26 July, 2008

Questioning the Brown v. Board of Education Ruling

Posted by Socrates in Brown v. Board of Education, Cultural Marxism, egalitarianism, jewed culture, jewed law, public skools, Socrates, Supreme Court at 1:39 pm | Permanent Link

How shocked Joe Sixpack would be if he knew that the landmark Brown court ruling was not based on constitutional law per se, but on social and “moral” arguments instead. In other words, legally speaking, his White children should not be attending public schools with violent negroes:

[Article].


  1. Similar posts:

  2. 05/18/14 Brown v. Board of Education: 60 Years Later, It’s Still a Big Joke 70% similar
  3. 03/27/18 Linda Brown, the Negro Woman in Landmark 1954 Brown v. Board of Education Case, Dies 64% similar
  4. 09/17/11 Brown v. Board Of Education: The Jewish Gift That Keeps On Giving 46% similar
  5. 12/30/09 The School Problem 31% similar
  6. 03/26/09 Remembering the Brown Court Case 31% similar
  7. 2 Responses to “Questioning the Brown v. Board of Education Ruling”

    1. Blightblingywingydoo Says:

      Shocked? No. He wouldn’t give a shit. Scientific facts and law confuse Mr. Sixpack. He’s a social creature. The lower one’s position in the hierarchy, the more relevant morality becomes to status. Not to say that Joe can’t be a hypocrite, but if you want to change him – that is, motivate him to get off his increasingly large ass on occasion – then change his morality from equality and death to that of survival, life, and difference. Worship and celebrate the evolutionary process. Hell, nobody claims to understand evolution thoroughly. Accept it as faith. Call it God or some goddamn thing, I don’t care. Just be consistent and do it.

    2. Blightblingingniggaindawoodpile Says:

      One more blightblinging thought about morality for tonight. This one from a religious perspective:

      We’ve all heard that Gawd is omniscient and omnipotent, right? Think about that for five minutes. Omniscient means all-knowing. Omnipotent means all-powerful. If power presupposes action and action presupposes thought, then why should an omniscient Gawd think? Logic indicates that an omniscient Gawd doesn’t give a shit. He doesn’t engage in action, be it creation or an evolutionary process. Comprehende? If we must have Gawds, then it’s better to have an all-powerful than omniscient Gawd in my opinion. An all-powerful Gawd thinks, but is allowed to fuck up on occasion. This means an all-powerful Gawd could be out-thought by men. Could be. Furthermore, an all-powerful Gawd allows man free will – just don’t piss him off. Piss him off and he turns your wife into salt.

      I’ve heard that kikes brag about having out-foxed Gawd. Is that true? Is there something Blabical to substantiate the claim? If there is, then that’s another reason why Gawd-fearin’ gentiles should ditch the “Gawd is omniscient” claim. If kikes can out-fox Gawd without penalty, then so can Gawd-fearin’ White men. Personally, I prefer agnosticism to Gawd-fearin’ so keep in mind that all of the above is only a suggestion.