history does not change it or the fact that is taught in our schools public and private.

That is your problem, bucko, and I suspect it always has been and will be.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Beware of white men bearing gifts. Especially blankets.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Especially if the look like a strange Mona Lisa.

 

[I amso IR]

Of course you are correct. That the Spanish had an impact is not being questioned. That level of impact and severity is however. I tend to think that the Mayan, Aztec and Inca were not the push over people that folks such as yourself agree with. And certainly a few boatloads of Europeans did not have the capability to do so, quickly. So that leaves the revisionist history folks in a shaky situation. Since large sea going vessels were a couple years into the future as well as aircraft, radios and telephone, it stands to reason that the local folk cooperated with the Spanish invaders to a much larger degree than you want to believe. Had the locals felt they were in danger, in particular prior to a build up Europeans, the locals could have destroyed them at any time of their choosing. They were war like people after all. That they did not probably means there was a sense of understanding between the factions. You know, simple traits such as greed, envy and repulsiveness for the underclass citizen. Much of what we see and experience today. I cannot and do not believe that the native populations were lambs led to slaughter as hard as academia want me to accept that. Were those people tied to agriculture, absolutely. Were they kept in bondage by their own governments, yes. Were they peasents and serf nations, yes. So the framework which led to their own demise was already in place. The Spanish may have exploited the prevailing stupidity but did not create the condition. Europe was long before in the same situation a situation which concluded with the French Revolution. Many heads rolled and rightly so. There were Trump types around, even back then. Robbing The Hood was an example of one according to legend. But you accept the current dogma, like a good little subject, and I will continue to wonder what honestly happened. I suspect a democratic view of the future was the primary cause of that demise. What goes around always comes around. Good talking with you Laddie, have a nice day.

 

[Katzndogz]

How did a handful of Spaniards wipe out 90% of the population of South and central America?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Watch I R below put together a goobedly gook explanation, and I bet he will try to blame native populations, just like the Germans used Jews in the camps to do a lot of the dirty work.

 

[I amso IR]

HINT: They did not, the surrogates did so. That would be the locals who benefited from the Spanish. The Spanish had neither the weapons nor manpower to do the job by themselves. When the populace woke up to the fact, it was to little too late. By then they had no recourse. Today's scholar would like you to think this was a rapid event. It was not as it took time and cooperation to implement and carry out. Remember, it took a lot of time to ferry troops and equipment over the Atlantic. Talk to the British about that sort of thing prior to and during the American Revolution and after the Revolution. Historians like to keep little things like that from common knowledge as they cannot honestly answer the questions involved. It is called "blame the other guy". Were the Spanish blameless, no, absolutely not! But the locals had an awful lot to do with the conquest, otherwise it would never have happened. Folks say, well the Spanish had rifles. Yes right, the matchlock which a well trained rifleman could fire once a minute. In the mean time, perhaps a thousand or more indians could be attacking with their clubs and doing a damn damn. Think about the Battle of Little Big Horn and Custer's Seventh Cavalry. How did that go for them. Do you honestly think the Aztec, Inca and Mayan were any less effective? A little perspective always helps, something revisionist history types have very little of. Were the Spanish involved, yes! Were they 100 percent responsible, no way Jose. Simply too many Indians, had the Indians have wanted to stop them.

 

[I amso IR]

Jake, of course it, the impact and severity can be questioned. I just did and you saw fit to respond. Suck it up, Bubba, I am losing nothing in the process, but you and academics are sliding down the slope. I am in no way saying the Spanish were not involved. I am simply saying they had help from the community. To imply otherwise, when the Spanish were so outnumbered by locals, you tend to label yourself a dolt! Do I feel somehow sorry for a bunch of savages losing their identity, not at all, it is what they wanted. Now that was hard, was it not?

 

[Katzndogz]

Vibrant? Hell, they massacred each other more than white people; enslaved other.

The Chippewa slaughtered the Sioux. The Sioux slaughtered the Pawnee.

Really?

"The total number of military and civilian casualties in World War I was over 38 million: there were over 17 million deaths and 20 million wounded, ranking it among thedeadliest conflicts in human history."

World War I casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"World War II was the deadliest military conflict in history in absolute terms of total dead.[Over 60 million people were killed, which was about 3% of the 1940 world population (est. 2.3 billion). The tables below give a detailed country-by-country count of human losses. World War II fatality statistics vary, with estimates of total dead ranging from 50 million to more than 80 million."

World War II casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I would bet that whites are responsible for the most killing in this planet's history.

It's true that stone age people with stone age weapons wage war on a smaller scale. The plains Indians particularly were basically street gangs, in a state of perpetual war over turf. Since they were mostly foragers, this makes sense. If you pick my berries I'll tie to you an anthill because my tribe only survives by scrounging what grows wild.

Always on the verge of starvation, wracked by disease, viciously fighting the animals and other stone age people for the few wild resources. Yeah, Indian life was idyllic just like you shit for brains Communists fantasize it.

You keep retreating from your position a step at a time. Whites are the most bellicose race on the face of the planet and whats sad is that they actually consider it an advancement.

Whites are the most bellicose? That's a hoot!...lol. How many wars are going on in non-white countries, now?

Yes whites are the most bellicose. They have documented their savagery and point to it as a source of pride.

It is a source of pride. Other than the virus, the white male is the most efficient killer the world has ever seen. The whites wage war with a minimum of effort and a maximum of result. There is no savagery in whipping up the natives, no dances and speeches. The white man coldly goes about delivering death with the same compunction as delivering the mail.

 

[I amso IR]

Really?

"The total number of military and civilian casualties in World War I was over 38 million: there were over 17 million deaths and 20 million wounded, ranking it among thedeadliest conflicts in human history."

World War I casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"World War II was the deadliest military conflict in history in absolute terms of total dead.[Over 60 million people were killed, which was about 3% of the 1940 world population (est. 2.3 billion). The tables below give a detailed country-by-country count of human losses. World War II fatality statistics vary, with estimates of total dead ranging from 50 million to more than 80 million."

World War II casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I would bet that whites are responsible for the most killing in this planet's history.

It's true that stone age people with stone age weapons wage war on a smaller scale. The plains Indians particularly were basically street gangs, in a state of perpetual war over turf. Since they were mostly foragers, this makes sense. If you pick my berries I'll tie to you an anthill because my tribe only survives by scrounging what grows wild.

Always on the verge of starvation, wracked by disease, viciously fighting the animals and other stone age people for the few wild resources. Yeah, Indian life was idyllic just like you shit for brains Communists fantasize it.

You keep retreating from your position a step at a time. Whites are the most bellicose race on the face of the planet and whats sad is that they actually consider it an advancement.

Whites are the most bellicose? That's a hoot!...lol. How many wars are going on in non-white countries, now?

Yes whites are the most bellicose. They have documented their savagery and point to it as a source of pride.

It is a source of pride. Other than the virus, the white male is the most efficient killer the world has ever seen. The whites wage war with a minimum of effort and a maximum of result. There is no savagery in whipping up the natives, no dances and speeches. The white man coldly goes about delivering death with the same compunction as delivering the mail.[/QUote

This conversation stray's. I'm out of hear. Thanks to JakeStarkey for defending his points.

 

[Correll]

How did a handful of Spaniards wipe out 90% of the population of South and central America?

By being disease infested filth bags.

The end result would have been the same if they were all Gandhi clones.