Jump to content

Aggressive Men Who Take Charge....


Pioneer1

Recommended Posts


I recently I got into a confrontation at work with a manager (not mine) over a particular issue and it got to the point that our voices were raised. It didn't help that he was Caucasian also, lol. The issue was resolved (although I'm sure he hasn't forgotten my challenging him) by a higher up but later on after it was over a female co-worker from Nepal whom I flirt with a couple time but she rarely flirted back confided in me how hot and attractive it was to see me being loud and turning red while standing up to that particular manager whom she didn't like either. She said it felt like I was standing up for her (although she wasn't even on my mind at the time) and that the louder I got the more she felt like she was on a cloud and floating she felt so relieved.

Anyone who's met women from the Middle East and African countries in general know that for one of them to admit openly that they find you or any other man sexy, hot, or attractive is a HUGE accomplishment because those women tend to be very conservative. But she's not the first woman to tell me straight up that she found it attractive for men to be confrontational and aggressive, other women have to. But the vast majority of them were from OUTSIDE of America.

I used to think it was mostly AfroAmerican women who were strong willed and didn't want men "taking charge" of the environment but I've noticed over the years that it seems to be American women in general regardless of race. But I've noticed that women of all races who grew up OUTSIDE of Western culture tend to find strong willed "take charge" men VERY attractive.  When I'm aggressive or show traditional masculine traits around women from other countries I can see it in their eyes that they love it and if I criticize homosexuality they don't defend it, most of the time they just say nothing or even agree with me.


My question is directed mostly at the women viewing but obviously I want to hear from Troy and Del on their personal experiences, but do you all REALLY dislike for a man to dominate you and take charge of the environment like so many women today say.....or do you actually love it and just SAY you don't because it's the politically correct thing to say?

I'm asking this because there's no way in hell so many women outside of America can think so much differently than those inside unless some sort of conditioning was going on.

Now this is a moment when I wished Cynique was here, lol.
Whether we agreed or not I could atleast count on her as a woman who gives her honest opinion about an issue even if it's not a popular one that most other women agree with.
But perhaps Chev @Chevdove , Mel @Mel Hopkins, or Queen X can give there opinions and TRY TO BE AS HONEST AS POSSIBLE.

Again, do you like for a man to be dominant and show aggression and "take charge"?

Does it depend on the man, meaning as long as he's "smart" or "rich" you don't mind, or would you rather NO man try to control you or your environment or show aggressiveness?

And if you DO like that do you like it in a sexual sort of way or just a platonic "proud" sort of way?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Pioneer1 no woman (or man) likes a wimpy dude, who would let someone just walk all over them.

 

It is almost a cliche that, "every woman wants a little thug in their man."

 

People from, or in, the south aren't gonna let someone punk them and get away with it. I'm sure you were raised like I was; if some hits you hit them back harder.

 

I've argued loudy with guys superior to me in a corporate environment, but i was pushed and other person was objectively wrong. Once I told a guy in his office if we were in the street i would bust his ass. He apologized, but i was serious. He was the only adult I ever threatened. But he would bully people and everyone let him get away with it.

 

But i have been in situations were i stood up to someone and both men and women later mentioned to me later that they appreciated it. This never sat well with me cause it was always a guy in a position to say something too. 

 

Now aggression, and a confrontational attitude, for no justiable reason is just mean or stupid. A woman who is indifferent to the reason for the man's aggression and  atrracted to him even if he is just bully or common thug is not very sophisticated.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Troy

I'm not so sure if "no" women likes wimpy men or not.
We may want to believe this but I've ran into quite a few women who CLAIM that macho tough acting men irritate them and that they like the more gentle and soft men. And we both have seen how so many women have gay male friends today.

It's hard to believe that the same woman who has a great time hanging out with a feminine acting gay man can ALSO find masculine assertive men attractive at the same time.

I know people don't always mean what they say, but I'm getting to the point where I'm DEMANDING people speak their mind and be honest as to avoid confusion. If there are indeed women who like aggressive, confrontational, and even violent men I want them to clearly state it and why. And if there are women who like soft, gentle, mild-mannered men who would never fight or inflict violence on a soul...I want them to clearly state this too and why.

The more I study and listen to Neely Fuller Jr. the more I'm learning how to nail down and drill down on questions to get the answers I'm looking for without all of the games and the role playing this society loves to engage in.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Aggression is the number 1 trait of a bully.  Animals, including the human species are usually ostracized or put down when they show aggression. They can't be trusted.  

 

This dude sounds like a bully.  And from what you wrote, this woman saw you , @Pioneer1 put him in his place. That requires confidence and confidence is a hella sexy trait.  

 

Most women (and men) are attracted to assertiveness and confidence.  Intuitively, we know we can trust people who exhibit confidence.

 

 


 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Pioneer1 your comments about being gay sound stereotypical. sexuality does not always conform to what you describe as being feminine or soft.  There are many gay dudes that can kick your ass. (as well as do other things with it :o). Yes confidence it attractive and inspiring.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm......
Interesting comments, but I don't think they quite answer my questions.

I know confidence is attractive to most women; but if we take it steps further, the question is do most women subconsciously or consciously find it sexy when a man assumes authority and dominates over them even if they think it's wrong and don't "like" it?

In other words, if you see a man behaving brutishly and taking control over you OR his surroundings, you can think he's an asshole all you want but does some part of you actually find it sexy.......as opposed to the kind and considerate man who is very courteous and treats all people with respect but expresses no aggression or desire to control.
Ofcourse you may "like" him, but do you find him sexy and want to sleep with him?


 

 



Troy

Your comments about my views on homosexual men is an irrational response to what I actually wrote concerning them.

