White privilege does exist-no matter what "Aryans" claim
ORAC
Frequently, on this newsgroup and others, we hear complaints from white
racists that they no longer count, that minorities have usurped their
place in society. They use these complaints either to justify their desire
for an "Aryan nation," or as part of their tendency to be Hitler
apologists. Most of their contentions about whites being marginalized are
clearly B.S.. Being white or perceived to be white still gives one an
enormous advantage relative to "blacks" and other minorities in the United
States, regardless of what self-proclaimed "Aryan nationalists" claim.
This advantage is certainly not as large as it was 50 years ago, but it is
still there and still significant. After all, there have been no black
Presidents; blacks and other minorities are underrepresented relative to
their populations at nearly every level of government; nearly all the
CEO's of every major corporation are white middle-aged males; etc.
I got to thinking about this when remembering a friend of mine whom I
haven't seen in a while. He is black, has an M.D. and a Ph.D., and is a
cardiothoracic surgeon. He is one of the most intelligent people I know.
He dresses well and is well-mannered. However, he has told me of many
incidents in his life where his race caused him problems. He has seen
white people cross the street to avoid him; police have hassled him;
people driving by in predominately white areas have rolled up the windows
of their car when passing him.
Although I am relatively conservative politically and definitely oppose
affirmative action, I began thinking about the concept of white privilege
again recently. Then, almost as in answer to this thought, I came across
this article on Usenet. I had to agree with at least 75% of the items used
to demonstrate white privilege. I could even think of a few that she
didn't mention. I thought it might interest this newsgroup and provoke
some interesting responses from some of the white racists around here (and
their opponents).
-------------------------
In a book called Critical White Studies: Looking Behind the Mirror, Peggy
McIntosh writes a chapter on white privilege and says:
"After frustration with men who would not recognize male privelege, I
decided to try to work on myself at least by identifying some of hte daily
effects of white privilege in my life. It is crude work, at this stage,
but I will give here a list of special circimstances and conditions
I experience which I did not earn but which I have been made to feel are
mine at birth, by citizenship, and by virtue of being a conscientious
law-abiding "normal" person of good will. I have chosen those conditions
which I think in my case attach somewhat more to skin-color privilege than
to class, religion, ethnic status, or geographical location, though of
course all these other factors are intricately intertwined. As far as I
can see, my Afro-American co-workers, friends, and acquaintances with
whom I come into daily or frequent contact in this particular time, place,
and line of work cannot count on most of these conditions.
1. I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most
of the time.
2. I can avoid spending time with people whom I was trained to mistrust
and hwo have learned to mistrust my kind or me.
3. If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing
housing in an area which I can afford and in which I would want to live.
4. I can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location will be
neutral or pleasant ot me.
5. I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I
will not be followed or harrassed.
6. I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper
and see people of my race widely represented.
7. When I am told about our national heritage or about "civilization," I
am shown that people of my color made it what it is.
8. I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that
testify to the existence of their race.
9. If I want to, I can be pretty sure of finding a publisher for this
piece on white privilege.
10. I can be pretty sure of having my voice heard in a group in which I
am the only member of my race.
11. I can be casual about whether or not to listen to another woman's
voice in a group in which she is the only member of her race.
12. I can go in to a music shop and count on finding the music of my race
represented, into a supermarket and find the staple foods which fit with
my cultural traditions, into a hairdresser's shop and find someone who can
cut my hair.
13. Whether I use checks, credit cards, or cash, I can count on my skin
color not to work against the appearance of financial reliability.
14. I can arrange to protect my children most of the time from people who
might not like them.
15. I do not have to educate my children to be aware of systemic racism
for their own daily protection.
16. I can be pretty sure that my children's teachers and employers will
tolerate them if they fit school and workplace norms; my chief worries
about them do not concern others' attitudes toward their race.
17. I can talk with my mouth full and not have people put this down to my
color.
18. I can swear, or dress in second hadn clothes, or not answer letters,
without having people attribute these choices to the bad morals, the
poverty, or the illiteracy of my race.
19. I can speak in public to a powerful male group without putting my
race on trial.
20. I can do well in a challenging atmosphere without being called a
credit to my race.
21. I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group.
22. I can remain oblivious of the language and customs of persons of
color who constitute the world's majority without feeling in my culture
any penalty for such oblivion.
23. I can criticize our government and talk about how much I fear its
policies and behavior without being seen as a cultural outsider.
24. I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk to "the person in charge,"
I will be facing a person of my race.
25. If a traffic cop pulls me over or if the IRS audits my tax return, I
can be sure I haven't been singled out because of my race.
26. I can easily buy posters, post-cards, picture books, greeting cards,
dolls, toys, and children's magazines featuring people of my race.
27. I can go home from most meetings of organizations I belong to feeling
somewhat tied in, rather than isolated, out-of-place, outnumbered,
unheard, held at a distance, or feared.
28. I can be pretty sure that an argument with a colleague of another
race is more likely to jeopardize her chances for advancement than to
jeopardize mine.
29. I can be pretty sure that if I argue for the promotion of a person of
antoher race, or a program centered on race, this is not liely to cost me
heavily within my present setting, even if my colleagues disagree with me.
30. If I declare there is a racial issue at hand, or there isn't a racial
issue at hand, my race will lend me more credibility for either position
than a person of color will have.
31. I can choose to ignore developments in minority writing and minority
activist programs, or disparage them, or learn from them, but in any case,
I can find ways to be more or less protected from negative consequences of
any of these choices.
32. My culture give me little fear about ignoring the perspectives and
powers of people of other races.
33. I am not made acutely aware tha my shape, bearing, or body odor will
be taken as a reflection on my race.
34. I can worry about racism without being seen as self-interested or
self-seeking.
35. I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without having
my co-workers on the job suspect that I got it because of my race.
36. If my day, week, or year is going badly, I need not ask of each
negative episode or situation whether it has racial overtones.
37. I can be pretty sure of finding people who would be willing to talk
with me and advise me about my next steps, professionally.
38. I can think over many options, social, political, imaginative, or
professional, without asking whether a perosn of my race would be accepted
or allowed to do what I want to do.
39. I can be late to a meeting without having the lateness reflect on my
race.
40. I can choose public accommodation without fearing that people of my
race cannot get in or will be mistreated in the places I have chosen.
41. I can be sure that if I need legal or medical help, my race will not
work against me.
42. I can arrange my activities so that I will never have to experience
feelings of rejection owing to my race.
43. If I have low credibility as a leader, I can be sure that my race is
not the problem.
44. I can easily find academic courses and institutions which give
attention only to people of my race.
45, I can expect figurative language an dimagery in all of the arts to
testify to experiences of my race.
46. I can schoose blemish cover or bandages in "flesh" color and have
them more or less match my skin.
I repeatedly forgot each of the realizations on this list until I wrote it
down. For me, white privilege has turned out to be an elusive and
fugitive subject. THe pressure to avoid it is great, for in facing it I
must give up the myth of meritocracy. If these things are true this is
not such a free country; one's life is not what one makes it; many doors
open for certain people through no virtues of their own. These
perceptions mean also that my moal condition is not what I had been led to
believe. The appearance of being a good citizen rather than a
troublemaker comes in large part from having all sorts of doors open
automatically because of my color."
-----------------------------
Next time you say that there is no white privilege, think about this. I
could come up with some examples that Peggy McIntosh neglected to mention.
--
ORA...@aol.com ACCEPTS MAIL ONLY FROM FAMILY AND FRIENDS.
TO REPLY TO ME BY E-MAIL, USE dgorski(at)xsite(dot)net!
ORAC |"A statement of fact cannot be
a.k.a. | insolent." ORAC
David H. Gorski |
Rider@no-up-yours.com White Rider
ORAC wrote in message ...
OK ASSHOLE, I'll put it another way, in South Africa all you kike
fuckups & liberal whiners cried, "ONE MAN ONE VOTE!" you demanded majority
rule for South Africa. Clearly the only reason majority rule was demanded
for South Africa & not France, England, Sweden, Canada, The United States,
and any other White majority country, is simply because these are White
Majority countries. You cannot have it both ways asshole, either you are for
DEMOCRACY WHICH IS MAJORITY RULE OR YOU ARE NOT FOR DEMOCRACY. Shall we list
what kind of political system would be fitting for a Minority ruled country?
Dictatorship or Plutocracy, which is it bub? Minority ruled countries are
seldom ever Democratic, which whitey is just beginning to figure out, 30
years after having turned over the US to it's arch enemy, the kike.
Don't tell me about Minority empowerment, simply because like the
Islamic tale the camel in the tent, you or any other ANTI-WHITE MAJORITY
loud mouths will never be content with what you get. You always demand what
everyone else has without EARNING IT. Nobody handed Whites anything for
nothing and NOBODY deserves something for nothing.
Countries are won and/or lost by wars. Any jew who wishes to tell me how
evil MY PEOPLE are for taking the United States away from indians better
apply the same standards to their zionist cohorts in the illegally occupied
lands of Palestine. When Israel was born colonialism was deemed ILLEGAL by
international law in the United Nations, if memory serves me correct on that
law.
Richard G. Philllips
ZOG wrote:
>
> On Tue, 26 May 1998 15:50:25 -0400, White Rider <White Ri...@no-up-yours.com> wrote:
> >seldom ever Democratic, which whitey is just beginning to figure out, 30
> >years after having turned over the US to it's arch enemy, the kike.
>
> simpering, powerless mass of pond scum who cannot be trusted to wipe his
> own nose. (Oh, and that's MISTER kike to a cowardly little maggot such
> as yourelf.)
>
> >everyone else has without EARNING IT. Nobody handed Whites anything for
> >nothing and NOBODY deserves something for nothing.
>
> mere cattle.
>
> > Countries are won and/or lost by wars. Any jew who wishes to tell me how
> >evil MY PEOPLE are for taking the United States away from indians better
>
> Israel away from Palestinians better apply the same standards to the lands
> in the U.S. which were seized from the Indians, in violation of every treaty
> signed by the lying, thieving white man. You ready and willing to return
> your back yard to the natives, my filthy little goy?
>
> --
> +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Bob Alpert * balpert "at" netaxs.com * Author of the Jewish Conspiracy FAQ |
> | http://www.netaxs.com/~balpert/jewfaq.html * "ary*ns are a waste of skin" |
> +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> *** Say "ZOG" on subject line to send e-mail! [SpamGard(tm)]***
======================================================
PHillips
Assuming that the power of such a decision lay in our (Aryans) hands
(I realize that presently it does not, but let us assume that it did)
can you tell me one valid reason why we should permit you people to
remain in this country.
==============================================
mamba...@my-dejanews.com
Context, Context, Context!!!!!
In article <6kf6e8$f3n$1...@camel15.mindspring.com>,
"White Rider" <White Ri...@no-up-yours.com> wrote:
>
>
> ORAC wrote in message ...
>
> OK ASSHOLE, I'll put it another way, in South Africa all you kike
> fuckups & liberal whiners cried, "ONE MAN ONE VOTE!" you demanded majority
> rule for South Africa. Clearly the only reason majority rule was demanded
> for South Africa & not France, England, Sweden, Canada, The United States,
> and any other White majority country, is simply because these are White
> Majority countries. You cannot have it both ways asshole, either you are for
> DEMOCRACY WHICH IS MAJORITY RULE OR YOU ARE NOT FOR DEMOCRACY. Shall we list
> what kind of political system would be fitting for a Minority ruled country?
> Dictatorship or Plutocracy, which is it bub? Minority ruled countries are
> seldom ever Democratic, which whitey is just beginning to figure out, 30
> years after having turned over the US to it's arch enemy, the kike.
>
> Don't tell me about Minority empowerment, simply because like the
> Islamic tale the camel in the tent, you or any other ANTI-WHITE MAJORITY
> loud mouths will never be content with what you get. You always demand what
> everyone else has without EARNING IT. Nobody handed Whites anything for
> nothing and NOBODY deserves something for nothing.
>
> Countries are won and/or lost by wars. Any jew who wishes to tell me how
> evil MY PEOPLE are for taking the United States away from indians better
> apply the same standards to their zionist cohorts in the illegally occupied
> lands of Palestine. When Israel was born colonialism was deemed ILLEGAL by
> international law in the United Nations, if memory serves me correct on that
> law.
>
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
ORAC
In article <6kf6e8$f3n$1...@camel15.mindspring.com>, "White Rider"
<White Ri...@no-up-yours.com> wrote:
> OK ASSHOLE,
Ah, yes, the ad hominem attack. Always a sign that I hit a nerve. I also
notice that you deleted everything I said and subsituted a rant. Couldn't
even include a small snippet, could you, to give readers an idea of what
it was that I posted that pissed you off so much? Oh, but then the reader
could have seen how your rant has little or nothing to do with what I
posted.
So why don't you just respond to the observations I posted instead of
hurling insults, or is hurling insults all you're capable of? I posted a
series of observations that I came across that I found interesting. I was
interested in hearing how various white racists like yourself would
respond to this. I was hoping that the responses would have some
intelligence. After all, you all seem so passionate about your beliefs;
one would think that you've thought long and hard about them.
>I'll put it another way, in South Africa all you kike
>fuckups & liberal whiners cried, "ONE MAN ONE VOTE!" you demanded majority
>rule for South Africa. Clearly the only reason majority rule was demanded
>for South Africa & not France, England, Sweden, Canada, The United States,
>and any other White majority country, is simply because these are White
>Majority countries. You cannot have it both ways asshole, either you are for
>DEMOCRACY WHICH IS MAJORITY RULE OR YOU ARE NOT FOR DEMOCRACY.
Your insistence on calling me "asshole" is getting tiresome, but I guess I
can't expect any better from you, can I?
In any case, could you explain to me just what your tirade (allegedly
about democracy and majority rule) has to do with what I posted? Your rant
may make you feel better, but does not answer the point, which you
conveniently deleted and which was that, if you think about it honestly,
you may come to realize that in the U.S. we whites have privileges that we
may not even aware of simply by virtue of the fact that we are white.
True, these privileges are not nearly as obvious as they were, say, 50
years ago when there were segregated drinking fountains and bathrooms and
"whites-only" restaurants, but they are still there and they are still
substantial. Obviously such a suggestion hit a nerve with you..
Now, to answer your bleatings, yes I am for democracy. Always have been.
It's you who seem to have a problem with it. For one thing, you seem to
forget that even when the proportion of the population of the U.S. that is
white drops below 50% during the next century, whites will still make up
the single largest ethnic/racial group in the U.S. for the forseeable
future and will still control the vast majority of wealth and political
power in this country. So what are you so worried about?
>Shall we list
>what kind of political system would be fitting for a Minority ruled country?
>Dictatorship or Plutocracy, which is it bub? Minority ruled countries are
>seldom ever Democratic, which whitey is just beginning to figure out, 30
>years after having turned over the US to it's arch enemy, the kike.
Again, this has nothing to do with what I posted. However, I suspect that
I must have hit a nerve to provoke such a prolonged off-topic rant.
I'm also curious exactly under what circumstances the U.S. was turned over
to the "kike," as you so quaintly put it. Exactly how was this
accomplished and what "kikes" are in control of the United States. Names,
please. No vague ramblings about the dreaded International Jewish
Conspiracy, please.
But to get back on topic, why are you so sensitive about the suggestion
that there might still be privileges that are conferred upon us in society
simply because we are white and not black? Could it be that, if true, such
an observation would undermine the martyr complex that seems to be at the
heart of so many Aryan nationalists' rants and threaten your view of
yourselves as the great white underdogs fighting a valiant struggle to
reclaim "Aryan greatness" from the encroaching brown hordes?
> Don't tell me about Minority empowerment, simply because like the
>Islamic tale the camel in the tent, you or any other ANTI-WHITE MAJORITY
>loud mouths will never be content with what you get. You always demand what
>everyone else has without EARNING IT. Nobody handed Whites anything for
>nothing and NOBODY deserves something for nothing.