BTW.....
:oI hope you're somewhere outside of and far faaaaar away from Florida !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Troy

I guess, as a Cishet male


Man, that one made me go to the Urban Dictionary.
Hadn't heard the term "cishet" before but at first sight I thought it was the official word for "sissy", lol.
For a quick second or two I was thinking, "So THAT'S where that word came from."

Anyway, glad to see you're out of harms way.
Or since you're in New York, safe from being harmed by nature atleast...lol.

It's funny you say that because they're having the Michigan State fair this weekend also.
Now I'm wondering, if all of the state fairs around the nation are held around the same time of year and why I hadn't noticed in all these years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

21 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

the question is do most women subconsciously or consciously find it sexy when a man assumes authority and dominates over them even if they think it's wrong and don't "like" it?

In other words, if you see a man behaving brutishly and taking control over you OR his surroundings, you can think he's an asshole all you want but does some part of you actually find it sexy.......

 

@Pioneer1 No. I find that behavior repulsive in humans period.  

I will never understand nor want to understand why humans have this desire to control anyone but themselves.   This trait is the main flaw in humans. 

 

21 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

..as opposed to the kind and considerate man who is very courteous and treats all people with respect but expresses no aggression or desire to control.
Ofcourse you may "like" him, but do you find him sexy and want to sleep with him?

 

 A lot of types of men exist.  Like isn't a strong enough emotion to be bothered; there also has to be a desire.   Still there's only one kind of man with whom I've ever found sexy enough to get naked.   A brutish man would never make my list.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I worked with a women and she said she could Not respect a man that did everything she asked. My guess is that some women will like a man that's kind and gentle but not soft.

 

I think Chris Rock said in the bedroom he called his partner a b!+ch. Buthe that's the only place he can say it.

 

 

I also had to check my boss's boss. Since it was just the two of us he didn't mention it and did he disrespect me again.

 

 

On 8/28/2019 at 7:24 AM, Pioneer1 said:

It didn't help that he was Caucasian also, lol.

Really 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Mel

I will never understand nor want to understand why humans have this desire to control anyone but themselves.


I can't speak for others, but I DEFINATELY like having as much control over myself and my ENVIRONMENT as possible. I guess I feel this way because it helps me to feel safer and more secure. In order to have some control over your environment, you have to have a measure of control and influence over the PEOPLE in that environment to make sure they don't or can't introduce factors in your environment that will harm you.

If you want a good example of what happens when you ONLY control yourself and no one else in your environment; look at how mostly Caucasian police forces behave in many poor inner-city communities.




Still there's only one kind of man with whom I've ever found sexy enough to get naked. A brutish man would never make my list.


You ain't lying....lol....because I still remember some of what was on your "list" from that rumble we had months ago.

Let me see:

1. Caucasian
2. Blonde hair
3. Blue eyes
4. Loves the hell out of nappy headed Black girls
5. Lets you and your daughters wear whatever the hell you want and won't say a damn thing about it.*****

Lol....sounds about right?

 

 

 

 


Troy

had to look up cishet myself last week. It is one of the terms "woke" folks use. Like saying "Latinx."


I actually thing "Latinx" is a pretty good neutral term.
From the little bit I know of Espanol it appears to be quite a sexist language where not only are most things given a male/female gender but often times the female term is suppressed and tossed in with the masculine.

 

 


 

 

Delano

worked with a women and she said she could respect a man that did everything she asked.


She's probably confusing the term "respect" with "like".
I don't know a lot of women OR men who will respect someone who does EVERYTHING they are asked. They may like the person and see them as agreeable, but as far as showing them RESPECT.....meaning having a sense of hesitancy or restrain about mistreating them....that's rarely the case.

 

 

I think Chris Rock said in the bedroom he called his partner a b!+ch. Buthe that's the only place he can say it.

 

Never totally understood that that entire behavior.
I never verbablly berated a woman during sex and except for one time years ago.....none have even asked me to.

I guess that falls into the S&M category...lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, I'm not a fan if Latinx, as if man=woman. 

 

I also am not a fan of dropping Mrs. Nowadays all women regardless of age or  marital status are called "Miss." Ms. Would be better.

 

Miss is how we reffered to little girls. It always rubs me the wrong way we I hear a teenager refer to a grown woman as Miss.

 

Calling the woman you love a bitch during intercourse I agree is on the kinky spectrum.

 

The liberal use of bitch and hoes in our music is not good either. Who else calls their women bitch in their music.

 

The language we use informs how we view the world. Whuch is another reason the language of race needs to be discarded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

I feel this way because it helps me to feel safer and more secure. In order to have some control over your environment, you have to have a measure of control and influence over the PEOPLE in that environment to make sure they don't or can't introduce factors in your environment that will harm you

 

 

Oh snap! This has FEAR written all over it!  Even the example you gave about police in the black community is a result of fear.  Not fear like “punk” “scaredy cat” but a deep-seated fear that the “ruling” class,  those who have a lot of riches, must control certain groups or they will lose wealth.    They are fearful and have a need to control everything so they can keep themselves safe.   For those types everyone/thing is a possession they must control for their own survival.   

 

This describes the “ruling class” of the United States in a nutshell.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mel Hopkins said:

 

 

Oh snap! This has FEAR written all over it!  Even the example you gave about police in the black community is a result of fear.  Not fear like “punk” “scaredy cat” but a deep-seated fear that the “ruling” class,  those who have a lot of riches, must control certain groups or they will lose wealth.    They are fearful and have a need to control everything so they can keep themselves safe.   For those types everyone/thing is a possession they must control for their own survival.   

 

This describes the “ruling class” of the United States in a nutshell.  

 


Perhaps this fear and deep-seated desire to control everything in order to keep themselves safe and make sure they have enough wealth for themselves and their family is the main REASON they ended up being the ruling class in the first place.

I think it's smart.