Again, please point out to me where I ever suggested that someone deserves
something for nothing. If you read my post, you would realize that I am
strongly against affirmative action of any kind. Also, I said nothing
about my views on whether or not a white majority is good or not; I merely
posted some interesting observations that I had come across and placed a
slightly provocative title to this thread in the Subject header in order
to attract attention.
The observations I posted had made me think a little bit before I posted
them. Obviously they had the opposite effect on you.
> Countries are won and/or lost by wars. Any jew who wishes to tell me how
>evil MY PEOPLE are for taking the United States away from indians better
>apply the same standards to their zionist cohorts in the illegally occupied
>lands of Palestine. When Israel was born colonialism was deemed ILLEGAL by
>international law in the United Nations, if memory serves me correct on that
>law.
Same old Aryan spew from a loser who's doesn't even have enough courage of
his convictions to post under his own name. I figured I'd probably get a
few flames, but I had expected an occasional intelligent attempt to
address the observation.
How tiresome.
<Yawn>
Richard G. Philllips
ZOG wrote:
>
> On Tue, 26 May 1998 17:40:40 -0400, Richard G. Philllips <rgp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >can you tell me one valid reason why we should permit you people to
> >remain in this country.
>
> in this country?
============================================
Phillips
That is a different question; I would like you to deal with mine.
Suppose, just for argument's sake that we, the Aryan people of this
country, had the power to expel you, the Jews. Can you think of any
reason why we ought not to do it. Yes, I am aware that such an action
would be 'anti-Semitic.' But do please answer the question, anyway.
===========================================
Arthur Ed LeBouthillier
On Tue, 26 May 1998 16:38:24 GMT, ORA...@aol.com (ORAC) wrote:
>Next time you say that there is no white privilege, think about this. I
>could come up with some examples that Peggy McIntosh neglected to mention.
Whatever "privileges" you claim we have are none of your business.
Privileges are non-obligatory benefits that one individual gives to
another. Whatever benefits we Whites want to give each other is our
business.
However, the problem lies in the obligations this government forces
upon us which are clear violations of our rights and liberties. The
non-Whites are not members of my society. Your attempt to secure
legal privileges for them at the expense of my rights are not
legitimate.
The other problem lies in your refusal to recognize that Whites, too,
have human rights and we don't have to accept a political order that
violates them
14 Words,
Art LeBouthillier
Joseph Hertzlinger
In <slrn6mmtf...@unix3.netaxs.com> i...@global.plantation.org
(ZOG) writes:
>
>On Tue, 26 May 1998 17:40:40 -0400, Richard G. Philllips
<rgp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>can you tell me one valid reason why we should permit you people to
>>remain in this country.
>
>The real question is: why should we permit *you* people to remain
>in this country?
They're fun to watch.
BTW, I've read that geneticists regard Iceland (the only 100% white
country left) as a valuable resource for their research. We shouldn't
eliminate _all_ whites.
Rider@no-up-yours.com White Rider
ZOG wrote in message ...
>On Tue, 26 May 1998 15:50:25 -0400, White Rider
<White Ri...@no-up-yours.com> wrote:
>> Countries are won and/or lost by wars. Any jew who wishes to tell me
how
>>evil MY PEOPLE are for taking the United States away from indians better
>
>Any ary*n twit who wishes to tell me how evil MY PEOPLE are for taking
>Israel away from Palestinians better apply the same standards to the lands
>in the U.S. which were seized from the Indians, in violation of every
treaty
>signed by the lying, thieving white man. You ready and willing to return
>your back yard to the natives, my filthy little goy?
Funny you should bring that up, jews can't even keep peace treaties with
Palestinians. Matter of fact, you don't even obey the 60+ UN resolutions
that have demanded Israel to leave occupied territory.
But let us remember this happned just 50 years ago, so before you go
breathing down whities neck, better think about yourselves.
ISREAL WILL PERISH ONE DAY. Heck, it might even perish once white America
has been turned into turd world America, after all, South Africa and Israel
had loose ties until Nelson Mendella came into office, then he turned around
and became friends with Syria instead of Israel.
Think about the future, non-whites do have bones to pick with you kikes,
matter of fact, most non-whites do view your filthy horde as whites. Sane
whites hate everything about your kind, if only whites stopped feeling
sympathy for your kind. What wonderful things would happen in return.
Mark Van Alstine
In article <356B84...@earthlink.net>, rgp...@earthlink.net wrote:
> ZOG wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 26 May 1998 17:40:40 -0400, Richard G. Philllips
<rgp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >can you tell me one valid reason why we should permit you people to
> > >remain in this country.
> >
> > The real question is: why should we permit *you* people to remain
> > in this country?
>
> ============================================
> Phillips
>
> That is a different question; I would like you to deal with mine.
>
> Suppose, just for argument's sake that we, the Aryan people of this
> country, had the power to expel you, the Jews. Can you think of any
> reason why we ought not to do it. Yes, I am aware that such an action
> would be 'anti-Semitic.' But do please answer the question, anyway.
Because what happened to the Nazis would happen to you?
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line seperating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties--but right through every human heart--and all human hearts."
-- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey G. Brown
In article <356B84...@earthlink.net>, rgp...@earthlink.net ("Liar
Philllips") wrote:
> Suppose, just for argument's sake that we, the Aryan people of this
> country, had the power to expel you, the Jews. Can you think of any
> reason why we ought not to do it.
Why are you asking for a reason, Liar? You've already made it clear that
rationality will have no place in a nation based on hatred.
JGB
=====================================================================
Jeffrey G. Brown jeff_...@bigfoot.com
"What's going to happen?" "Something wonderful..." -- '2010'
chameleon88
We can and will send the bastards to Israel, then nuke the fucks into a
shithole where the likes of Zog belong.
ZOG wrote in message ...
wrote:
>>They're fun to watch.
>
>
>>country left) as a valuable resource for their research. We shouldn't
>>eliminate _all_ whites.
>
>ice for experimentation.
>
>--
>+--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORAC
In article <6kgmpn$oh0$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>, "White Rider"
<White Ri...@no-up-yours.com> wrote:
And these "wonderful things" would be...?
ORAC
In article <356b711...@news.earthlink.net>,
apen...@earthlink.net.nospam (Arthur Ed LeBouthillier) wrote:
>On Tue, 26 May 1998 16:38:24 GMT, ORA...@aol.com (ORAC) wrote:
>
>>Next time you say that there is no white privilege, think about this. I
>>could come up with some examples that Peggy McIntosh neglected to mention.
>
>Whatever "privileges" you claim we have are none of your business.
Why not? I'm white.
>Privileges are non-obligatory benefits that one individual gives to
>another. Whatever benefits we Whites want to give each other is our
>business.
What does this have to do with my point that, despite the protestations to
the contrary of Aryan nationalists, there are still substantial benefits
in this nation to being perceived as white, as opposed to being perceived
as nonwhite.
>However, the problem lies in the obligations this government forces
>upon us which are clear violations of our rights and liberties. The
>non-Whites are not members of my society.
And why not? They're just as much citizens of the U.S. as you or me.
>Your attempt to secure
>legal privileges for them at the expense of my rights are not
>legitimate.
What rights have I said that whites should give up? (Please note before
replying, in case in your haste to flame me you didn't bother to read my
entire previous post, that I am strongly against all affirmative action.
So please don't even mention it in your response, or I will have to
conclude that you are embarking on a strawman argument.)
>The other problem lies in your refusal to recognize that Whites, too,
>have human rights and we don't have to accept a political order that
>violates them
Please list specific ways that the present political order violates the
human rights of whites. Please do not spend any more than one brief
paragraph on affirmative action.
Given those restrictions, I'm betting your response will be exactly one
paragraph long--if you stick to the restriction, of course.
ORAC
>ZOG wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 26 May 1998 17:40:40 -0400, Richard G. Philllips
<rgp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >can you tell me one valid reason why we should permit you people to
>> >remain in this country.
>>
>> The real question is: why should we permit *you* people to remain
>> in this country?
>
>That is a different question; I would like you to deal with mine.
>
>Suppose, just for argument's sake that we, the Aryan people of this
>country, had the power to expel you, the Jews. Can you think of any
>reason why we ought not to do it. Yes, I am aware that such an action
>would be 'anti-Semitic.' But do please answer the question, anyway.
Why are you even bothering to ask for a reason? You've already said
repeatedly that rationality will not constrain the government's actions in
an "Aryan nation."
ORAC
In article <6khi5n$9...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, "chameleon88"
<i...@you.ask> wrote:
>We can and will send the bastards to Israel, then nuke the fucks into a
>shithole where the likes of Zog belong.
More typical intelligent discourse from an "Aryan nationalist."
No wonder no one takes you seriously.
ORAC
In article <slrn6mop9...@unix3.netaxs.com>,
i...@global.plantation.org (ZOG) wrote:
>On Wed, 27 May 1998 17:08:27 GMT, ORAC <ORA...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Why not? I'm white.
>
>But you're not the "right kind" of "white!" One of the problems these
>demented fools have is that they think all "white people" (however
>these are defined) will fall right into goose-stepping rythm with
>them.
I had noticed that. They seem to think that if you're not out in Montana
somewhere in a shack fighting for an "Aryan nation" with a bunch of inbred
racists you're not a "real" white person (whatever that is). In fact, they
fail to grasp that the whole concept of being "white" is rather
meaningless, anyway. As I have shown in discussions with Phillips, how
race is defined is almost completely arbitrary and has little, if any,
meaning in biology or evolution.
When "Aryan nationalists" talk about "white," they seem to mean someone
with a lighter complexion and Caucasoid features who happens to share
their political views regarding how these features somehow make them
superior to those with darker complexions and more African or Asiatic
features, therefore necessitating a separate "Aryan state." Those with
lighter complexions who, like most people, happen to think they're a bunch
of Nazi crackpots are dismissed as "not the right kind" of white people.
>They cannot fathom the fact that, except for a few miscreants,
>people of all races, colors, creeds, and religions utterly reject nazis
>and their ilk.
As well any moral person should.
Unknown
Your argument is idiotic to the point of being moot. Of course whites
have the so called "privileges" you state -- the whites live in a
white nation, a white nation built and constructed using white morals
and culture.
If blacks, or any other non-white had built a civilization worth
living in, you would see the same things... they would make dolls of
their own race for their largest consumers -- themselves.
I don't feel the need to address each "privilege" you specified,
because it follows the same logic as above... wake up.
ORAC
>Your argument is idiotic to the point of being moot. Of course whites
>have the so called "privileges" you state -- the whites live in a
>white nation, a white nation built and constructed using white morals
>and culture.
Wait a minute! A complaint that I hear constantly from Aryan nationalists
is that whites are becoming marginalized, that minorities and/or Jews
and/or the liberals are taking over, that whites "don't count" any more.
Here I post some ways in which being white has a clear advantage and
produces privileges and you say that it is because we are in a "white
nation" and imply that this is the way it should be.
So, Aryan nationalists, which is it? Are we living in a "white nation"
with clear white privileges (in which case your entire desire for an
"Aryan nation" is unnecessary and even rather silly because we would
already be living in one) or are minorities taking over and pushing
"whites" back to the fringes?
You can't have it both ways. But you seem to want to.
Now *that's* an idiotic argument.
>If blacks, or any other non-white had built a civilization worth
>living in, you would see the same things... they would make dolls of
>their own race for their largest consumers -- themselves.
>
>I don't feel the need to address each "privilege" you specified,
>because it follows the same logic as above... wake up.
And I don't feel the need to address your point again, because I have
already done so. (See above.)
--
ORA...@aol.com ACCEPTS E-MAIL ONLY FROM FAMILY AND FRIENDS.
TO REPLY TO THIS BY E-MAIL, USE dgorski(at)xsite(dot)net!
ORAC |"A statement of fact cannot be
a.k.a. David Gorski | insolent" ORAC
ORAC
In article <356cb92...@news.earthlink.net>,
apen...@earthlink.net.nospam (Arthur Ed LeBouthillier) wrote:
>On Wed, 27 May 1998 20:22:39 GMT, ORA...@aol.com (ORAC) wrote:
>
>>I had noticed that. They seem to think that if you're not out in Montana
>>somewhere in a shack fighting for an "Aryan nation" with a bunch of inbred
>>racists you're not a "real" white person (whatever that is).
>
>Don't forget the in-bred anti-racists too.
And where might they be found, pray tell?
>>In fact, they fail to grasp that the whole concept of being "white" is rather
>>meaningless, anyway.
>
>That's a ridiculous argument. Being White has meaning to me.
So what? Just because it has "meaning" to *you* does not mean that it has
any real biological significance and it certainly does not make it an
acceptable or viable basis for a state.
>It is the
>basis of my society, self-definition and all that I hold to be good.
Well whoop-de-doo!
Here's a test: define white in a way that I can tell if someone is "white"
when I see him. At exactly WHAT shade of skin pigment does one cease to be
black, brown, red, or yellow and magically become "white"?
This should be an easy question for you to answer if it is the basis of
your society, self-definition, and all you hold to be good, shouldn't it?
The exact shade you pick, of course, will be entirely arbitrary, because
skin color is not bimodal; it various continuously along a spectrum from
very dark to very light.
So you base your self-definition, your society, and all that you hold to
be good on an arbitrary color of skin and an arbitrary set of physical
characteristics. That's a pretty flimsy thing to place all that weight
upon, don't you think?
>Your multi-racial empire is largely meaningless to me. What little
>meaning it does hold is entirely negative in my eyes.
Multiracial empire? Now that's funny.
>> As I have shown in discussions with Phillips, how
>> race is defined is almost completely arbitrary and has little, if any,
>> meaning in biology or evolution.
>
>As is typical, you define race out of existence. I define race as:
>
> A lineal ethnic group. The basis of my society.
This is a near-meaningless definition. Even if it were correct, it would
be incredibly rare because each and every race (including the "white" race
is mongrel, with evidence of extensive interbreeding). There is no such
thing as a true "lineal ethnic group." Therefore, I repeat: define "white"
in such a way that I can tell who is and is not "white."
"I'll know it when I see it" and "it's white if I say it's white" are NOT
acceptable answers.
>It is meaningful to me.
Well yippee! An arbitrarily-defined concept is "meaningful" to you!
I'm supposed to be impressed by this?
>>When "Aryan nationalists" talk about "white," they seem to mean someone
>>with a lighter complexion and Caucasoid features who happens to share
>>their political views regarding how these features somehow make them
>>superior to those with darker complexions and more African or Asiatic
>>features, therefore necessitating a separate "Aryan state."
>
>So, when "US Imperialists" talk about "American" they seem to mean
>anyone, without any criteria, who may hate you or not, who may like
>the same things as you, or who may hate them, who may be working for
>the same kind of future or who might be working to destroy all that
>you hold to be good. I think that an "American" is meaningless in that
>way.
An "American" is a citizen of the United States, whether native born or
naturalized. It's just that simple. The freedoms granted in the
Constitution guarantee that we Americans will be a rather diverse lot,
even if we were all "white," just the way you and your Aryan nationalist
buddies fantasize about. In fact, we've always been a rather diverse lot,
at least as far as opinions go.
Get used to it, because it's not going to change. Certainly not because of
anything you do.
>> Those with lighter complexions who, like most people, happen to think
>> they're a bunch of Nazi crackpots are dismissed as "not the right kind"
>> of white people.
>
>Right. You're not a member of my nation.
Nor would I ever want to be.
I am and always will be, however, an American. If you don't like it, tough.
--
ORA...@aol.com ACCEPTS E-MAIL ONLY FROM FAMILY AND FRIENDS.
TO REPLY TO THIS BY E-MAIL, USE dgorski(at)xsite(dot)net!