What's the alternative?
To live life from day to day with no desire to control one's surrounding or plan for the future?
Some would call that type of recklessness a blueprint for poverty and oppression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/31/2019 at 8:43 AM, Troy said:

I guess, as a Cishet male

 

We never called the Continent "Africa" (which means "not cold") until white people from cold Europe gave it that name and forced us to use it. We never called Zimbabwe "Rhodesia" until white people gave it that name and forced us to use it. We never called Burkina Faso "Upper Volta" until white people gave it that name and forced us to use it. We were never called "black" and "ni99er" until white people gave us those names and forced us to use them. We were never called John, Kristy, Ryan, Stephanie, etc. until white people gave us those names and forced us to use them.

 

Now you're a "cishet male?" Is that pronounced KISH-it, SIS-het, or what? These white terms are getting more surreal and bizarre every day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pioneer1

 

You have to think like a white imperialist that steals everyone’s identity and land, and claims it as their own to get the definition of Africa. Frio is actually a Latin word for “break” or “crumble.” It’s a verb. White people’s little Spanish language (from Spain) changed it to cold, an adjective and noun. Frico is another form of the original Latin frio, but also means “chafe,” another verb. The present-tense infinitive of frico is fricāre.

 

We know the prefix "A" meant "not": atypical, asymptomatic, etc. Africāre is probably the first white version of "Africa," which technically is gibberish. But again, thinking like a white imperialist who steals and claims everything as their own, it means "not cold." I wrote about this in my college linguistic class.

 

Language and etymology are always fun to decipher. Another interesting term is lesbian. There is an island in Greece called Lesbos. Since Ancient Greek society mandated men be homosexuals (kind of like modern USA and Europe - its their normal culture), particularly their hoplite soldiers, they exiled all women to the island of Lesbos before trading many of said women to Egyptians as sex slaves (which is likely how Egyptians lightened up, if you will). The women ultimately had sex with themselves because there were no men, thus the term "lesbian." A few Greek men would impregnate women, but those men were considered low-class slaves, strictly for breeding to keep the population growing. But today, the people of Lesbos (men and women) are called Lesbians, just like people from Mexico are Mexicans, etc. There was actually a lawsuit filed in Greece like 10 years ago to stop people from using the word Lesbian as a homosexual term in the country because it denigrated the people of Lesbos. Here's an article about it. Interesting stuff.

 

https://operation-nation.com/?p=50

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kareem said:

Now you're a "cishet male?"

 

@Kareem you don't know me well enough to know that my use of the term "Cishet" was tongue in cheek.  i think the term absurd, like many other terms used by woke folks (including "woke" itself) are silly. I have no clue how Cishet is pronounced, and I only discovered the term recently and have never heard it used verbally. However I would not be surprised to see it on applications or maybe a future census. 

 

Maybe I'll refer to my myself a "Cishotephet Brother"  Ya heard it here first!

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kareem

I'm sure you know that not only was homosexuality promoted among the Greeks but pedophilia was also.

The entire sport of WRESTLING as well as the concept of MENTORSHIP originated from Greek men who codified their methods of capturing, wrestling down, and raping boys as well as how to groom them for long term sexual pleasure.

Since you are a student of history and etymology, do you know the truth and history about the "Amazon warrior women" myth and how it also relates to Lesbos and the ancient Greeks?


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Pioneer1  I'm definitely aware of the pedophilia in Greece. It will be 100% legal in the USA too I believe by the year 2050. They're already laying the groundwork. The DSM 5, as quietly as it could, reclassified pedophilia from disorder to sexual preference in like 2013. When a few blogger (including myself) pointed it out, they have the nerve to say they made a mistake. But all the hard copies of DSM 5 still say pedophilia is a sexual preference. Its the same thing they did with homosexuality - changed it from disorder to sexual preference around 1973. It took about 30 years from there for that stuff to be normalized and codified after that, along with a few other steps.

 

Being I'm from the Midwest where wrestling is a religion, that's pretty disappointing to read. I'll just leave it at that.

 

I can't speak on the Amazon warrior women thing. I'd be glad to read whaty you have to say about it though. I just figure its something messed up being there were more Africans imported to Brazil for slavery than there were to the USA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Troy Yes, that is what the HARD COPIES of the DSM 5 say. Just go to a library and look it up.

 

Again, when confronted with it, they tap-danced around it:

 

Quote

“In fact, APA considers pedophilic disorder a ‘paraphilia,’ not a ‘sexual orientation.’ This error will be corrected in the electronic version of DSM-5 and the next printing of the manual,” the organization said. The error appeared on page 698, said a spokeswoman.

 

So after it was pointed out, they updated the online version and reverted it back to disorder. But all the hard copies (you know, the ones that medical establishments, universities and hospitals use) have already been printed, and have pedophilia listed as a sexual preference. They say they'll update it in the next printing, meaning DSM 6. That'll be like 15 years from now and this will be long forgotten about...and pedophilia will be well on its way to normalization. Pedophilia is part of normal white culture, just like homosexuality. Their own history books and accounts don't lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Kareem said:

Pedophilia is part of normal white culture, just like homosexuality.

 

Nah, I don't buy this one. Pedophilla is fringe and still largely viewed as deviant behavior by the vast majority of people of all so called "races." Child molestation is viewed as the lowest crime of all -- no one wants to be locked up a "short eyes."  This probably on reason Jeffrey Epstein killed himself.

 

Now it might be possible that pedipiles, like homosexuals, are overly represented in some fields and therefore have outsized influence, but that does not mean the rest of the population cosigns any of this.

 

Also, it is problematic grouping homesexuals with pedophiles.  Two consenting adults can do whatever they want to with each other.  However, a child is in no position to consent.  These are to completely different things

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Troy said:

This probably on reason Jeffrey Epstein killed himself.