ORAC |"A statement of fact cannot be
a.k.a. David Gorski | insolent" ORAC
Arthur Ed LeBouthillier
On Wed, 27 May 1998 17:08:27 GMT, ORA...@aol.com (ORAC) wrote:
>>Whatever "privileges" you claim we have are none of your business.
>
>Why not? I'm white.
Because a privilege is non-obligatory. Whether you are White or
not does not imply that I have to extend a privilege to you.
>What does this have to do with my point that, despite the protestations to
>the contrary of Aryan nationalists, there are still substantial benefits
>in this nation to being perceived as white, as opposed to being perceived
>as nonwhite.
Because there will be MORE of certain kinds of privileges (and more
importantly rights) in a White nationalist society.
>>However, the problem lies in the obligations this government forces
>>upon us which are clear violations of our rights and liberties. The
>>non-Whites are not members of my society.
>
>And why not? They're just as much citizens of the U.S. as you or me.
Citizenship is not nationality. Citizenship under this government
means little or nothing. It means you get to pay taxes to a government
that has no desire to represent White interests (rather, that will
destory them).
>What rights have I said that whites should give up? (Please note before
>replying, in case in your haste to flame me you didn't bother to read my
>entire previous post, that I am strongly against all affirmative action.
>So please don't even mention it in your response, or I will have to
>conclude that you are embarking on a strawman argument.)
Virt
>Please list specific ways that the present political order violates the
>human rights of whites. Please do not spend any more than one brief
>paragraph on affirmative action.
We have rights to own property individually and collectively and to
not include in that ownership anyone that we desire to exclude.
Those property rights include the right to acquire, utilize and
release property in ways that we see fit. Under the current
government, those rights are denied us.
We have a right to practice and distribute our culture freely. This
government restricts the expression of our culture and tries to
impose values that are contrary to our nation. This government
indoctrinates our young in beliefs that lead to the dissolution of our
national identity in order to include foreign nationals into its
borders.
We have rights to form political organizations and institutions that
serve our national interests. This government denies us our rights
leading to the absense of those organizations.
This government denies us public institutions (often funded by us)
in order to deny us cultural institutions.
This government utilizes violent force, often leading to death or
loss of property, against those who refuse to accept its attempts
to destroy our nation.
This government violates the premises on which the US Constitution
was founded in order to create a nation hostile to our interests.
This government taxes at rates approaching 50% of our income and
distributes it in ways that are contrary to White national interests.
This is accomplished via force and property seizure.
>Given those restrictions, I'm betting your response will be exactly one
>paragraph long--if you stick to the restriction, of course.
I see more than one paragraph above.
14 Words,
Art LeBouthillier
Arthur Ed LeBouthillier
Because I was distracted and unable to finish my response to you,
I am continuing herein:
On Wed, 27 May 1998 17:08:27 GMT, ORA...@aol.com (ORAC) wrote:
>What rights have I said that whites should give up? (Please note before
>replying, in case in your haste to flame me you didn't bother to read my
>entire previous post, that I am strongly against all affirmative action.
>So please don't even mention it in your response, or I will have to
>conclude that you are embarking on a strawman argument.)
The issue is based on my belief that you are confusing "privilege"
with "right."
For you to put forth some kind of testimonial about a friend (whom
you claim has been discriminated against and not received equal
privilege) implies to me that you view that those things should be
rights. Therefore, in this context, I believe that you are positing
that your non-White friend has a right to those things (i.e. to not
have Whites try to cross the street when they see him, to not
have police "hassled" him when they are probably really doing their
job, to not have people driving by in predominately white areas roll
up the windows of their car when passing him). Since your are
making claims that these are occuring, I have assumed that you
are stating that he has a right to not have these things happen.
My point is that he has no right to have me like him. He has no
right to have me befriend him. He has no right for me to not
roll up my windows when I see him).
Finally, this is a Usenet discussion, not a proper debate. You
do not conduct yourself properly for such discussion because
you are vague in your claims. Therefore, I must assume certain
things. Are you claiming that he does have a right to not be disliked?
14 Words,
Arthur LeBouthillier
Arthur Ed LeBouthillier
On Wed, 27 May 1998 20:22:39 GMT, ORA...@aol.com (ORAC) wrote:
>I had noticed that. They seem to think that if you're not out in Montana
>somewhere in a shack fighting for an "Aryan nation" with a bunch of inbred
>racists you're not a "real" white person (whatever that is).
Don't forget the in-bred anti-racists too.
>In fact, they fail to grasp that the whole concept of being "white" is rather
>meaningless, anyway.
That's a ridiculous argument. Being White has meaning to me. It is the
basis of my society, self-definition and all that I hold to be good.
Your multi-racial empire is largely meaningless to me. What little
meaning it does hold is entirely negative in my eyes.
> As I have shown in discussions with Phillips, how
> race is defined is almost completely arbitrary and has little, if any,
> meaning in biology or evolution.
As is typical, you define race out of existence. I define race as:
A lineal ethnic group. The basis of my society.
It is meaningful to me.
>When "Aryan nationalists" talk about "white," they seem to mean someone
>with a lighter complexion and Caucasoid features who happens to share
>their political views regarding how these features somehow make them
>superior to those with darker complexions and more African or Asiatic
>features, therefore necessitating a separate "Aryan state."
So, when "US Imperialists" talk about "American" they seem to mean
anyone, without any criteria, who may hate you or not, who may like
the same things as you, or who may hate them, who may be working for
the same kind of future or who might be working to destroy all that
you hold to be good. I think that an "American" is meaningless in that
way.
> Those with lighter complexions who, like most people, happen to think
> they're a bunch of Nazi crackpots are dismissed as "not the right kind"
> of white people.
Right. You're not a member of my nation.
14 Words,
Arthur LeBouthillier
Arthur Ed LeBouthillier
On Wed, 27 May 1998 23:33:24 -0500, ORA...@aol.com (ORAC) wrote:
>>Don't forget the in-bred anti-racists too.
>
>And where might they be found, pray tell?
Every single anti-racist I've known is an in-bred
half-wit.
>So what? Just because it has "meaning" to *you* does not mean that it has
>any real biological significance and it certainly does not make it an
>acceptable or viable basis for a state.
Biological significance? What's that supposed to mean? Is "biological
significance" a term I can find in a biology book or is it some silly
term you've made up?
>>It is the
>>basis of my society, self-definition and all that I hold to be good.
>
>Well whoop-de-doo!
Whoop-a-de-doo.
>Here's a test: define white in a way that I can tell if someone is "white"
>when I see him. At exactly WHAT shade of skin pigment does one cease to be
>black, brown, red, or yellow and magically become "white"?
No. I don't have to. The world is a weird and wonderful place and
there are many things beyond my understanding.
>This should be an easy question for you to answer if it is the basis of
>your society, self-definition, and all you hold to be good, shouldn't it?
My definition of Whiteness is:
White means any of the people derived from the Celtic,
Germanic or Slavic peoples of Europe who share a
common ethnicity based on their blood relationship. As
we use it, White (note capital first letter) refers to a
particular lineal ethnic group or one of the members of
this group. It has two components: lineage and ethnicity.
Members of this ethnic group must have an acceptable
lineage (one having negligible amounts of non-European
blood) and a self-identity based on that lineage.
>The exact shade you pick, of course, will be entirely arbitrary, because
>skin color is not bimodal; it various continuously along a spectrum from
>very dark to very light.
Bullshit. As I understand it, skincolor is coded in 16 alleles in two
genes. Any way you look at it skin color is a discrete property.
Anyways, although skin color is a component of being White, it
is not the sole criteria.
>So you base your self-definition, your society, and all that you hold to
>be good on an arbitrary color of skin and an arbitrary set of physical
>characteristics. That's a pretty flimsy thing to place all that weight
>upon, don't you think?
No, I don't. Like I said, skin color is a component but not the
sole determininant. For example, there are Koreans and
Japanese who have skin color that is the same color as
the skin of some people whom I call White but they are
not White. Skin color is not the sole determinant.
I would say that lineage and ancestry are the more important
factors and that those things that you claim are the determinants
are, in fact, merely indicators of the true determinant: ancestry.
>>Your multi-racial empire is largely meaningless to me. What little
>>meaning it does hold is entirely negative in my eyes.
>
>Multiracial empire? Now that's funny.
Actually, it's a cruel and tasteless joke.
>>As is typical, you define race out of existence. I define race as:
>>
>> A lineal ethnic group. The basis of my society.
>
>This is a near-meaningless definition. Even if it were correct, it would
>be incredibly rare because each and every race (including the "white" race
>is mongrel, with evidence of extensive interbreeding).
"Mongrel?" Is that a biological term? Please provide biological proof
of the meaningfullness of your use of the word "mongrel."
> There is no such thing as a true "lineal ethnic group."
Then there is a problem with your understanding of when an
ethnic group is "true" and what "true" means.
>Therefore, I repeat: define "white" in such a way that I can tell
> who is and is not "white."
No.
I've heard this ridiculous banter of yours from many knee-jerk
liberals in the past and it is a poor argument: Garbage-in,
garbage out. Your premises are wrong.
First, there is no single factor that defines Whiteness. Whiteness,
being a product of lineage is reflected in a pattern of traits. That
pattern is approximated by a light skin color (which can be
accurately defined once a full understanding of the genetic
basis of human traits is understood), certain patterns of skull
shape, physical makeup, blood types, and other human traits.
Second, even were I to say "Whiteness is characterized by
traits A, B and C, you would still say you are unsatisfied since
you really don't care about a definition. Your goal is not really
to understand Whiteness, but to defame it.
Third, Whiteness is an ethnicity like any other.
>"I'll know it when I see it" and "it's white if I say it's white" are NOT
>acceptable answers.
They are to me. You have false premises that are reflected in your
rant for a "true" definition.
>>It is meaningful to me.
>
>Well yippee! An arbitrarily-defined concept is "meaningful" to you!
>
>I'm supposed to be impressed by this?
Yes. I don't really care whether you are impressed or not. All
concepts are "arbitrarily" defined. If you knew anything about
logic, you would realize that a definition precedes reason. Therefore,
definitions are not subject to logical criteria; they are the axioms
of postulates.
>An "American" is a citizen of the United States, whether native born or
>naturalized. It's just that simple.
Ever heard of circular reasoning? You've just demonstrated it. You
define the word "American" exactly as you want it to mean and then
use that as proof of your argument.
Definitions are arbitrary. You just defined it that way and now you
say that it is a fact.
I don't accept your definition of American. An American is an
ethnic nationality of certain White people in North America.
>The freedoms granted in the
>Constitution guarantee that we Americans will be a rather diverse lot,
>even if we were all "white," just the way you and your Aryan nationalist
>buddies fantasize about.
First, the constitution is no better than a piece of toilet paper.
Being one of those "living documents," it is deader than dead
since it is interpreted anyway those in power want to do so.
Second, the constitution is guarantee of nothing. The courts
have justified all manner of tyranny by it despite the obvious
intent of those who created it.
Third, the Supreme Court has ruled time and time again
that the Constitution only permits Whites to be citizens and
that the United States was created to benefit Whites. The
real constitution was destroyed by that great imperialist war
which is often called the "Civil War" although it was not
civil in any meaning of the word.
> In fact, we've always been a rather diverse lot,
>at least as far as opinions go.
Who hasn't?
>Get used to it, because it's not going to change. Certainly not because of
>anything you do.
Really? Then don't worry about us.
>>Right. You're not a member of my nation.
>
>Nor would I ever want to be.
My nation is the nation of Thomas Jefferson and the other founders of
the United States. It is a nation composed solely of White people as
they wanted it. Obviously you're not a member of that nation since
you hold in contempt all of the ideals those people held.
>I am and always will be, however, an American. If you don't like it, tough.
No you're not. You're a US Citizen and an imperialist. You hold the
American nation in contempt and are an enemy to it.
14 Words,
Arthur LeBouthillier
ORAC
In article <356d552...@news.earthlink.net>,
apen...@earthlink.net.nospam (Arthur Ed LeBouthillier) wrote:
Don't worry. I'm not.
>>I am and always will be, however, an American. If you don't like it, tough.
>
>No you're not. You're a US Citizen and an imperialist. You hold the
>American nation in contempt and are an enemy to it.
No, it is you who hold the American nation in contempt. I respect the
ideals upon which this nation was founded, including liberty, freedom of
expression, equality under the law, and democracy for ALL citizens, not
just "whites." These seem to be alien concepts to you. In that, I'm far
more American than you'll ever be.
ORAC
In article <356ca5e...@news.earthlink.net>,
apen...@earthlink.net.nospam (Arthur Ed LeBouthillier) wrote:
>On Wed, 27 May 1998 17:08:27 GMT, ORA...@aol.com (ORAC) wrote:
>
>>>Whatever "privileges" you claim we have are none of your business.
>>
>>Why not? I'm white.
>
>Because a privilege is non-obligatory. Whether you are White or
>not does not imply that I have to extend a privilege to you.
BZZZZT! Wrong answer. I was not discussing whether or not *you* have to
extend privileges of any kind to me. I was discussing privileges that
whites in the U.S. are given--often without them being aware of it. They
take them for granted, and the people extending them to other whites also
take them for granted. That's why it's hard to get people to admit they
exist.
However, here's a question. If "white privilege" does not exist, then what
color you are shouldn't really matter. If you could keep your present
personality, level of intelligence, job, income, status in society etc.,
would it matter to you if you were black or white?
The answer is obvious: You'd rather be white because there are many
advantages to it and many disadvantages to being black, all related simply
because society at large will treat you differently depending upon whether
you are black or white.
>>What does this have to do with my point that, despite the protestations to
>>the contrary of Aryan nationalists, there are still substantial benefits
>>in this nation to being perceived as white, as opposed to being perceived
>>as nonwhite.
>
>Because there will be MORE of certain kinds of privileges (and more
>importantly rights) in a White nationalist society.
And why should there be MORE privileges, if a large proportion of the
population is nonwhite?
>>>However, the problem lies in the obligations this government forces
>>>upon us which are clear violations of our rights and liberties. The
>>>non-Whites are not members of my society.
>>
>>And why not? They're just as much citizens of the U.S. as you or me.
>
>Citizenship is not nationality. Citizenship under this government
>means little or nothing. It means you get to pay taxes to a government
>that has no desire to represent White interests (rather, that will
>destory them).
You're dodging the question. Why should non-whites be concerned if the
government represents "white interests" (whatever they are)?
>>What rights have I said that whites should give up? (Please note before
>>replying, in case in your haste to flame me you didn't bother to read my
>>entire previous post, that I am strongly against all affirmative action.
>>So please don't even mention it in your response, or I will have to
>>conclude that you are embarking on a strawman argument.)
>
>>Please list specific ways that the present political order violates the
>>human rights of whites. Please do not spend any more than one brief
>>paragraph on affirmative action.
>
>We have rights to own property individually and collectively and to
>not include in that ownership anyone that we desire to exclude.
>Those property rights include the right to acquire, utilize and
>release property in ways that we see fit. Under the current
>government, those rights are denied us.
How specifically?
>We have a right to practice and distribute our culture freely. This
>government restricts the expression of our culture and tries to
>impose values that are contrary to our nation. This government
>indoctrinates our young in beliefs that lead to the dissolution of our
>national identity in order to include foreign nationals into its
>borders.
>
>We have rights to form political organizations and institutions that
>serve our national interests. This government denies us our rights
>leading to the absense of those organizations.
How specifically? No one is stopping you from forming political parties,
as long as you stay within the law.
>This government denies us public institutions (often funded by us)
>in order to deny us cultural institutions.
How, specifically?
>This government utilizes violent force, often leading to death or
>loss of property, against those who refuse to accept its attempts
>to destroy our nation.
When, where, and how specifically?
>This government violates the premises on which the US Constitution
>was founded in order to create a nation hostile to our interests.
How, specifically? I'll buy the premise that the government nowadays
appears to be subverting the Constitution when it comes to basic rights.
RICO comes to mind as a big example. So do abuses by the IRS, including
property seizure without due process. However, these are violations of
freedom that affect every citizen. I do not see how they specifically are
hostile to "white interests" (whatever that means).
>This government taxes at rates approaching 50% of our income and
>distributes it in ways that are contrary to White national interests.
>This is accomplished via force and property seizure.
How is this *specifically* contrary to "white national interests"?
Confiscatory tax rates affect *all* citizens, regardless of race. In fact,
white people, who tend to be better off economically, are probably better
able to shelter their income from the IRS than minorities.
>>Given those restrictions, I'm betting your response will be exactly one
>>paragraph long--if you stick to the restriction, of course.
>
>I see more than one paragraph above.
But you haven't given anything except vague generalities.
ORAC
In article <356cad1a...@news.earthlink.net>,
apen...@earthlink.net.nospam (Arthur Ed LeBouthillier) wrote:
>Because I was distracted and unable to finish my response to you,
>I am continuing herein:
>
>On Wed, 27 May 1998 17:08:27 GMT, ORA...@aol.com (ORAC) wrote:
>
>>What rights have I said that whites should give up? (Please note before
>>replying, in case in your haste to flame me you didn't bother to read my
>>entire previous post, that I am strongly against all affirmative action.
>>So please don't even mention it in your response, or I will have to
>>conclude that you are embarking on a strawman argument.)
>
>The issue is based on my belief that you are confusing "privilege"
> with "right."
I'm not, but if it will make it any clearer to you I'll substitute the
term "advantage" for "privilege." Then, even you should understand my
point.
>For you to put forth some kind of testimonial about a friend (whom
>you claim has been discriminated against and not received equal
>privilege) implies to me that you view that those things should be
>rights.
Wrong. I'm positing that, in present-day U.S., whites still have
advantages/privileges not shared by non-whites. The story was used simply
as one example. There are many others. I never mentioned "rights" and have
not confused "rights" with "privileges" or "advantages."
>Therefore, in this context, I believe that you are positing
>that your non-White friend has a right to those things (i.e. to not
>have Whites try to cross the street when they see him, to not
>have police "hassled" him when they are probably really doing their
>job, to not have people driving by in predominately white areas roll
>up the windows of their car when passing him).
No, he has the "right" not to be hassled by the government or police
because of his race. This is supposed to be guaranteed by the
Constitution. He has the "disadvantage" of being hassled because of his
color by whites who see him as a threat simply because of his color.
Whites generally don't have to put up with this kind of crap, because most
people, whether they admit it or not, tend to view whites in a more benign
way and blacks with suspicion. In that, there is a large inherent
"advantage" or "privilege" to being white.
>Since your are
>making claims that these are occuring, I have assumed that you
>are stating that he has a right to not have these things happen.
>My point is that he has no right to have me like him. He has no
>right to have me befriend him. He has no right for me to not
>roll up my windows when I see him).
Bullshit. That is not what I said. I was simply pointing out that as a
white person, I don't have to put up with this kind of crap. Because he is
black, he does. I used this as an example.
>Finally, this is a Usenet discussion, not a proper debate. You
>do not conduct yourself properly for such discussion because
>you are vague in your claims.
You conduct yourself very well for a Usenet discussion. You twist my words
and use straw man arguments, which are typical Usenet "discussion"
tactics, especially on alt.revisionism. You fit right in here. I notice
that you did not post the original anecdote so that readers could judge
for themselves. It's not that long, so I'll refresh your memory:
"I got to thinking about this when remembering a friend of mine whom I
haven't seen in a while. He is black, has an M.D. and a Ph.D., and is a
cardiothoracic surgeon. He is one of the most intelligent people I know.
He dresses well and is well-mannered. However, he has told me of many
incidents in his life where his race caused him problems. He has seen
white people cross the street to avoid him; police have hassled him;
people driving by in predominately white areas have rolled up the windows
of their car when passing him."
Where in there did I mention a "right" not to have people dislike him? I
merely pointed out that they do and used that point in my discussion of
"white privilege" (or "advantage," if you prefer).
>Therefore, I must assume certain
>things. Are you claiming that he does have a right to not be disliked?
No, I'm claiming that simply because of his color, he IS disliked by many
whites, even though he has two advanced degrees, is a respected member of
his profession, law-abiding, and far more intelligent, well-spoken, and
well-mannered than 99.9% of the population, white or black.
I mentioned this example and posted the other examples solely to
demonstrate that, despite the bleatings of Aryan nationalists about how
whites supposedly no longer count for much, there are still a great many
privileges that whites have simply because they are white. Perhaps
"advantages" would be a better word, but the point remains. If whites "no
longer count" or are becoming "marginalized," then why are there still so
many advantages that one has based solely on his perceived race?
Arthur Ed LeBouthillier
On Thu, 28 May 1998 15:13:53 GMT, ORA...@aol.com (ORAC) wrote:
>No, it is you who hold the American nation in contempt. I respect the
>ideals upon which this nation was founded, including liberty, freedom of
>expression, equality under the law, and democracy for ALL citizens, not
>just "whites." These seem to be alien concepts to you. In that, I'm far
>more American than you'll ever be.
Save your imperialistic jingoism for someone who agrees with you.
14 Words,
Arthur LeBouthillier
Arthur Ed LeBouthillier
On Thu, 28 May 1998 15:08:30 GMT, ORA...@aol.com (ORAC) wrote:
>BZZZZT! Wrong answer. I was not discussing whether or not *you* have to
>extend privileges of any kind to me. I was discussing privileges that
>whites in the U.S. are given--often without them being aware of it. They
>take them for granted, and the people extending them to other whites also
>take them for granted. That's why it's hard to get people to admit they
>exist.
I recognize that there are benefits to White society. That is all the
reason why it should be defended.
>However, here's a question. If "white privilege" does not exist, then what
>color you are shouldn't really matter. If you could keep your present
>personality, level of intelligence, job, income, status in society etc.,
>would it matter to you if you were black or white?
I don't do hypotheticals since what you are asking is impossible. What
if you were a racist, wouldn't you agree with me?
>The answer is obvious: You'd rather be white because there are many
>advantages to it and many disadvantages to being black, all related simply
>because society at large will treat you differently depending upon whether
>you are black or white.
Most definitely. White society is good and the list you provided
second-hand is proof of some of the intangible benefits. A less
White society will offer fewer of those benefits.
>>Because there will be MORE of certain kinds of privileges (and more
>>importantly rights) in a White nationalist society.
>
>And why should there be MORE privileges, if a large proportion of the
>population is nonwhite?
Because it is for our interests that our society is created. Because
good is that which serves the White nation.
>You're dodging the question. Why should non-whites be concerned if the
>government represents "white interests" (whatever they are)?
Because all interests cannot be promoted equally. If you promote
non-Whites' interests, then you promote White interests less.
>>We have rights to own property individually and collectively and to
>>not include in that ownership anyone that we desire to exclude.
>>Those property rights include the right to acquire, utilize and
>>release property in ways that we see fit. Under the current
>>government, those rights are denied us.
>
>How specifically?
I think that what I said was specific enough. However, to make it
more concrete. I have a right to buy property and refuse to sell it
to a non-White even if the US gov't denies that right of me. I have
a right to do sell my property to whomever (and to not release my
property to whomever) I choose. That means that I don't have to
sell the goods in my shop to non-Whites even though the US gov't
denies that right of me. I have a right to demand that taxes taken
from me be used for the benefit of my society, even if the Gov't
wants that society destroyed. I have a right to associate myself
with others of my nation and buy property collectively with them
and deny access, use, sale and acquisition of that property by
and to non-Whites even if the US gov't denies that right to me.
Additionally, the current regime refuses to recognize legitimate
contracts which are contrary to its multi-racial social goals.
>>We have rights to form political organizations and institutions that
>>serve our national interests. This government denies us our rights
>>leading to the absense of those organizations.
>
>How specifically? No one is stopping you from forming political parties,
>as long as you stay within the law.
We have the right to form communities and establish representative
government. We are not obligated to include non-Whites and we
may institute those laws that benefit our community. The current
government denies those things of us.
>>This government denies us public institutions (often funded by us)
>>in order to deny us cultural institutions.
>
>How, specifically?
It denies that our tax dollars be used only to serve White interests.
It has taken all public institutions and "integrated" them in order
to eliminate our nation. It has refused to recognize laws that we
have instituted to benefit our nation and used violence to eliminate
defiance.
It claims ownership over local schools, denying that they be used
in the manner that the community desires.
>>This government utilizes violent force, often leading to death or
>>loss of property, against those who refuse to accept its attempts
>>to destroy our nation.
>
>When, where, and how specifically?
Starting with the "Civil" war and continuing to this day it uses its
violence. Where it doesn't use explicit military violence, it uses
police violence or IRS trickery to disenfranchise its opponents.
In order to implement its Brown vs. School Board fiasco, it
used the US Army to forcibly integrate our schools.
>How, specifically? I'll buy the premise that the government nowadays
>appears to be subverting the Constitution when it comes to basic rights.
Most assuredly. However, the Constitution was designed as a document
to represent White interests (see the Dred Scott decision). In
refusing to recognize that, it denies us our most vital national
institution.
>RICO comes to mind as a big example. So do abuses by the IRS, including
>property seizure without due process. However, these are violations of
>freedom that affect every citizen. I do not see how they specifically are
>hostile to "white interests" (whatever that means).
Some of them were instituted specifically to destroy White
institutions. More generally, the Federal Gov't and all that
it has implemented in the past 50 to 100 years is all diseased
and rotten, affecting most those who have lived under its rule
for the longest.
>How is this *specifically* contrary to "white national interests"?
White interests are fivefold:
Political - the policy forming and enforcing institutions
which serve our nation. It has sought to replace all
pro-White institutions with imperial multi-racial
institutions. To other people, this would not be as
disastrous but since our culture was intertwined with
our political institutions, denying those institutions has
resulted in near ethnic extinction.
Cultural - Our people's social program of existencd. It has
implemented propaganda programs, retrained our youth,
promoted ideas contrary to our cultural existence and
refused to assume its proper role as our national
representative.
Economic - material necessities and the means to
acquire them. It has manimpulated the economy of
North America so as to enfranchise foreigners, while
denying economic power to pro-Whites. It has done
so by denying our property rights, denying intra-state
commerce and by enfranchising those opposed to
our nation.
Population - It promotes inter-marrying, striking down
those laws which were established to minimize
intermarriage with non-Whites. It has debased the
institutions of marriage and imported millions of
non-Whites.
Territory - It imports millions of non-Whites, allows
foreigners to own and control our territory and
and denies us the ability to establish territorial
communities.
>Confiscatory tax rates affect *all* citizens, regardless of race.
Granted, but that does not mean that the impact is equal
to all people or ethnic groups.
> In fact, white people, who tend to be better off economically,
> are probably better able to shelter their income from the IRS
> than minorities.
Again, the impact must be looked at both collectively and
individually. For Whites, the impact has meant that most of
them, for financial reasons, delay child rearing. This results
in the decimation of White population. Whites are a declining
population with less self-determination.
>But you haven't given anything except vague generalities.
It will take a long time to address each of the issues in depth.
I assure you that I can do so. I tend to reason from the general
to the specific (in other words, deductively). Additionally, some
of these generalizations are the result of previous research and
study and will take time to re-acquire the specifics. Of course,
I would have to believe that you have serious interest in
examining these issues before I would want to extend any
significant effort to outline them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
We must secure the existence of our people
and a future for White children.
Arthur LeBouthillier
Arthur Ed LeBouthillier
On Thu, 28 May 1998 15:30:58 GMT, ORA...@aol.com (ORAC) wrote:
>>The issue is based on my belief that you are confusing "privilege"
>> with "right."
>
>I'm not, but if it will make it any clearer to you I'll substitute the
>term "advantage" for "privilege." Then, even you should understand my
>point.
Cool.
>Wrong. I'm positing that, in present-day U.S., whites still have
>advantages/privileges not shared by non-whites.
As we should.
> The story was used simply as one example. There are many others.
> I never mentioned "rights" and have not confused "rights" with
> "privileges" or "advantages."
That's fine, I don't want to hear non-White sob stories. I don't
care about them.
However, the issue regarding "advantages" and "privileges"
points out one reason why Whites should not want a multi-racial
society. Many of those advantages would cease to exist if non-Whites
ruled over us.
>No, he has the "right" not to be hassled by the government or police
>because of his race. This is supposed to be guaranteed by the
>Constitution.
Only by the 14th Amendment. In the Dred Scott decision, the supreme
court ruled that Blacks don't have any rights or claims to benefits
(roughly). Read it yourself to see the true origin and intent of the
constitution.
> He has the "disadvantage" of being hassled because of his
>color by whites who see him as a threat simply because of his color.
Oh right, and we Whites are hassled because we're White.
Bullshit. Every opportunity is used to re-educate and sensitize us.
Every opportunity is used to belittle our society and us as
individuals. Every opportunity is taken to use our own tax dollars to
advance the interests of non-Whites. Every opportunity is taken to
attempt to make Whites feel guilty and give up their society to
foreigners.
>Whites generally don't have to put up with this kind of crap, because most
>people, whether they admit it or not, tend to view whites in a more benign
>way and blacks with suspicion. In that, there is a large inherent
>"advantage" or "privilege" to being white.
Bullshit. I've been through a myriad of institutions in this country
in which, because I was a White, I was forced to put up with all
manner of defamation, accusations and bullshit. When I was in
sixth grade I was called a Nazi by my school teacher because I
dared say that the U.S. Gov't should enforce its immigration laws.
>Bullshit. That is not what I said. I was simply pointing out that as a
>white person, I don't have to put up with this kind of crap. Because he is
>black, he does. I used this as an example.
I don't know what you mean "put up with." Non-Whites have all manner
of organizations which coddle and protect them from the slightest
attack on their self-esteem. No such institutions are promoted for
Whites. All I have to do is say "nigger" in public and it is quite
likely that I will be investigated by the gov't.
>You conduct yourself very well for a Usenet discussion.
You conduct yourself very well for a White hater.
> You twist my words and use straw man arguments, which are typical
> Usenet "discussion" tactics, especially on alt.revisionism. You fit right in here.
Hey, whatever obfuscation I learned, I learned from anti-racists.
Your arguing tactics stand down there with the best of the Marxists.
You would do well to visit and stay in alt.Marxist.liars.
> I notice that you did not post the original anecdote so that readers could judge
>for themselves. It's not that long, so I'll refresh your memory:
I don't have to quote all of your statements. I do it minimally in
order to maintain a reference. Anyone can look back at previous
posts to see your original statements.
>"I got to thinking about this when remembering a friend of mine whom I
>haven't seen in a while. He is black, has an M.D. and a Ph.D., and is a
>cardiothoracic surgeon. He is one of the most intelligent people I know.
>He dresses well and is well-mannered. However, he has told me of many
>incidents in his life where his race caused him problems. He has seen
>white people cross the street to avoid him; police have hassled him;
>people driving by in predominately white areas have rolled up the windows
>of their car when passing him."
>
>Where in there did I mention a "right" not to have people dislike him? I
>merely pointed out that they do and used that point in my discussion of
>"white privilege" (or "advantage," if you prefer).
Great. He does not have such a right and don't try to claim that he
does. Since he doesn't have that right, he has no legitimate claim
on me that I should treat him any way other than as the non-white
he is.
>No, I'm claiming that simply because of his color, he IS disliked by many
>whites, even though he has two advanced degrees, is a respected member of
>his profession, law-abiding, and far more intelligent, well-spoken, and
>well-mannered than 99.9% of the population, white or black.
Good.
>I mentioned this example and posted the other examples solely to
>demonstrate that, despite the bleatings of Aryan nationalists about how
>whites supposedly no longer count for much, there are still a great many
>privileges that whites have simply because they are white.
Right, all of those benefits and privileges are the result of many
Whites continued commitment to a white society. Non-Whites need
not apply.