 

I think its funny you wrote this because I was about to mention him in my last post, but stopped short to not go there. We're about to publish an article about that whole thing, after piecing together all the clues. I don't believe he's dead (go ahead...call me conspiracy theorist). He's been supplying the kids to the pedo-elite for 30+ years, including Trump and Bill Clinton. If they wanted him jailed/dead, they could have done it decades ago.

 

The first Bing, Yahoo and DuckDuckGo result for Ronald Reagan pedophilia (not Google of course) is one of our articles. Here's the link, but do the search yourself to see it, meaning its credible and truthful. But the proof speaks for itself.

 

https://operation-nation.com/?p=80

 

Reagan and Carter had callboys at the White House. We all know about Bill Clinton and Trump. Look at the list of "johns" on there too.

 

26 minutes ago, Troy said:

Nah, I don't buy this one. Pedophilla is fringe and still largely viewed as deviant behavior by the vast majority of people of all so called "races."

 

People in power are pedos today. I don't think there's any arguing against that. The white masses during slavery in America were rabid pedos because it was allowed. You said to post some links to my blogs. Here's one from 2012 where we documented 40 cops who were charged with or convicted of child rape/child porn in a 30 DAY PERIOD. Again, they do it because they believe they are allowed to; and we could literally write one of these article every month because its that common.

 

https://opnateye.com/?p=1228

 

Every other day nowadays, there is another blonde white teacher arrested for having sex with 13-14 year old boys.

 

26 minutes ago, Troy said:

Also, it is problematic grouping homesexuals with pedophiles.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. When Mario Lopez, just a few week ago, said that its essentially child abuse to be encouraging 3-year-old boys to be girls, the alphabet gang attacked him relentlessly on Twitter and Instagram and called for his head. Sexualizing kids in any way, shape or form is pedophilia. I refuse to search for the photos (I'd see them in my social media feeds when I was still on those platforms), but there are many from those "gay pride" parades with half-naked kids running around, and it's very creepy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kareem

 

I can't speak on the Amazon warrior women thing. I'd be glad to read whaty you have to say about it though. I just figure its something messed up being there were more Africans imported to Brazil for slavery than there were to the USA.


The term Amazon is a corrupt pronouciation of the ethnic group "Amazigh".
The Amazigh people are one of the pre-Arab "Berber" tribes of Caucasians who sailed down from Greece thousands of years ago and settled in and eventually colonized various parts of North Africa. They are related to the Carthaginians and other Caucasian civilizations of North Africa.
And just like the Caucasian Lesbians, the Caucasian "Amazigh" were very matriarchal and the women ruled the society. Herodotus even wrote about them during his travels.

Just like the Lesbians, the Amazigh women were the main soldiers or warriors of their society and they strictly limited the number of males born. They also used to cut off one of the breasts of their girls so that they could better use the bow and arrow during warfare.

After the Arab invasion they were eventually conquered and now they're all mixed with African and Arab but they were originally a Greek matriarchal tribe.







Being I'm from the Midwest where wrestling is a religion, that's pretty disappointing to read. I'll just leave it at that


That's a bit refreshing, I'm surrounded by East coasters (straight up New Yorkers) here.....lol.
What part of the Midwest are you from?


Also, are you familiar with the works of Dr. Wesley Muhammad and his exposing of the various methods being used to promote both homosexuality and pedophilia in the AfroAmerican community?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Kareem said:

go ahead...call me conspiracy theorist

 

LOL! You are a conspiracy theorist!

 

But hey I can't prove Epstein is dead any more than I can prove that we landed on the moon or vaccines don't cause autism.

 

Kareem I checked out the article, but it referenced The Washington Times a newspaper run by that cult leder Sun Myung Moon. Has anyone at the Blog considered the nature of that particular source?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Troy said:

I checked out the article, but it referenced The Washington Times a newspaper run by that cult leder Sun Myung Moon.

 

If you're talking about the Reagan article, the Washington Times is just one of the sources that reported on the call boy at the time. However, the fact the Times is/was so very conservative and biased similar to Fox News today, them calling out Reagan in 1988 was shocking. It's be the equivalent of Sean Hannity calling out Trump for raping 20 women today.

 

Both Tom Brokaw and Connie Chung reported on the Reagan call boy ring. I believe the videos of their news broadcasts are embedded in the article. Henry Vinson, one of the call-boy ringleaders who was imprisoned as a result of the Reagan scandal, commented on the article when it was published in 2011 and got into an email discussion with us a few days later (note I joined the organization in 2012 and didn't write this particular article). Vinson and Lawrence King (the black Republican) were Epstein before Epstein; they were the pimps. Both were actually punished and are still are personas non grata among the elite today.

 

But its the book by John DeCamp, Franklin Coverup, and the documentary "Conspiracy of Silence" that have all the info and are also cited in the article. The latter was supposed to air on cable TV, but the network pulled it at the last second. The Johnny Gosch story is really what got the ball rolling on all this. He's the kid who just disappeared from West Des Moines, IA in 1982. You'll have to read about that one yourself because it opens up a huge Pandora's Box. But all the links and references are within the article. Its not based on just the Washington Times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Troy said:

Do yiu believe "pizzagate" was a hoax.

 

"Pizzagate" is just a 4chan/8chan/Reddit tribal mating call for Trump disciples. Pedophilia and child trafficking among the modern elite (billionaires) have been going on at least since the Carter Administration, LONG before "pizzagate." Nixon actually called them (the elite GOP and Dems) out on it. Watergate notwithstanding, that's also a factor in why Nixon ended up resigning and why the impeachment process was so coordinated with both parties.