> Perhaps
>"advantages" would be a better word, but the point remains. If whites "no
>longer count" or are becoming "marginalized," then why are there still so
>many advantages that one has based solely on his perceived race?
Because the government was established for our benefit and because we
choose to extend benefits and privileges to other Whites which we
refuse to extend to non-Whites (and those who seek to destroy
non-White society). You show many of the intangible benefits of White
society. I look forward to a Whiter and brighter society which brings
yet more benefits and goodness to my nation.
14 Words,
Arthur LeBouthillier
Arthur Ed LeBouthillier
On 28 May 1998 20:48:21 GMT, i...@global.plantation.org (ZOG) wrote:
>Funny, every single white power ranger I've known (and I used to work
>undercover amongst them, so I've met quite a few) is an inbred, drooling,
>rabid, moronic, ignorant jackass lacking the good sense that the Creator
>bestowed upon dog food.
I love it when you talk dirty to me.
14 Words,
Arthur LeBouthillier
Joseph Hertzlinger
In <6khi5n$9...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> "chameleon88" <i...@you.ask>
writes:
>We can and will send the bastards to Israel, then nuke the fucks into
>a shithole where the likes of Zog belong.
Will you be able to use Jewish physics?
Remember: The World Domination Plot will be real next time!
ORAC
In article <356dfa0...@news.earthlink.net>,
apen...@earthlink.net.nospam (Arthur Ed LeBouthillier) wrote:
Consider it done. Clearly trying to discuss such concepts as liberty,
freedom, equality, etc., with you is a waste of my time.
Jeff
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> 1. I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my
race most
> of the time.
EVIL!
>
> 2. I can avoid spending time with people whom I was trained to
mistrust
> and hwo have learned to mistrust my kind or me.
As if you would send your (note: YOUR) kids to a predominately
Black/Hispanic school?
>
> 3. If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or
purchasing
> housing in an area which I can afford and in which I would want to
live.
How selfish of you!!! You NAZI BASTARD!!!!!
>
> 4. I can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location will
be
> neutral or pleasant ot me.
No way! Why would you want to do that? You should want them to be
hostile towards you!
You should have gang members in your community...if you don't you are
a damn nazi!
>
> 5. I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured
that I
> will not be followed or harrassed.
By the store security?
How about harassed because you can speak English clearly and the
immigrant working behind the counter is pissed off that you can't
understand his accent?
>
> 6. I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the
paper
> and see people of my race widely represented.
Pick up a "Black" paper or a Black TV station.
Pick up a "Hispanic" paper or watch a Hispanic TV station.
Pick up an "Asian" paper or watch an Asian TV station.
>
> 7. When I am told about our national heritage or about
"civilization," I
> am shown that people of my color made it what it is.
Your right, you should be lied to and told that Blacks had as much
influence on Western Civilization as the English, Germany, and French
did.
You should be trained to believe that every culture had placed men on
the moon.
You should be ashamed that 99.5% of all major inventions and
discoveries were created by those countries which are predominately
White. This is very evil.
>
> 8. I can be sure that my children will be given curricular
materials that
> testify to the existence of their race.
Except for a White History Month.
>
> 9. If I want to, I can be pretty sure of finding a publisher for
this
> piece on white privilege.
Okay.
>
> 10. I can be pretty sure of having my voice heard in a group in
which I
> am the only member of my race.
Then if you have a good idea, you should shut up. You don't want to
make anybody feel inferior.
>
> 11. I can be casual about whether or not to listen to another
woman's
> voice in a group in which she is the only member of her race.
Tell her to get you a sandwich also. (grin)
>
> 12. I can go in to a music shop and count on finding the music of my
race
> represented, into a supermarket and find the staple foods which fit
with
> my cultural traditions, into a hairdresser's shop and find someone
who can
> cut my hair.
Such horrible situations you talk about!
>
> 13. Whether I use checks, credit cards, or cash, I can count on my
skin
> color not to work against the appearance of financial reliability.
What about food stamps? Why was this missing?
>
> 14. I can arrange to protect my children most of the time from
people who
> might not like them.
Naw, you can still send your kid to a predominately Black/Hispanic
school.
>
> 15. I do not have to educate my children to be aware of systemic
racism
> for their own daily protection.
Depends where you live. Remember California and Florida are brown
third world shit holes!
>
> 16. I can be pretty sure that my children's teachers and employers
will
> tolerate them if they fit school and workplace norms; my chief
worries
> about them do not concern others' attitudes toward their race.
God, the guilty must be overwhelming!
>
> 17. I can talk with my mouth full and not have people put this down
to my
> color.
How about chewing with your mouth open? My God, Asians need to be
tested for this problem!
>
> 18. I can swear, or dress in second hadn clothes, or not answer
letters,
> without having people attribute these choices to the bad morals, the
> poverty, or the illiteracy of my race.
As a side note, 70% of the Black population has kids born out of wed
lock. 43% of the Black males have been through the court systems (not
minor traffic violations either).
>
> 19. I can speak in public to a powerful male group without putting
my
> race on trial.
Your race is always on trial.
>
> 20. I can do well in a challenging atmosphere without being called a
> credit to my race.
hahahah.
>
> 21. I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group.
hahhh.
>
> 22. I can remain oblivious of the language and customs of persons of
> color who constitute the world's majority without feeling in my
culture
> any penalty for such oblivion.
There is a world majority culture....what is it called?
>
> 23. I can criticize our government and talk about how much I fear
its
> policies and behavior without being seen as a cultural outsider.
Really. Good to know.
>
> 24. I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk to "the person in
charge,"
> I will be facing a person of my race.
Fine go to an Affirmative Action office and ask for the person in
charge it will be a Black or a Hispanic.
>
> 25. If a traffic cop pulls me over or if the IRS audits my tax
return, I
> can be sure I haven't been singled out because of my race.
Well "The Man" is after them all!
>
> 26. I can easily buy posters, post-cards, picture books, greeting
cards,
> dolls, toys, and children's magazines featuring people of my race.
Race doesn't matter, and since it doesn't matter Blacks aren't
complaining, nor are Asians! Why rock the boat?
>
> 27. I can go home from most meetings of organizations I belong to
feeling
> somewhat tied in, rather than isolated, out-of-place, outnumbered,
> unheard, held at a distance, or feared.
Hey that's how I felt when I went to a "Diverse" University in
Southern California. How lucky I was.
>
> 28. I can be pretty sure that an argument with a colleague of
another
> race is more likely to jeopardize her chances for advancement than
to
> jeopardize mine.
Well that is childish too.
>
> 29. I can be pretty sure that if I argue for the promotion of a
person of
> antoher race, or a program centered on race, this is not liely to
cost me
> heavily within my present setting, even if my colleagues disagree
with me.
No way, you will be called a "hero of diversity"...or a "Good White."
>
> 30. If I declare there is a racial issue at hand, or there isn't a
racial
> issue at hand, my race will lend me more credibility for either
position
> than a person of color will have.
But Blacks love to play the Race Card because of their inferiority
complex.
>
> 31. I can choose to ignore developments in minority writing and
minority
> activist programs, or disparage them, or learn from them, but in any
case,
> I can find ways to be more or less protected from negative
consequences of
> any of these choices.
At a public university? Bullshit!
>
> 32. My culture give me little fear about ignoring the perspectives
and
> powers of people of other races.
Depends what your culture and your race is.
>
> 33. I am not made acutely aware tha my shape, bearing, or body odor
will
> be taken as a reflection on my race.
Blacks do have that "smell". Asians have told me that Blacks do
smell badly also. Is that a mating smell or something?
>
> 34. I can worry about racism without being seen as self-interested
or
> self-seeking.
More affirmative action for all!
>
> 35. I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without
having
> my co-workers on the job suspect that I got it because of my race.
I wonder why?
>
> 36. If my day, week, or year is going badly, I need not ask of each
> negative episode or situation whether it has racial overtones.
Except if you live in Southern California or Florida.
>
> 37. I can be pretty sure of finding people who would be willing to
talk
> with me and advise me about my next steps, professionally.
Rather than running to the government for assistance?
>
> 38. I can think over many options, social, political, imaginative,
or
> professional, without asking whether a perosn of my race would be
accepted
> or allowed to do what I want to do.
Do blacks have this problem within their race?
>
> 39. I can be late to a meeting without having the lateness reflect
on my
> race.
Depends many cultures have weird ways of using time.
>
> 40. I can choose public accommodation without fearing that people of
my
> race cannot get in or will be mistreated in the places I have
chosen.
Especially those Affirmative Action programs!
>
> 41. I can be sure that if I need legal or medical help, my race will
not
> work against me.
Especially if you have government assistance and are Black/Hispanic.
>
> 42. I can arrange my activities so that I will never have to
experience
> feelings of rejection owing to my race.
You mean like Blacks calling a successful Black a sellout?
>
> 43. If I have low credibility as a leader, I can be sure that my
race is
> not the problem.
hahhaah.
>
> 44. I can easily find academic courses and institutions which give
> attention only to people of my race.
You mean like a White Studies Department?
Since there is a Black, Asian, and Hispanic Studies Department at my
University?
>
> 45, I can expect figurative language an dimagery in all of the arts
to
> testify to experiences of my race.
Good for your Race!
>
> 46. I can schoose blemish cover or bandages in "flesh" color and
have
> them more or less match my skin.
Now that is racism to the highest degree!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.5
iQA/AwUBNW9up+j+u3lLQubBEQILhQCfd/2hEfBzLSUfkuikYisAvg4ts6oAoNEo
65NZElC0+nvAo8UZ3zyQ3MAg
=v4QY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Arthur Ed LeBouthillier
On Fri, 29 May 1998 16:33:14 GMT, ORA...@aol.com (ORAC) wrote:
>>Save your imperialistic jingoism for someone who agrees with you.
>
>Consider it done. Clearly trying to discuss such concepts as liberty,
>freedom, equality, etc., with you is a waste of my time.
Yeah, as if you know anything about those concepts or
rational discussion. I'm ready for a civil conversation any
time you are.
Don't go away mad, just go away.
Arthur LeBouthillier
Gord McFee
In <6khi5n$9...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, on Wed, 27 May 1998 12:28:46
-0500, "chameleon88" <i...@you.ask> wrote:
> We can and will send the bastards to Israel, then nuke the fucks into a
> shithole where the likes of Zog belong.
The Ary*n-head intellect is indeed a thing to behold.
--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time
Visit the Holocaust History Project
http://www.holocaust-history.org
Visit the Nizkor site
http://www.nizkor.org
Gord McFee
In <356cb92...@news.earthlink.net>, on Thu, 28 May 1998 01:13:31
GMT, apen...@earthlink.net.nospam (Arthur Ed LeBouthillier) wrote:
> On Wed, 27 May 1998 20:22:39 GMT, ORA...@aol.com (ORAC) wrote:
>
> >I had noticed that. They seem to think that if you're not out in Montana
> >somewhere in a shack fighting for an "Aryan nation" with a bunch of inbred
> >racists you're not a "real" white person (whatever that is).
>
> Don't forget the in-bred anti-racists too.
Good point, Art. Thanks for the tip.
> >In fact, they fail to grasp that the whole concept of being "white" is rather
> >meaningless, anyway.
>
> That's a ridiculous argument. Being White has meaning to me. It is the
> basis of my society, self-definition and all that I hold to be good.
How's your tan this year, Artie?
> Your multi-racial empire is largely meaningless to me. What little
> meaning it does hold is entirely negative in my eyes.
No one cares.
> > As I have shown in discussions with Phillips, how
> > race is defined is almost completely arbitrary and has little, if any,
> > meaning in biology or evolution.
>
> As is typical, you define race out of existence. I define race as:
>
> A lineal ethnic group. The basis of my society.
>
> It is meaningful to me.
Mud is meaningful to a worm. Oh, that's what you just said.
[deleted]
Arthur Ed LeBouthillier
On Sat, 30 May 1998 04:33:03 GMT, gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:
>> Don't forget the in-bred anti-racists too.
>
>Good point, Art. Thanks for the tip.
I always like to be helpful.
>How's your tan this year, Artie?
Pretty nice Gurdy.
>> Your multi-racial empire is largely meaningless to me. What little
>> meaning it does hold is entirely negative in my eyes.
>
>No one cares.
Sure they do.
>> It is meaningful to me.
>
>Mud is meaningful to a worm. Oh, that's what you just said.
Oh! Insinuations and innuendos! My feelings are just
so hurt.
14 Words,
Art LeBouthillier
Gord McFee
In <35700cf...@news.earthlink.net>, on Sat, 30 May 1998 13:45:27
GMT, apen...@earthlink.net.nospam (Arthur Ed LeBouthillier) wrote:
> On Sat, 30 May 1998 04:33:03 GMT, gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:
>
> >> Don't forget the in-bred anti-racists too.
> >
> >Good point, Art. Thanks for the tip.
>
> I always like to be helpful.
Undoubtedly.
> >How's your tan this year, Artie?
>
> Pretty nice Gurdy.
That's Gordie.
> >> Your multi-racial empire is largely meaningless to me. What little
> >> meaning it does hold is entirely negative in my eyes.
> >
> >No one cares.
>
> Sure they do.
Nope.
> >> It is meaningful to me.
> >
> >Mud is meaningful to a worm. Oh, that's what you just said.
>
> Oh! Insinuations and innuendos! My feelings are just
> so hurt.
Tough.
Arthur Ed LeBouthillier
On Sun, 31 May 1998 04:47:25 GMT, gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:
>> Oh! Insinuations and innuendos! My feelings are just
>> so hurt.
>
>Tough.
I sense a lot of hatred and hostility in your writings,
Gurdy. Please, can't we all just get along? :-)
14 Words,
Art
Phil Nation
In article <356d552...@news.earthlink.net>,
Arthur Ed LeBouthillier (apen...@earthlink.net.nospam) wrote:
: On Wed, 27 May 1998 23:33:24 -0500, ORA...@aol.com (ORAC) wrote:
: >>Don't forget the in-bred anti-racists too.
: >And where might they be found, pray tell?
: Every single anti-racist I've known is an in-bred half-wit.
Funny... I've never known Art to be an anti-racist... but then, he
didn't say one had to be in order to be a half-wit. Guess that explains
him...
: >So what? Just because it has "meaning" to *you* does not mean that it has
: >any real biological significance and it certainly does not make it an
: >acceptable or viable basis for a state.
: Biological significance? What's that supposed to mean? Is "biological
: significance" a term I can find in a biology book or is it some silly
: term you've made up?
Answer the question, Art. Don't dodge it like you usually do.
: >Here's a test: define white in a way that I can tell if someone is "white"
: >when I see him. At exactly WHAT shade of skin pigment does one cease to be
: >black, brown, red, or yellow and magically become "white"?
: No. I don't have to. The world is a weird and wonderful place and
: there are many things beyond my understanding.
Dodging again.
: >Therefore, I repeat: define "white" in such a way that I can tell
: > who is and is not "white."
: No.
Translation: I can't define what White is.
: First, there is no single factor that defines Whiteness. Whiteness,
: being a product of lineage is reflected in a pattern of traits.
Care to identify any of these traits?
: Second, even were I to say "Whiteness is characterized by
: traits A, B and C, you would still say you are unsatisfied since
: you really don't care about a definition. Your goal is not really
: to understand Whiteness, but to defame it.
False. Your goal is to defame anything non-White.
: Third, Whiteness is an ethnicity like any other.
No. Polish, Irish, Spanish, English, Canadian-French, and Parisian
French are examples of ethnicities (those are my ethnicities). "White"
is defined as a racial category, with political meaning attached to it,
even though there are no races among humans.
: >>It is meaningful to me.
: >Well yippee! An arbitrarily-defined concept is "meaningful" to you!
: >
: >I'm supposed to be impressed by this?
: Yes. I don't really care whether you are impressed or not. All
: concepts are "arbitrarily" defined.
Tell that to a mathematician, and he'll laugh for days on end.
: I don't accept your definition of American. An American is an
: ethnic nationality of certain White people in North America.
And here we see the core of Art's White supremacist beliefs summed
up all in one statement.
Phil Kasiecki
--
Philip T. Kasiecki
pkas...@ieee.org
http://lynx.dac.neu.edu/p/pkasieck/
"Life is not important except in the impact it has on others' lives."
-Jackie Robinson
Phil Nation
In article <356e028e...@news.earthlink.net>,
Arthur Ed LeBouthillier (apen...@earthlink.net.nospam) wrote:
: >Wrong. I'm positing that, in present-day U.S., whites still have
: >advantages/privileges not shared by non-whites.
: As we should.
False.
: > He has the "disadvantage" of being hassled because of his
: >color by whites who see him as a threat simply because of his color.
: Oh right, and we Whites are hassled because we're White.
Art, you really need to get out more, if you really believe that
non-Whites aren't discriminated against because of their skin color.
: >Bullshit. That is not what I said. I was simply pointing out that as a
: >white person, I don't have to put up with this kind of crap. Because he is
: >black, he does. I used this as an example.
: I don't know what you mean "put up with." Non-Whites have all manner
: of organizations which coddle and protect them from the slightest
: attack on their self-esteem. No such institutions are promoted for
: Whites.
It's obvious that Art doesn't know anything about these organizations.
This statement shows complete ignorance of them. It's too bad Art can't
come to NU for a panel discussion on them tomorrow...
Mind you, even with these organizations, non-Whites still face
discrimination day in and day out.
: >You conduct yourself very well for a Usenet discussion.
: You conduct yourself very well for a White hater.
...not realizing that Art is the White hater here...
: >Where in there did I mention a "right" not to have people dislike him? I
: >merely pointed out that they do and used that point in my discussion of
: >"white privilege" (or "advantage," if you prefer).
: Great. He does not have such a right and don't try to claim that he
: does. Since he doesn't have that right, he has no legitimate claim
: on me that I should treat him any way other than as the non-white
: he is.
You should treat him with the same respect you want to be treated
with. Period.
Arthur Ed LeBouthillier
On 31 May 1998 17:48:05 GMT, pkas...@coe.neu.edu (Phil Nation) wrote:
>In article <356e028e...@news.earthlink.net>,
>Arthur Ed LeBouthillier (apen...@earthlink.net.nospam) wrote:
>: On Thu, 28 May 1998 15:30:58 GMT, ORA...@aol.com (ORAC) wrote:
>: >Wrong. I'm positing that, in present-day U.S., whites still have
>: >advantages/privileges not shared by non-whites.
>
>: As we should.
>
> False.
False.
>: > He has the "disadvantage" of being hassled because of his
>: >color by whites who see him as a threat simply because of his color.
>
>: Oh right, and we Whites are hassled because we're White.
>
> Art, you really need to get out more, if you really believe that
>non-Whites aren't discriminated against because of their skin color.
Phil, you really need to get out more, if you really believe that
Whites aren't discriminated against because of the color of our skin.
> It's obvious that Art doesn't know anything about these organizations.
>This statement shows complete ignorance of them. It's too bad Art can't
>come to NU for a panel discussion on them tomorrow...
What's NU? If you want to pay for a plane ticket, I'd probably be very
willing to have a dialog.
> Mind you, even with these organizations, non-Whites still face
>discrimination day in and day out.
Good.
>: >You conduct yourself very well for a Usenet discussion.
>
>: You conduct yourself very well for a White hater.
>
> ...not realizing that Art is the White hater here...
Black is White and White is Black to you people, isn't it?
> You should treat him with the same respect you want to be treated
>with. Period.
Ditto.
14 Words,
Arthur LeBouthillier
Arthur Ed LeBouthillier
On 31 May 1998 17:41:06 GMT, pkas...@coe.neu.edu (Phil Nation) wrote:
> Funny... I've never known Art to be an anti-racist... but then, he
>didn't say one had to be in order to be a half-wit. Guess that explains
>him...
You're as funny as a fart in a spacesuit.
>: >So what? Just because it has "meaning" to *you* does not mean that it has
>: >any real biological significance and it certainly does not make it an
>: >acceptable or viable basis for a state.
>
>: Biological significance? What's that supposed to mean? Is "biological
>: significance" a term I can find in a biology book or is it some silly
>: term you've made up?
>
> Answer the question, Art. Don't dodge it like you usually do.
Which question? What business is it of yours? Who are you?
Answer these questions and don't dodge them.
>: No. I don't have to. The world is a weird and wonderful place and
>: there are many things beyond my understanding.
>
> Dodging again.
I don't do "bad premises." I am under no obligation to be the
sole answerer of every question he directs towards me. I will
answer questions when there is a "dialog" not a "diatribe."
>: >Therefore, I repeat: define "white" in such a way that I can tell
>: > who is and is not "white."
>
>: No.
>
> Translation: I can't define what White is.
>
>: First, there is no single factor that defines Whiteness. Whiteness,
>: being a product of lineage is reflected in a pattern of traits.
>
> Care to identify any of these traits?
No.
>: Second, even were I to say "Whiteness is characterized by
>: traits A, B and C, you would still say you are unsatisfied since
>: you really don't care about a definition. Your goal is not really
>: to understand Whiteness, but to defame it.
>
> False. Your goal is to defame anything non-White.
False. My goal is to secure the existence of my people
and a future for White children.
>: Third, Whiteness is an ethnicity like any other.
>
> No. Polish, Irish, Spanish, English, Canadian-French, and Parisian
>French are examples of ethnicities (those are my ethnicities). "White"
>is defined as a racial category, with political meaning attached to it,
>even though there are no races among humans.
Oh come on. You White haters can't get anything straight. First,
you say that race doesn't exist and then you say it does. Get
your act together.
Ethnicity is a cultural self-identity. That is what Whiteness is.
Race, by at least one of the recognized definitions is equivalent
to ethnicity. Therefore, as usual, you are wrong.
>: >>It is meaningful to me.
>
>: >Well yippee! An arbitrarily-defined concept is "meaningful" to you!
>: >
>: >I'm supposed to be impressed by this?
>
>: Yes. I don't really care whether you are impressed or not. All
>: concepts are "arbitrarily" defined.
>
> Tell that to a mathematician, and he'll laugh for days on end.
Get me a mathemetician who disagrees with me (and who is
reputable in the field) and we can address the issue. Until
then, it is merely a baseless accusation of yours.
> And here we see the core of Art's White supremacist beliefs summed
>up all in one statement.
Phil, I'm not a White supremacist; I am a White nationalist. I disavow
supremacist premises. I have stated publicly before and therefore you
are, as usual, lying.
14 Words,
Arthur LeBouthillier
Phil Nation
In article <3571cb4...@news.earthlink.net>,
Arthur Ed LeBouthillier (apen...@earthlink.net.nospam) wrote:
: > Funny... I've never known Art to be an anti-racist... but then, he
: >didn't say one had to be in order to be a half-wit. Guess that explains
: >him...
: You're as funny as a fart in a spacesuit.
Ad hominem remarks won't get you anywhere.
: >: >So what? Just because it has "meaning" to *you* does not mean that it
: >: >has any real biological significance and it certainly does not make
: >: >it an acceptable or viable basis for a state.
: >: Biological significance? What's that supposed to mean? Is "biological
: >: significance" a term I can find in a biology book or is it some silly
: >: term you've made up?
: > Answer the question, Art. Don't dodge it like you usually do.
: Which question?
I apologize; the question was implicit, because it was raised
elsewhere. What biological significance does race have among humans?
: What business is it of yours?
If you can't define it, your race-based assertions go out the window.
As an activist regarding this issue, I certainly care about it.
: Who are you?
Too vague a question to be answered here. Check out my homepage if
you want a summation on this.
: >: No. I don't have to. The world is a weird and wonderful place and
: >: there are many things beyond my understanding.
: > Dodging again.
: I don't do "bad premises." I am under no obligation to be the
: sole answerer of every question he directs towards me. I will
: answer questions when there is a "dialog" not a "diatribe."
Dodging again. In addition, Art, you don't allow for a dialogue.
You don't listen. That is a necessity for a dialogue.
: >: First, there is no single factor that defines Whiteness. Whiteness,
: >: being a product of lineage is reflected in a pattern of traits.
: > Care to identify any of these traits?
: No.
Must be because there aren't any.
: >: Third, Whiteness is an ethnicity like any other.
: > No. Polish, Irish, Spanish, English, Canadian-French, and Parisian
: >French are examples of ethnicities (those are my ethnicities). "White"
: >is defined as a racial category, with political meaning attached to it,
: >even though there are no races among humans.
: Oh come on. You White haters can't get anything straight.
Art, you have no business calling anyone a "White hater". Not to
mention, calling me one is greatly inaccurate. I know *EXACTLY* who I am,
and I am proud of who I am. As such, I don't hold prejudices against
those different from me, and can appreciate them for who they are. This is
not the case with you.
: First, you say that race doesn't exist and then you say it does. Get
: your act together.
Art, you are the one who needs to get your act together. You show
here, as you have before, that context is a foreign concept to you.
Race is not biological, not among humans anyway. It is a political
construct. This is clear from what I posted.
: Ethnicity is a cultural self-identity. That is what Whiteness is.
: Race, by at least one of the recognized definitions is equivalent
: to ethnicity. Therefore, as usual, you are wrong.
False. Race and ethnicity are not the same. As I said, race is a
political construct. Ethnicity is not.
: > And here we see the core of Art's White supremacist beliefs summed
: >up all in one statement.
: Phil, I'm not a White supremacist; I am a White nationalist. I disavow
: supremacist premises. I have stated publicly before and therefore you
: are, as usual, lying.
This is completely false. You may have stated that you aren't a White
supremacist, and that you disavow such premises, but your words in your
posts are what really tell the story.
Phil Nation
In article <3571cdf...@news.earthlink.net>,
Arthur Ed LeBouthillier (apen...@earthlink.net.nospam) wrote:
: >In article <356e028e...@news.earthlink.net>,
: >Arthur Ed LeBouthillier (apen...@earthlink.net.nospam) wrote:
: >: > He has the "disadvantage" of being hassled because of his
: >: >color by whites who see him as a threat simply because of his color.
: >: Oh right, and we Whites are hassled because we're White.
: > Art, you really need to get out more, if you really believe that
: >non-Whites aren't discriminated against because of their skin color.
: Phil, you really need to get out more, if you really believe that
: Whites aren't discriminated against because of the color of our skin.
Now, Art, would you care to show exactly where I said such a thing?
Or will you admit that you are lying once again?
Meantime, let me add this. Whites do get discriminated against; some
implementations of Affirmative Action do that (those in the form of
quotas); and to say that non-Whites can't be racist is ridiculous. But
this is nothing compared to what non-Whites experience. Answer these
questions:
How many times has a cop stopped you on the road, and tried his
best to come up with some reason to have pulled you over,
when you were simply driving along just fine? Furthermore,
how many times have you been beaten by a cop when you did
absolutely nothing but go about your business?
How many times have you gone into a store and had an employee
follow you around, despite the fact that you were simply
looking around, and did nothing to even remotely indicate
that you might be "up to no good"?
How many times has an empty cab passed you over, and picked up
someone just up the road?
There are more things than this; these are just the first ones that
come to mind.
: > It's obvious that Art doesn't know anything about these organizations.
: >This statement shows complete ignorance of them. It's too bad Art can't
: >come to NU for a panel discussion on them tomorrow...
: What's NU? If you want to pay for a plane ticket, I'd probably be very
: willing to have a dialog.
NU is Northeastern University. And frankly, I don't think you really
would be interested in a dialogue, at least if your posts on these
newsgroups illustrate anything. As I said before, you don't listen.
: > Mind you, even with these organizations, non-Whites still face
: >discrimination day in and day out.
: Good.
Why is that good? Needless to say, you missed my point (big shock)-
that these organizations alone haven't solved the problems, though you
seem to think that because they exist, everything is "all fine and dandy".
: >: >You conduct yourself very well for a Usenet discussion.
: >: You conduct yourself very well for a White hater.
: > ...not realizing that Art is the White hater here...
: Black is White and White is Black to you people, isn't it?
Hello H. Ross Perot... and Art, I stand by what I said. Your hatred
of people who aren't White- human beings just like yourself- and your
responses to Whites who have called you out for the White supremacist
that you are illustrate that you hate White people.
: > You should treat him with the same respect you want to be treated
: >with. Period.
: Ditto.
So you agree that everyone should be treated with respect? This isn't
enough; you need to put this into action, your money where your mouth is.
ORAC
>In <356cb92...@news.earthlink.net>, on Thu, 28 May 1998 01:13:31
>GMT, apen...@earthlink.net.nospam (Arthur Ed LeBouthillier) wrote:
>> As is typical, you define race out of existence. I define race as:
>>
>> A lineal ethnic group. The basis of my society.
>>
>> It is meaningful to me.
>
>Mud is meaningful to a worm. Oh, that's what you just said.
ROTFLMAO!
ORAC
In article <6ks54l$8kc$4...@isn.dac.neu.edu>, pkas...@coe.neu.edu (Phil
Nation) wrote:
>In article <356e028e...@news.earthlink.net>,
>: >Where in there did I mention a "right" not to have people dislike him? I
>: >merely pointed out that they do and used that point in my discussion of
>: >"white privilege" (or "advantage," if you prefer).
>
>: Great. He does not have such a right and don't try to claim that he
>: does. Since he doesn't have that right, he has no legitimate claim
>: on me that I should treat him any way other than as the non-white
>: he is.
>
> You should treat him with the same respect you want to be treated
>with. Period.
That is exactly what part of my point was: that as blacks, simply because
they are black, are treated with a great deal of disrespect compared to
those who are perceived as "white." For the most part, the people who do
this are not even aware that they are doing it or that they are the
beneficiaries of the advantages of being perceived as "white."
White nationalists will rail and rant about how supposedly whites are
marginalized and treated with disrespect, and that blacks and minorities
are marginalizing them, but I bet that there's not a single white
nationalist here who would trade places with ANY black person for even one
day.
ORAC
In article <6kub9u$fv0$1...@isn.dac.neu.edu>, pkas...@coe.neu.edu (Phil
Nation) wrote:
>In article <3571cb4...@news.earthlink.net>,
>Arthur Ed LeBouthillier (apen...@earthlink.net.nospam) wrote:
>: Which question?
>
> I apologize; the question was implicit, because it was raised
>elsewhere. What biological significance does race have among humans?
>
>: What business is it of yours?
>
> If you can't define it, your race-based assertions go out the window.
>As an activist regarding this issue, I certainly care about it.
No Aryan nationalist or racist I have ever encountered can demonstrate
with actual scientific evidence (pseudoscience doesn't count) that race
has any significant biological significance among humans--other than
melanin levels in a person's skin...
ORAC
In article <01bd8b72$9643cbc0$3777d9ce@lap-top>, "Jeff "
<zrce...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[Nothing of consequence other than a bunch of sarcastic comments that danced
around the point being made.]
Sorry you got yourself all in a snit over my post. However, despite all
your sarcasm, you seem to have missed the point, and all but a couple of
your counter-examples are completely ridiculous.
Read the post again, and maybe you'll get the point. It isn't too complicated.
Oh, BTW, enjoy your trip.
Gord McFee
In <35715e4...@news.earthlink.net>, on Sun, 31 May 1998 13:43:39
GMT, apen...@earthlink.net.nospam (Arthur Ed LeBouthillier) wrote:
Why sure we can. What are your terms, Deady-heady-Eddy?
> 14 Words,
Pass me another beer, I think i'm gonna fart before the pizza arrives.