 

"PIzzagate" is not only the silliest name for something ever, but also just a partisan way for Trump people to attack Hillary Clinton, nothing more. These people want to believe the Clintons and Democrats are pedos, but will attack you for pointing the facts that Trump, Dershowitz, and many of their heroes are just as dirty. "Pizzagate" means pedophilia and child trafficking among the elite started with Hillary Clinton, which is simply not true. I'm sure there's something to all that pizza shop stuff. But its a small, and frankly, trivial and tribal partisan part of the big picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

They also used to cut off one of the breasts of their girls so that they could better use the bow and arrow during warfare.

 

The depths ancient civilizations went to in order to preserve their cultures never ceases to amaze me.

 

I'm from Iowa. My great uncle and the rest of the family walked up there from southern Arkansas in the 1940s to escape all the feral white-isms down south and work in the meat packing plants. He's no longer here on Earth. It was always interesting hearing him and my other great uncle and aunties talk about the migration, being drafted into Vietnam, and their childhoods. I understood very well why they moved to that little white town and the opportunities we had because of it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/27/2019 at 5:24 PM, Pioneer1 said:

But perhaps Chev @Chevdove , Mel @Mel Hopkins, or Queen X can give there opinions and TRY TO BE AS HONEST AS POSSIBLE.

Again, do you like for a man to be dominant and show aggression and "take charge"?

 

For me, I am totally indifferent when it comes to this question but, more so, because it based upon the situation, at hand, especially when it comes to Black American men. Do I find it "sexual", I don't know. When, so many times, BLack men are so unfairly placed into a position where they are 'captive audience' to witness severe racially motivated acts against themselves and against Black women and children, I feel that this is many times a deliberate maneuver in order to provoke BLack men to either punk out or stand up for the cause and then, be arrested and demeaned, so I feel that Black men should be wise on how to go about 'standing your ground and defending someone or a cause' and deal with certain conflicts in such a way as to get the victory, but it is not always wise to 'act out'--it could be a set up.  I don't feel that Black men should not stand up to defend, it is vital to stand up!--but be wise. 

 

On 9/1/2019 at 7:52 PM, Pioneer1 said:

Let me see:

1. Caucasian
2. Blonde hair
3. Blue eyes
4. Loves the hell out of nappy headed Black girls
5. Lets you and your daughters wear whatever the hell you want and won't say a damn thing about it.*****

Lol....sounds about right?

 

 

OMG @Pioneer1 Don't you even go there! LOL. Here ya go pickin words out of context! I did NOT get the same conclusion that you did! LOL! Get outta here!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/4/2019 at 8:40 PM, Pioneer1 said:

The term Amazon is a corrupt pronouciation of the ethnic group "Amazigh".
The Amazigh people are one of the pre-Arab "Berber" tribes of Caucasians who sailed down from Greece thousands of years ago

 

@Pioneer1  Oh no! This is not true!!! Well, part of it is true, but you are presenting confusion here.

 

These Pre-Berber people, did have connection to Matriarchal conditioning, I completely agree, but you are presenting confusion.

 

Your definition of CAUCASIANS being WHITE is part of this confusion you are putting out. 

Amazigh were not WHITE as you said, they are ETHNIC. 

 

The root term 'ZIGH' is the key. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Chev

You said they weren't White but "ethnic".
What do you mean?

My understanding of ethnic (as in "ethnic group" ) is it being a SUBSET group of people within a particular race or nation.


And what is your understanding of "zigh"; do you think it's related to "zanj" or something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

My understanding of ethnic (as in "ethnic group" ) is it being a SUBSET group of people within a particular race or nation.


And what is your understanding of "zigh"; do you think it's related to "zanj" or something?

 

Yes but subset to what? If you are saying that Caucasians are White, then, that is the problem. White people are not the beginning of the term Caucasian. Today, they are defined that way, but the origin of Caucasian is MAGOG; a Hamitic-typed descendant of JapHeth. He was a very Black/brown man who was obsessed with ASHTEROTH--the ancient White goddess.

 

So, ancient Caucasians and the Cholchians are terms that go hand-in-hand.

 

Yes, too, the term "Zigh' can connect to "Zanj". But specifically,

 

AMAZIGH would be similar to AEGYPTOS or AEGYPTIAN; It a terms that incorporates the Orginal Caucasians-- CHOLCHIANS-- who were also EGYPTIANS. AEGYPTIANS are NOT the original EGYPTIANS but they all came from the east--INDIA-- GUPTANS-- and migrated to the west, the land of Ham--Africa. So, the later term 

 

amazigh stems from these origins.

 

The term ZIGH stems from ancient Sumeria--Black Babylon-- CHALDEA and is the origin of the word NIG--NI99ER--NIGER--NEGAST...

ZIGGY--- in reverse script ---- ZIG---- GIZ means either way----- ZIGGERAT or GIZA---------- what Black Hamitic or Seth Kings had constructed in their lands......

 

ZIGGY, CIGANE [ie European Gypsies], and so many other terms stem from these origins just as AMAZIGH-- Berbers [ie Original Iberians] include to show these

people were not Caucasian in the modern or Greek sense, but they were BLACK AFRICAN-typed.

 

So, I understand the matriarchal issue but this too goes a long with this ancient historical pattern.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Chev


Yes but subset to what? If you are saying that Caucasians are White, then, that is the problem. White people are not the beginning of the term Caucasian. Today, they are defined that way, but the origin of Caucasian is MAGOG; a Hamitic-typed descendant of JapHeth. He was a very Black/brown man who was obsessed with ASHTEROTH--the ancient White goddess.

So, ancient Caucasians and the Cholchians are terms that go hand-in-hand.


We had this discussion before, about the names of the LAND versus the names of the PEOPLE.

You said the original Greek were Black.
I said no...the original people who INHABITED the land we now call Greece were Black, but the original GREEKS were Caucasian.

Just like the original people who inhabited Arabia were Black but the original Arabs were Caucasian.


It's the same here.
The original people who inhabited the Caucasus mountains were indeed Black people, but the original CAUCASIANS were not Black but what we call "White" or Caucasian.
According to Nation of Islam terminology the term "Caucasian" means pale, weak blooded, and weak boned...that doesn't sound like African peoples.

And although the Cholchians were indeed Africans from Kemet, they weren't the ancient Blacks of that land. The Cholchians were the "watchers" who were sent from Kemet to help keep the Caucasians contained in that region and make sure they didn't get out.

 

 


I think you're wrong about the Amazigh and Berbers.
The Amazigh and Berbers like the Arabs of today have African ancestry NOW......but originally they were Caucasians. They just got their African ancestry from conquering and being conquered and mixing in.

 


You're correct also that the original Egptians or people of Kemet came from what we call today India. Most likely the Pakistan region.
Infact as I've been saying ALL Africans trace their origins back to that land near and around the Indian subcontinent from the Dravidians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/8/2019 at 7:31 PM, Pioneer1 said:

You said the original Greek were Black.
I said no...the original people who INHABITED the land we now call Greece were Black, but the original GREEKS were Caucasian.

 

@Pioneer1 Yes, I absolutely agree, but there is a connection too, and although I did use the wrong term, I used it loosely. Because, today, there is not a general term used to define the original people of the land of Greece today.

 

On 9/8/2019 at 7:31 PM, Pioneer1 said:

Just like the original people who inhabited Arabia were Black but the original Arabs were Caucasian.

 

Again, yes, I agree.

 

On 9/8/2019 at 7:31 PM, Pioneer1 said:

's the same here.
The original people who inhabited the Caucasus mountains were indeed Black people, but the original CAUCASIANS were not Black but what we call "White" or Caucasian.

 

Now here is where I completely disagree! If it were not for the intense information put out about these ancient CAUCASIANS, I could understand what you say. 

Because of the amount of energy put out in exposing these ORIGINAL CAUCASIANS, I can see where they were indeed dark skinned people known by this term, or least the root term "CAUCA".

 

You said; "According to Nation of Islam terminology the term "Caucasian" means pale, weak blooded, and weak boned...that doesn't sound like African peoples."

 

The Nation of Islam is perhaps getting their information from these modern times. So whether or not the term 'CAUCASIAN' or even 'CAUCASOID' today means White skinned or pale skinned, it did not mean this in its origin.  

 

"And although the Cholchians were indeed Africans from Kemet, they weren't the ancient Blacks of that land. The Cholchians were the "watchers" who were sent from Kemet to help keep the Caucasians contained in that region and make sure they didn't get out."

 

Now here you go, saying something that is not backed up by any valid script references. The Cholchians were indeed 'African-typed' but they are not originally from Kemet on thier MALE LINEAGE. The book Black Spark, White Fire, is just one sorce that tells of their Northeastern origins. The Cholchians would be a better term to define the ORIGINAL CAUCASIANS, but nonetheless, both terms define the same people with the same origins.  Many other sources state that the 12th Dynasty Egyptian pharaoh, colonized the northeast and he interacted with the Cholchians in Iberia. After this time, the Cholchians migrated down into Egypt and became apart of Egyptian history as a significant presence in Egypt. THE SECOND BRONZE AGE TIME SPAN.

 

On 9/8/2019 at 7:31 PM, Pioneer1 said:


I think you're wrong about the Amazigh and Berbers.
The Amazigh and Berbers like the Arabs of today have African ancestry NOW......but originally they were Caucasians. They just got their African ancestry from conquering and being conquered and mixing in.

 

 

No, both terms AMAZIGH and BERBER signify 'African-typed' people, but NOT HAMITIC Male line. The proper term would be KHETY or Semitic, based on their specific origins. I believe they were a confederation of people but their beginning would be Original Seth people, nonetheless and, again, this word Caucasian is the confusion. Because, @Pioneer1 please tell me of whom did the CAUCASIANS originate since you believe that they were originally White?

 

Who did the CAUCASIANS originate from?

Modern scholars coined this phrase 'Caucasian' and redefined it as being PURE WHITE RACE, but this is even admitted today, that this cannot be correct.

 

Anyway, I look forward to your response, and will also add some references in a new thread perhaps to delve into this modern day confusion of the term

 

*Original Caucasians.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Chevdove said:

"According to Nation of Islam terminology the term "Caucasian" means pale, weak blooded, and weak boned...that doesn't sound like African peoples."

 

Caucasians are people from the area of the Caucasus Mountains - Chechnya, Georgia (in Europe, not the USA), Azerbaijan, etc. These are people from that middle range between what is today "The Middle East" and south central Russia. These people have no ties at all to white Americans and white western Europeans. "WHITE PEOPLE" just steal everything and claim it for themselves.

 

Damn. I just heard the song "Love is a wonderful thing" by Michael Bolton about 10 minutes ago. The US Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered him to pay $5 million to the Isley Brothers because he stole their song. Look it up. White people mostly steal from black people. But they'll steal from their own too, as demonstrated by the term "Caucasian."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chev

OK.....now I think we're narrowing things down and getting somewhere.




Because of the amount of energy put out in exposing these ORIGINAL CAUCASIANS, I can see where they were indeed dark skinned people known by this term, or least the root term "CAUCA".


Now what was the EXACT name these original dark skinned peoples living in the area called?
I'm sure it wasn't just "Cauca"...so what was THEIR name?