Gord McFee
In <3571cb4...@news.earthlink.net>, on Sun, 31 May 1998 21:38:35
GMT, apen...@earthlink.net.nospam (Arthur Ed LeBouthillier) wrote:
> On 31 May 1998 17:41:06 GMT, pkas...@coe.neu.edu (Phil Nation) wrote:
>
> > Funny... I've never known Art to be an anti-racist... but then, he
> >didn't say one had to be in order to be a half-wit. Guess that explains
> >him...
>
> You're as funny as a fart in a spacesuit.
No, he's funnier. You are a fart in a spacesuit and he's much funnier
than you. Much more intelligent too.
I hope that wasn't too aggressive, Deady-Heady-Eddy.
[deleted]
> >: No. I don't have to. The world is a weird and wonderful place and
> >: there are many things beyond my understanding.
> >
> > Dodging again.
>
> I don't do "bad premises." I am under no obligation to be the
> sole answerer of every question he directs towards me. I will
> answer questions when there is a "dialog" not a "diatribe."
Run away....
> >: >Therefore, I repeat: define "white" in such a way that I can tell
> >: > who is and is not "white."
> >
> >: No.
> >
> > Translation: I can't define what White is.
> >
> >: First, there is no single factor that defines Whiteness. Whiteness,
> >: being a product of lineage is reflected in a pattern of traits.
> >
> > Care to identify any of these traits?
>
> No.
Run away.....
> >: Second, even were I to say "Whiteness is characterized by
> >: traits A, B and C, you would still say you are unsatisfied since
> >: you really don't care about a definition. Your goal is not really
> >: to understand Whiteness, but to defame it.
> >
> > False. Your goal is to defame anything non-White.
>
> False. My goal is to secure the existence of my people
> and a future for White children.
Pffffttttt.... ROTFL!
> >: Third, Whiteness is an ethnicity like any other.
> >
> > No. Polish, Irish, Spanish, English, Canadian-French, and Parisian
> >French are examples of ethnicities (those are my ethnicities). "White"
> >is defined as a racial category, with political meaning attached to it,
> >even though there are no races among humans.
>
> Oh come on. You White haters can't get anything straight. First,
> you say that race doesn't exist and then you say it does. Get
> your act together.
Run away.....
[deleted]
Arthur Ed LeBouthillier
On 1 Jun 1998 13:45:34 GMT, pkas...@coe.neu.edu (Phil Nation) wrote:
> Ad hominem remarks won't get you anywhere.
What's your point? It's not like your posts are absent of them. If you
can use them, so can I.
> I apologize; the question was implicit, because it was raised
>elsewhere. What biological significance does race have among humans?
Oh! I see, I'm supposed to have answered a question which you didn't
make! Yeah right.
>: Who are you?
>
> Too vague a question to be answered here. Check out my homepage if
>you want a summation on this.
I'd rather not thank you.
> Dodging again. In addition, Art, you don't allow for a dialogue.
>You don't listen. That is a necessity for a dialogue.
I am not dodging. I have a limited amount of time and effort and I
hardly want to waste it on you. However; I am willing to engage
in dialog with you if you would like to do that. However, again,
I have limited time and I will answer at a pace that I feel is
legitimate. Apparently, unlike you, I have a full-time job and
I occassionally check out the newsgroups.
>: >: First, there is no single factor that defines Whiteness. Whiteness,
>: >: being a product of lineage is reflected in a pattern of traits.
>
>: > Care to identify any of these traits?
>
>: No.
>
> Must be because there aren't any.
It's because of several factors. One of them is my time and
effort and the apparent gain I would receive in answering
your questions.
> Art, you have no business calling anyone a "White hater". Not to
>mention, calling me one is greatly inaccurate.
I have every business to call you a White hater because that is what
you are. Yes; that is an ad-hominem but it is also an accurate
portrayal of what you are. That you deny that truth doesn't make it
any less true.
> I know *EXACTLY* who I am, and I am proud of who I am. As such,
> I don't hold prejudices against those different from me, and can
> appreciate them for who they are. This is not the case with you.
Great. I know exactly who I am and I am proud of who I am. I don't
pretend that I don't hold prejudices against those different from me
because I know it is impossible. Yes, Phil, even you have prejudices.
Additionally, I can tell you right now that you understand very little
about me to be making statements of the nature you just made.
> Art, you are the one who needs to get your act together. You show
> here, as you have before, that context is a foreign concept to you.
Was that another of your "implied" statements?
I assure you I understand context very well. I have spent many
years studying languages both natural and computational. I have
implemented several programs which are able to do context-sensitive
parsing of natural languages and I understand what context is and
how it works.
> Race is not biological, not among humans anyway. It is a political
> construct. This is clear from what I posted.
Race is both biological and ethnological. Just because you say
otherwise doesn't make it true. I challenge you to prove your
statement that "Race is not biological, not among humans anyway.
It is a political construct." Please, PROVE this. Do you know anything
about proofs? I assure you, being a previous math major and student
of artificial intelligence that I understand proofs. I challenge you
to make a valid proof.
>: Ethnicity is a cultural self-identity. That is what Whiteness is.
>: Race, by at least one of the recognized definitions is equivalent
>: to ethnicity. Therefore, as usual, you are wrong.
>
> False. Race and ethnicity are not the same. As I said, race is a
>political construct. Ethnicity is not.
I don't care what you said. You are not my dictionary. You can define
all manner of things and I am under no obligation to accept your
definitions. Just because YOU claim that race is a political construct
doesn't make it true. Finally, what *I* mean by race may not be the
same as you mean.
>: Phil, I'm not a White supremacist; I am a White nationalist. I disavow
>: supremacist premises. I have stated publicly before and therefore you
>: are, as usual, lying.
>
> This is completely false. You may have stated that you aren't a White
>supremacist, and that you disavow such premises, but your words in your
>posts are what really tell the story.
Phil, in legitimate debate there is a standard of proof which requires
that he who makes the positive statement is obligated to prove it.
You claim that my words in my posts "really tell the story." Please,
using words and passages from my posts, prove your statement.
Please, show some intellectual honesty.
14 Words,
Art LeBouthillier
Arthur Ed LeBouthillier
On Mon, 1 Jun 1998 16:09:58 GMT, ORA...@aol.com (ORAC) wrote:
>No Aryan nationalist or racist I have ever encountered can demonstrate
>with actual scientific evidence (pseudoscience doesn't count) that race
>has any significant biological significance among humans--other than
>melanin levels in a person's skin...
I don't think you would understand what "scientific" proof is.
Additionally, I have repeatedly denied that melanin levels in a
person's skin is the basis of my racism. Therefore, again, you
make baseless and false accusations.
Let me address this issue roughly. This is not intended to be
my final word on the issue, but then again, you won't hear my
final word because you're not worth my effort.
However, let me make merely one statement regarding, "significant
biological significance." Something is biologically significant when
it aids the propagation of genes. Do you disagree with this?
Therefore, there are a whole number of things which you might
feel are wrong, but which are nonetheless "biologically significant."
Biologists have found, for example, that infanticide is a
"biologically significant" behavior among many animals since it
results in the propagation of genes more effectively. Do you
understand the meaning of "biological significance" in this
context?
Therefore, racism, whether as an innate behavioral trait or as
a socially-learned behavior is biologically significant since it
often promotes a whole manner of "biologically significant"
behaviors. Do you disagree with this?
14 Words,
Arthur LeBouthillier
Arthur Ed LeBouthillier
On Mon, 01 Jun 1998 21:36:09 GMT, gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:
>No, he's funnier. You are a fart in a spacesuit and he's much funnier
>than you. Much more intelligent too.
>
>I hope that wasn't too aggressive, Deady-Heady-Eddy.
Gurdy, my one-year-old nephew demonstrates greater reasoning prowess
than you.
>> I don't do "bad premises." I am under no obligation to be the
>> sole answerer of every question he directs towards me. I will
>> answer questions when there is a "dialog" not a "diatribe."
>
>Run away....
No Gordy, you're not worth my time. You are insignificant. I don't
want to waste too much of my time on people who aren't capable
of learning (that's you in case you haven't figured it out).
>Run away.....
Gordy, if you had a point, you'd probably stab yourself with it.
>> Oh come on. You White haters can't get anything straight. First,
>> you say that race doesn't exist and then you say it does. Get
>> your act together.
>
>Run away.....
Please, Gordy, please.
14 words,
Arthur Ed LeBouthillier
Arthur Ed LeBouthillier
On Mon, 1 Jun 1998 14:20:04 GMT, ORA...@aol.com (ORAC) wrote:
>That is exactly what part of my point was: that as blacks, simply because
>they are black, are treated with a great deal of disrespect compared to
>those who are perceived as "white."
I disagree with you.
> For the most part, the people who do this are not even aware that they are
> doing it or that they are the beneficiaries of the advantages of being
> perceived as "white."
Hmmm...I see the problem. It WOULD be better if they did it with a
conscious realization that they were doing it.
>White nationalists will rail and rant about how supposedly whites are
>marginalized and treated with disrespect, and that blacks and minorities
>are marginalizing them, but I bet that there's not a single white
>nationalist here who would trade places with ANY black person for even one
>day.
I certainly wouldn't want to. Anti-racists rail and rant about how
we're supposed to hate being what we are. We don't. I like being
White, White is good, and non-White is bad. I don't want to do
anything bad.
14 Words,
Arthur LeBouthillier
Arthur Ed LeBouthillier
On 1 Jun 1998 14:06:56 GMT, pkas...@coe.neu.edu (Phil Nation) wrote:
>: >: Oh right, and we Whites are hassled because we're White.
>
>: > Art, you really need to get out more, if you really believe that
>: >non-Whites aren't discriminated against because of their skin color.
>
>: Phil, you really need to get out more, if you really believe that
>: Whites aren't discriminated against because of the color of our skin.
>
> Now, Art, would you care to show exactly where I said such a thing?
>Or will you admit that you are lying once again?
Phil, you appear completely incapable of making reasonable
conclusions. I was parodying you because you made a baseless
accusation. Where have I ever said that non-Whites weren't
discriminated against because of their skin? Please, show me.
I was parodying you because ***** YOU ******* made a strawman
argument. You throw terms around as if you understand what they
mean but it is obvious that you don't because you don't seem to
be able to recognize those behaviors in yourself.
However, it is my position that Whites have a right to discriminate
against non-whites and that it is a violation of our rights to deny
it.
> Meantime, let me add this. Whites do get discriminated against; some
>implementations of Affirmative Action do that (those in the form of
>quotas); and to say that non-Whites can't be racist is ridiculous.
> But this is nothing compared to what non-Whites experience.
I don't care what non-Whites experience. But as you conceded,
Whites do get discriminated against.
>Answer these questions:
>
> How many times has a cop stopped you on the road, and tried his
> best to come up with some reason to have pulled you over,
> when you were simply driving along just fine? Furthermore,
> how many times have you been beaten by a cop when you did
> absolutely nothing but go about your business?
Never, because I am careful about abiding by laws. However, many of
my White friends (previous friends) have been stopped under those
circumstances. My cousin was beaten by the LAPD; several of my
friends have been beaten by police (P.S. all of my friends are White).
> How many times have you gone into a store and had an employee
> follow you around, despite the fact that you were simply
> looking around, and did nothing to even remotely indicate
> that you might be "up to no good"?
A store owner has a right to observe people within their premises.
Are you saying that they don't?
> How many times has an empty cab passed you over, and picked up
> someone just up the road?
Several times. However, I recognize as legitimate the desire of taxi
drivers to not pick up whomever they choose.
> There are more things than this; these are just the first ones that
>come to mind.
I don't care. Discrimation of that sort is legitimate to me. I dont'
care if you (or the non-whites) don't like.
> NU is Northeastern University. And frankly, I don't think you really
>would be interested in a dialogue, at least if your posts on these
>newsgroups illustrate anything. As I said before, you don't listen.
You wouldn't know what a dialog was if it hit you in the face.
>: > Mind you, even with these organizations, non-Whites still face
>: >discrimination day in and day out.
>: Good.
> Why is that good?
Because anything that leads to the dissolution of this multi-racial
empire is good.
> Needless to say, you missed my point (big shock)-
>that these organizations alone haven't solved the problems, though you
>seem to think that because they exist, everything is "all fine and dandy".
I don't see a problem. A "problem" is a subjective thing. I don't
share your values and your "problems" are often the things that
I see as solutions.
> Hello H. Ross Perot... and Art, I stand by what I said.
Hello Jesse Jackson....and Phil. I stand by what I said. Your hatred
of us Whites blinds your ability to reason. I don't care if they're
humans like myself (because they're not alike enough).
> Your hatred of people who aren't White- human beings just like yourself-
> and your responses to Whites who have called you out for the White
> supremacist that you are illustrate that you hate White people.
I hate you but it isn't because you're white (in fact, you're not).
I hate you because you're a non-White supremacist.
>: > You should treat him with the same respect you want to be treated
>: >with. Period.
>
>: Ditto.
>
> So you agree that everyone should be treated with respect?
No.
> This isn't enough; you need to put this into action, your money where your mouth is.
I don't agree with you.
14 Words,
Arthur LeBouthillier
Jeff Yale
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Phil Nation <pkas...@coe.neu.edu> wrote in article
>
> How many times has a cop stopped you on the road, and tried his
> best to come up with some reason to have pulled you over,
> when you were simply driving along just fine.
Whoa, wonderful stereotypical "We are not White, look how racist the US
is...here's a guilt trip for you."
Couldn't you come up with, "How many times have your churches been burned
down?"
Or, "How many times have you been denied being seated in a Denny's?"
> Furthermore,
> how many times have you been beaten by a cop when you did
> absolutely nothing but go about your business?
That's a good one also. Non-Whites always get beat up by that
stereotypical White police officer.
>
> How many times have you gone into a store and had an employee
> follow you around, despite the fact that you were simply
> looking around, and did nothing to even remotely indicate
> that you might be "up to no good"?
Yippy! That one works all the time! Guilt trip away.
A sub topic of that topic:
Is that why Black hair care products are 5 times more likely to be marked
with "security magnetic tags" than White hair care products?
Should we have equal "security" on all products even though the products
don't statistically have the same rate of theft? Or perhaps a "Non-White"
should not have to go through the tag detectors since that might be
considered racist.
>
> How many times has an empty cab passed you over, and picked up
> someone just up the road?
>
Should the cab drivers have this discretion?
Remember, depending on which city you live in, most cab drivers are not
White. Are they racists against their own brothers?
As if you were a cab driver you would want to pick up someone that look
like they would rob you. You truly are enlightened!
In fact pizza stores don't deliver to certain communities because of the
high crime rate. Some pizza stores have been taken to court because of
"discrimination", but they showed that their drivers were at a MUCH higher
risk of being shot, stabbed, and robbed. There you go Phil....you should
open up a pizza shop in the middle of Compton and Harlem. You can call it
"Enlightened Pizza".
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.5
iQA/AwUBNXOJPOj+u3lLQubBEQJq9QCeMH1nzxlmKP7n8fh2uxEuceZhN50AoPnC
H6dVCwAHhog1rYBIJ8RN3FGG
=YEHi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Philip Kasiecki
In article <01bd8de4$e0b72200$a6fc1fcc@lap-top>,
Jeff Yale (zrce...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Phil Nation <pkas...@coe.neu.edu> wrote in article
: > best to come up with some reason to have pulled you over,
: > when you were simply driving along just fine.
: Whoa, wonderful stereotypical "We are not White, look how racist the US
: is...here's a guilt trip for you."
A guilt trip has nothing to do with this Jeff. The truth of the
matter is what I'm interested in.
: > Furthermore, how many times have you been beaten by a cop
: > when you did absolutely nothing but go about your business?
: That's a good one also. Non-Whites always get beat up by that
: stereotypical White police officer.
Jeff, you have a serious reading problem. I posed a question, for
one thing; and in addition, I never have, and never will, say that this
*always* happens to people who aren't White. I know plenty of Blacks
personally who have never experienced this.