 

 

 

 

Now here you go, saying something that is not backed up by any valid script references. The Cholchians were indeed 'African-typed' but they are not originally from Kemet on thier MALE LINEAGE. The book Black Spark, White Fire, is just one sorce that tells of their Northeastern origins. The Cholchians would be a better term to define the ORIGINAL CAUCASIANS, but nonetheless, both terms define the same people with the same origins. Many other sources state that the 12th Dynasty Egyptian pharaoh, colonized the northeast and he interacted with the Cholchians in Iberia. After this time, the Cholchians migrated down into Egypt and became apart of Egyptian history as a significant presence in Egypt. THE SECOND BRONZE AGE TIME SPAN.


I COULD be wrong about the origin of the Colchians, but I'm not sure.
We both agree they were what we call "Black", but were they from Egypt, Ethiopia, Sumeria, or even India...I'm not sure.

I came to my conclusions of them not being from there but having been SENT there along with other darker peoples to guard and keep the Caucasians contained in the region from a NUMBER of sources, among them are:


In Herodotus Histories Book 2 we read:

Quote

 

 

"104 For it is plain to see that Colchians are Egyptians; and this that I say I myself noted before I heard it from others. When I began to think on this matter, I inquired of both peoples; and the Colchians remembered the Egyptians better than the Egyptians remembered the Colchians; the Egyptians said that they held the Colchians to be part of Sesostris' army. I myself guessed it to be p393 so, partly because they are dark-skinned and woolly-haired; "

 

 

So Herodotus says that he believes the Colchians are Egyptians because they are dark with kinky hair AND because he claims that Egyptians said they were part of an Egyptian army who were SENT there much earlier.
Usually Black people with kinky hair are from Africa...unlike the Black people of India and Elam who had STRAIGHT hair.




Also, in Message To The Black Man ch. 55 we read:

Quote

 

 

 

"Yakub's made devils were driven out of Paradise, into the hills of West Asia (Europe), and stripped of everything but the language. They walked across that hot, sandy desert, into the land where long years of both trouble and joy awaited them; but -- they finally made it. (Not all: many died in the desert.)

 

Once there, they were roped in, to keep them out of Paradise. To make sure, the Muslims, who lived along the borders of East and West Asia, were ordered to patrol the border to keep Yakub's devils in West Asia (now called Europe), so that the original nation of black man could live in peace; and the devils could be alone to themselves, to do as they pleased, as long as they didn't try crossing the East border.

The soldiers patrolled the border armed with swords, to prevent the devils from crossing."

 


Now this from Nation of Islam theology supports what you said that the original people were already there; but it also supports what I said about them being guards to keep the wild Caucasians concealed in West Asia (where the Caucasus mountains are located).

Calling the Colchians the "original Caucasians" would be like calling the Hopi nation the "original Arizonans" or the Lenape nation the "original New Yorkers".

 

 

 

 

 

No, both terms AMAZIGH and BERBER signify 'African-typed' people,


I'm not exactly sure what the origins of the word "Amazigh" is but "Berber" came from a Greek term used for people who didn't speak Greek which pretty much means barbarian.

 

 

 

I believe they were a confederation of people but their beginning would be Original Seth people,


Now what do you mean by the "original Seth" people?
Lol, if Adam (the archetypical white man) wasn't original....how could his son Seth be?





 

 

 

 

Kareem

Caucasians are people from the area of the Caucasus Mountains - Chechnya, Georgia (in Europe, not the USA), Azerbaijan, etc. These are people from that middle range between what is today "The Middle East" and south central Russia. These people have no ties at all to white Americans and white western Europeans. "WHITE PEOPLE" just steal everything and claim it for themselves.

 

Yes brother the Caucasians are from the Caucasus mountains area, however ALL White people trace their origins there....not just those of Chechnya or Armenia.

The Armenians, Georgians, ect.....are just the Caucasians who STAYED in the region; but after they were civilized and organized themselves the vast majority branched out and spread west into Europe, south into Arabia, and west over into India.  This is the origin of the Noah's Ark myth and his family coming down the Ararat mountains and SPREADING OUT symbolizes the spreading of the Caucasian family through out the land.

Also, most of the Caucasians CURRENTLY occupying that area of the Caucasus mountains are not the exact same as thier ancestors because like the Italians they are heavily mixed with Arab genetics from the Muslims who occupied that area for centuries.
If they weren't as mixed with Arab ancestry from centuries of interbreeding they would look "whiter" and closer to their European bretheren.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Kareem said:

But they'll steal from their own too, as demonstrated by the term "Caucasian."

 

@Kareem I absolutely agree! I love what you wrote about Michael Bolton! 

 

11 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

OK.....now I think we're narrowing things down and getting somewhere.

 

 @Pioneer1 I hope so! LOL.

And, I appreciate your sources, and let me bring out some debate points:

 

Now what was the EXACT name these original dark skinned peoples living in the area called?
I'm sure it wasn't just "Cauca"...so what was THEIR name? As I have said, it was COLCHIAN, and the Biblical Magog would be a start point, but there are so many more script variations of th

ese names that were used in ancient times. But specifically, I asked you

 

OF WHOM DID THE WHITE 'CAUCASIANS' DESCEND FROM!? They did not just appear WHITE!!! These White people, CAUCASIANS, have sex and reproduce, likewise, they are hear today based upon SOMEONE having sex and eventually giving birth to their presence! 

 

You wrote: "I came to my conclusions of them not being from there but having been SENT there along with other darker peoples to guard and keep the Caucasians contained in the region from a NUMBER of sources, among them are:
In Herodotus Histories Book 2 we read: the Colchians remembered the Egyptians better than the Egyptians remembered the Colchians; the
 Egyptians said that they held the Colchians to be part of Sesostris' army." 

 

I have read this too!!! What you are not recognizing is that HERODOTUS is making a distinction between the EGYPTIANS and THE COLCHIANS!!! As I said, the Colchians were AEGYTPOS! They are not the Orginal Egyptians! This is what Herodotus means when he says that the Colchians remembered the Egyptians better than the Egyptians remembered them! 

 

Sesostris is what I was directly speaking about! He is the 12th Dynasty Pharaoh that colonized Russia! He is the one that caused many COLCHIANS to migrate down into Egypt!!!--to become apart of his army! Yes, now we are getting somewhere! We are narrowing this history down.

 

" ... guards to keep the wild Caucasians concealed in West Asia (where the Caucasus mountains are located)."

 

West Asia is not, nor ever, was considered to be WEST ASIA. The CAUCASUS It is directionally defined as THE NORTHEAST. West Asia would be defined as PERSIA [ie IRAN] and ARMENIA and etc. The borderlands though define history that includes mountain ranges that border the Caucasus mountains.  

Also WEST ASIA is absolutely NOT Europe! the term EURASIA defines both Europe and Asia. 

 

"Now this from Nation of Islam theology supports what you said that the original people were already there; but it also supports what I said about them being guards to keep the wild Caucasians concealed in West Asia (where the Caucasus mountains are located)."

 

This would be impossible. Even before Sesostris time, Cholchians were migrating everywhere. Sesostris just marks a movement in that he colonized ancient Russia, and at this time many Colchians became apart of Egypt. 

 

"Calling the Colchians the "original Caucasians" would be like calling the Hopi nation the "original Arizonans" or the Lenape nation the "original New Yorkers"."


"I'm not exactly sure what the origins of the word "Amazigh" is but "Berber" came from a Greek term used for people who didn't speak Greek which pretty much means barbarian."
 

Well, because of the intense history brought out about them, the term Caucasian can definitely be applied to the Colchians. I absolutely understand what you mean though, but again, their history has been well tract during ancient times, so therefore, the term does apply to them, the Colchians. They were very aggressive and dominant. Just as you wrote about the term 'Original Greeks' being wrong, this is because, today, a good connection has not been made of their transitional history of who they came to take over the land of the original people, but the Colchians have been well tract. The history is their though, about how the Classical Greeks took over and the earlier people from whom the Arabs came from, but it is not well brought out today. 

 

Yes, I understand that this term BERBER refers to BARBARIAN but that is not the original meaning! The term BERBER has been corrupted by the GREEKS!!!

The term BERBER contains the very root word of one main adjective and description of the Original people of the land of Europe and Eurasia!!!

 

***** IBERIA----SIBERIA----LIBERIA---THE IBERIAN PENINSULA [Russia]--- the IBERIANS of Spain and Portugal****

The older term  for the continent of EUROPE was BEREA--------- And this term originally did not mean Barbarian, but it meant FRUITFUL!!!

The term BEREA refers to A FRUITFUL LAND, as in the word BERRY. It defines the Fruitful land of Shem.  

And this was a main name later, given to the descendants of Joseph--EPHRAIM-- the BARIAHS-- ANd Ephraim is a fruitful bow...

 

As I said, the English language is suspect, and this is why it was written in scripture that words have a deeper meaning that we must research in order to get to the origin or as far back as we can to get a fuller meaning. We cannot supercede the lies and deceit if we don't go back over script and get the earlier meanings of which will help us to better understand how we have been deceived and dumbed down. 

 

"Now what do you mean by the "original Seth" people?
Lol, if Adam (the archetypical white man) wasn't original....how could his son Seth be?"

 

Now @Pioneer1 If you were correct about Adam being White then, this would contradict all science and that 'afro' that most Africans grow out of their heads. I've already broken this DNA down and it applies directly to the timespan that Adam was created. Even if you ask the African leaders and scholars over their in the African continent today, to confirm that in their lands, in their caves, and ancient ROCK ART, you will find NO primitive or ancient humans depicted with AFROES, or as Herodotus said, WOOLY HAIR, or no BUSHY HAIR... Adam is the scientific marker for THE AFRO!!! HE WAS NOT WHITE!!! 

So, likewise the name of SETH does not mean WHITE but guess what 'WASET' does!!! LOL! 

 

The ancient Egyptian term WASET does mean WHITE SETH!!! But the term Seth or Sety or Suti or SOUTHWORLD... refers to the ancient Seth people!!!

The Egyptian god, and enemy of Osiris SETH, the BLACK PIG, in ancient script refers to THE ORIGINAL BLACK AFRICANS and Nodeastern peoples of this world!!!

This term SETH would be the more correct term to define the AMAZIGH, and the CHOLCHIANS being woolly haired people from the east, and so many of Black or dark skinned peoples of the northeast world and etc.

 

Now, I have 'inverted' some terms, like ZIGGY---GIZA---ZIGGURAT, in another thread to show that the words are actually the key to their original meanings, and likewise, I plan to do that some more to further reveal some deeper meanings that have been hidden from us today. This is the very reason why I paused for months on certain other topics, in order bring out this aspect of 'hiding ancient history right in front of our faces'.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Chev

That was some powerful information you dropped right there.
It's gonna take me a while to digest it.
Especially what you said about Adam.

 

There are some who say that the ziggurats, like the pyramids of Kemet and the Americas...were used by flying ships and aircraft based on ancient technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/15/2019 at 10:36 PM, Pioneer1 said:

That was some powerful information you dropped right there.
It's gonna take me a while to digest it.
Especially what you said about Adam.

 

Well okay! Thank you!

On 9/15/2019 at 10:36 PM, Pioneer1 said:

There are some who say that the ziggurats, like the pyramids of Kemet and the Americas...were used by flying ships and aircraft based on ancient technology.

 

 Well, yes, I heard that too. And, I have heard about how African hair type was applied to rocket technology and also car engines, as being a part of coolant systems.

And, I have heard about ancient about ziggurats and pyramids construction became correlated to sound waves and etc.

On 9/17/2019 at 2:37 PM, Kareem said:

up in here writing books and breaking down history! Great info.

 

Thank you!!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...