: > How many times have you gone into a store and had an employee
: > follow you around, despite the fact that you were simply
: > looking around, and did nothing to even remotely indicate
: > that you might be "up to no good"?
: Yippy! That one works all the time! Guilt trip away.
And Jeff continues to dodge the subject.
: A sub topic of that topic:
: Is that why Black hair care products are 5 times more likely to be marked
: with "security magnetic tags" than White hair care products?
I'd be interested in the source of this.
: Should we have equal "security" on all products even though the products
: don't statistically have the same rate of theft? Or perhaps a "Non-White"
: should not have to go through the tag detectors since that might be
: considered racist.
Your question doesn't follow. *EVERYONE* should have to go through
a tag detector. I have never said or implied otherwise. If you say I
have, then you have a serious reading problem.
: > How many times has an empty cab passed you over, and picked up
: > someone just up the road?
: Should the cab drivers have this discretion?
Plenty of Black people can tell stories of being passed up even in
broad daylight and dressed in a suit as though going to or coming from
an important business engagement.
: Remember, depending on which city you live in, most cab drivers are not
: White. Are they racists against their own brothers?
If they do it because of the race of the person, yes. Blacks aren't
immune from racism, including against their own- just as Whites like you
aren't immune from being racist against other Whites.
: In fact pizza stores don't deliver to certain communities because of the
: high crime rate. Some pizza stores have been taken to court because of
: "discrimination", but they showed that their drivers were at a MUCH higher
: risk of being shot, stabbed, and robbed. There you go Phil....you
: should open up a pizza shop in the middle of Compton and Harlem. You
: can call it "Enlightened Pizza".
The point, Jeff, is if this is done because of race. There are
parts of my home city, Chelsea, that I would never want to be at night,
and they include very White parts of the city. But my reason is not race;
it is what goes on in those parts, just like with areas of the city where
many Latino/as reside, and where I would never want to be.
Of course, I'll fare a little better in my career than starting a
pizza shop...
ORAC
In article <357360d3...@news.earthlink.net>,
apen...@earthlink.net.nospam (Arthur Ed LeBouthillier) wrote:
>On Mon, 1 Jun 1998 14:20:04 GMT, ORA...@aol.com (ORAC) wrote:
>
>>That is exactly what part of my point was: that as blacks, simply because
>>they are black, are treated with a great deal of disrespect compared to
>>those who are perceived as "white."
>
>I disagree with you.
Yippee. I'm supposed to be impressed by this?
>> For the most part, the people who do this are not even aware that they are
>> doing it or that they are the beneficiaries of the advantages of being
>> perceived as "white."
>
>Hmmm...I see the problem. It WOULD be better if they did it with a
>conscious realization that they were doing it.
Of course. That would suit you, wouldn't it?
>>White nationalists will rail and rant about how supposedly whites are
>>marginalized and treated with disrespect, and that blacks and minorities
>>are marginalizing them, but I bet that there's not a single white
>>nationalist here who would trade places with ANY black person for even one
>>day.
>
>I certainly wouldn't want to. Anti-racists rail and rant about how
>we're supposed to hate being what we are. We don't. I like being
>White, White is good, and non-White is bad. I don't want to do
>anything bad.
Then why are you such a racist?
In any case, you're again twisting the point around. I never said that
"white" is not good and "non-white" is good. Neither are any better than
the other, nor should they be. Unfortunately, you don't seem to comprehend
that simple truth. You also seem unable to understand that being non-white
is a big disadvantage in this country and being white is a significant
advantage. Even affirmative action did not change that.
Phil Nation
In article <357360d3...@news.earthlink.net>,
Arthur Ed LeBouthillier (apen...@earthlink.net.nospam) wrote:
: On Mon, 1 Jun 1998 14:20:04 GMT, ORA...@aol.com (ORAC) wrote:
: >That is exactly what part of my point was: that as blacks, simply because
: >they are black, are treated with a great deal of disrespect compared to
: >those who are perceived as "white."
: I disagree with you.
Well, Art, you haven't lived in a Black man's shoes, so I guess you
wouldn't know what it's like.
: > For the most part, the people who do this are not even aware that they are
: > doing it or that they are the beneficiaries of the advantages of being
: > perceived as "white."
: Hmmm...I see the problem. It WOULD be better if they did it with a
: conscious realization that they were doing it.
No. That many aren't aware of it is a problem in trying to address
the issue, because many of those folks will deny it.
: Anti-racists rail and rant about how we're supposed to hate being what
: we are.
Once again, Art, you are wrong.
: White is good, and non-White is bad.
Here is just more proof of your White supremacist beliefs.
(Don't worry, I've got more to follow on this, after my project
presentation coming up in about a half hour.)
Michael Ejercito
In article <356e028e...@news.earthlink.net>,
apen...@earthlink.net.nospam (Arthur Ed LeBouthillier) wrote:
> On Thu, 28 May 1998 15:30:58 GMT, ORA...@aol.com (ORAC) wrote:
> > He has the "disadvantage" of being hassled because of his
> >color by whites who see him as a threat simply because of his color.
>
> Oh right, and we Whites are hassled because we're White.
> Bullshit. Every opportunity is used to re-educate and sensitize us.
> Every opportunity is used to belittle our society and us as
> individuals. Every opportunity is taken to use our own tax dollars to
> advance the interests of non-Whites. Every opportunity is taken to
> attempt to make Whites feel guilty and give up their society to
> foreigners.
Do you have any proof of this? or is this just a "Joo media konspiracy"?
> >Whites generally don't have to put up with this kind of crap, because most
> >people, whether they admit it or not, tend to view whites in a more benign
> >way and blacks with suspicion. In that, there is a large inherent
> >"advantage" or "privilege" to being white.
>
> Bullshit. I've been through a myriad of institutions in this country
> in which, because I was a White, I was forced to put up with all
> manner of defamation, accusations and bullshit. When I was in
> sixth grade I was called a Nazi by my school teacher because I
> dared say that the U.S. Gov't should enforce its immigration laws.
Well,your teacher was absolutely right,although supporting the
enforcement of immigration laws is not a good reason for saying that.
> >Bullshit. That is not what I said. I was simply pointing out that as a
> >white person, I don't have to put up with this kind of crap. Because he is
> >black, he does. I used this as an example.
>
> I don't know what you mean "put up with." Non-Whites have all manner
> of organizations which coddle and protect them from the slightest
> attack on their self-esteem. No such institutions are promoted for
> Whites. All I have to do is say "nigger" in public and it is quite
> likely that I will be investigated by the gov't.
>
> >You conduct yourself very well for a Usenet discussion.
>
> You conduct yourself very well for a White hater.
You are the one who is full of hate.
Michael
Elect Dan Lungren for Governor of California
_
Michael Ejercito
In article <357360d3...@news.earthlink.net>,
apen...@earthlink.net.nospam (Arthur Ed LeBouthillier) wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Jun 1998 14:20:04 GMT, ORA...@aol.com (ORAC) wrote:
>
> >That is exactly what part of my point was: that as blacks, simply because
> >they are black, are treated with a great deal of disrespect compared to
> >those who are perceived as "white."
>
> I disagree with you.
>
> > For the most part, the people who do this are not even aware that they are
> > doing it or that they are the beneficiaries of the advantages of being
> > perceived as "white."
>
> Hmmm...I see the problem. It WOULD be better if they did it with a
> conscious realization that they were doing it.
>
> >White nationalists will rail and rant about how supposedly whites are
> >marginalized and treated with disrespect, and that blacks and minorities
> >are marginalizing them, but I bet that there's not a single white
> >nationalist here who would trade places with ANY black person for even one
> >day.
>
> I certainly wouldn't want to. Anti-racists rail and rant about how
> we're supposed to hate being what we are. We don't. I like being
> White, White is good, and non-White is bad. I don't want to do
> anything bad.
if you liked yourself,Art,then you would not be hating other people on
the basis of superficial differences.
Michael Ejercito
In article <01bd8db7$78e2c120$ef3ae6cf@default>, "Alex Vange"
<va...@i1.net> wrote:
> Phil Nation <pkas...@coe.neu.edu> wrote in article
> <6kub9u$fv0$1...@isn.dac.neu.edu>...
> > elsewhere. What biological significance does race have among humans?
>
> Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
You mean the Mein Kampf written by Adolf Hitler?
Alex Vange
Phil Nation <pkas...@coe.neu.edu> wrote in article
<6kuci0$hf8$1...@isn.dac.neu.edu>...
Meantime, let me add this. Whites do get discriminated against; some
> implementations of Affirmative Action do that (those in the form of
> quotas); and to say that non-Whites can't be racist is ridiculous. But
> this is nothing compared to what non-Whites experience. Answer these
> questions:
>
> How many times has a cop stopped you on the road, and tried his
> best to come up with some reason to have pulled you over,
> when you were simply driving along just fine? Furthermore,
> how many times have you been beaten by a cop when you did
> absolutely nothing but go about your business?
>
> How many times have you gone into a store and had an employee
> follow you around, despite the fact that you were simply
> looking around, and did nothing to even remotely indicate
> that you might be "up to no good"?
>
> How many times has an empty cab passed you over, and picked up
> someone just up the road?
>
> There are more things than this; these are just the first ones that
> come to mind.
Since Blacks are responsible for most of the crime, I don't have
any problem with any of the above. If the Blacks were innocent it is bad
that they were hassled, but this must take second place to fighting crime.
I am for racial separation. This would solve all the problems above.
Why wouldn't Blacks want their own nation? Is it because they don't want to
live with other Blacks?
Arthur Ed LeBouthillier
On Tue, 2 Jun 1998 13:50:13 GMT, ORA...@aol.com (ORAC) wrote:
>>I disagree with you.
>
>Yippee. I'm supposed to be impressed by this?
I don't give a rat's ass if you're impressed. It was
a simple statement of fact.
>>Hmmm...I see the problem. It WOULD be better if they did it with a
>>conscious realization that they were doing it.
>
>Of course. That would suit you, wouldn't it?
Yes, it would.
>>I certainly wouldn't want to. Anti-racists rail and rant about how
>>we're supposed to hate being what we are. We don't. I like being
>>White, White is good, and non-White is bad. I don't want to do
>>anything bad.
>
>Then why are you such a racist?
Because racism is good.
>In any case, you're again twisting the point around. I never said that
>"white" is not good and "non-white" is good.
Now you're twisting what I said. I never said you said that.
>Neither are any better than the other, nor should they be. Unfortunately, you
> don't seem to comprehend that simple truth.
That's not truth as I know it.
>You also seem unable to understand that being non-white
>is a big disadvantage in this country and being white is a significant
>advantage. Even affirmative action did not change that.
You don't know what I understand. In fact, I used to be pretty
liberal (somewhat anti-racist when I was younger as well). Now,
I'm smarter and more realistic. I've grown up and become a
racist.
14 Words,
Arthur LeBouthillier
Arthur Ed LeBouthillier
On 2 Jun 1998 16:56:13 GMT, pkas...@coe.neu.edu (Phil Nation) wrote:
> Well, Art, you haven't lived in a Black man's shoes, so I guess you
>wouldn't know what it's like.
Please! Enough of your childish jingoism. YOU can't walk in a Black
man's shoes.
>: Hmmm...I see the problem. It WOULD be better if they did it with a
>: conscious realization that they were doing it.
>
> No. That many aren't aware of it is a problem in trying to address
>the issue, because many of those folks will deny it.
I agree. They should be conscious racists. That is much better.
>: Anti-racists rail and rant about how we're supposed to hate being what
>: we are.
>
> Once again, Art, you are wrong.
No, once again, you are.
>: White is good, and non-White is bad.
>
> Here is just more proof of your White supremacist beliefs.
> (Don't worry, I've got more to follow on this, after my project
>presentation coming up in about a half hour.)
That you disagree with me is proof of your non-White supremacism.
14 words,
Arthur LeBouthillier
ORAC
In article <35749c0...@news.earthlink.net>,
apen...@earthlink.net.nospam (Arthur Ed LeBouthillier) wrote:
>On Tue, 2 Jun 1998 13:50:13 GMT, ORA...@aol.com (ORAC) wrote:
>>Then why are you such a racist?
>
>Because racism is good.
And right is wrong, too, I suppose.
>>In any case, you're again twisting the point around. I never said that
>>"white" is not good and "non-white" is good.
>
>Now you're twisting what I said. I never said you said that.
At the very minimum, you certainly implied it.
>>Neither are any better than the other, nor should they be. Unfortunately, you
>> don't seem to comprehend that simple truth.
>
>That's not truth as I know it.
And why might that be?
>>You also seem unable to understand that being non-white
>>is a big disadvantage in this country and being white is a significant
>>advantage. Even affirmative action did not change that.
>
>You don't know what I understand. In fact, I used to be pretty
>liberal (somewhat anti-racist when I was younger as well). Now,
>I'm smarter and more realistic. I've grown up and become a
>racist.
I'd hardly call that "growing up" so much as "dumbing down."
--
ORA...@aol.com ACCEPTS E-MAIL ONLY FROM FAMILY AND FRIENDS.
TO REPLY TO THIS BY E-MAIL, USE dgorski(at)xsite(dot)net!
ORAC |"A statement of fact cannot be
a.k.a. David Gorski | insolent" ORAC
Arthur Ed LeBouthillier
On Wed, 03 Jun 1998 01:37:06 GMT, ORA...@aol.com (ORAC) wrote:
>>Because racism is good.
>
>And right is wrong, too, I suppose.
No. Right is wrong. Racism is good and good is also
that which benefits the White nation.
>At the very minimum, you certainly implied it.
That's your claim, not mine.
>>That's not truth as I know it.
>
>And why might that be?
Good is that which serves the White nation.
>>You don't know what I understand. In fact, I used to be pretty
>>liberal (somewhat anti-racist when I was younger as well). Now,
>>I'm smarter and more realistic. I've grown up and become a
>>racist.
>
>I'd hardly call that "growing up" so much as "dumbing down."
I don't think you're qualified to form that kind of opinion, because
you are ignorant.
14 words,
Arthur LeBouthillier
Ian McKinney
Phil Nation
In article <01bd8e86$2c76ffc0$LocalHost@default>,
Alex Vange (va...@i1.net) wrote:
: Phil Nation <pkas...@coe.neu.edu> wrote in article
: <6kuci0$hf8$1...@isn.dac.neu.edu>...
: Meantime, let me add this. Whites do get discriminated against; some
: > implementations of Affirmative Action do that (those in the form of
: > quotas); and to say that non-Whites can't be racist is ridiculous. But
: > this is nothing compared to what non-Whites experience. Answer these
: > questions:
: >
: > How many times has a cop stopped you on the road, and tried his
: > best to come up with some reason to have pulled you over,
: > when you were simply driving along just fine? Furthermore,
: > how many times have you been beaten by a cop when you did
: > absolutely nothing but go about your business?
: >
: > How many times have you gone into a store and had an employee
: > follow you around, despite the fact that you were simply
: > looking around, and did nothing to even remotely indicate
: > that you might be "up to no good"?
: >
: > How many times has an empty cab passed you over, and picked up
: > someone just up the road?
: >
: > There are more things than this; these are just the first ones that
: > come to mind.
: Since Blacks are responsible for most of the crime, I don't have
: any problem with any of the above. If the Blacks were innocent it is bad
: that they were hassled, but this must take second place to fighting crime.
It's not fighting crime if this happened when they were merely minding
their own business.
If a cop stops someone who is driving under the speed limit, and not
driving dangerously in any way, it's not "fighting crime".
If someone is simply looking at items in a store, shadowing him/her
around throughout their trip in the store is not "fighting crime".
Passing up someone on account of their skin color is not "fighting
crime", especially considering that cab drivers don't have the authority
to arrest anyone.
Let me share a story that I heard in my Race and Social Identity course
this past quarter, by a biracial woman from Maine. One day, she and a White
friend of hers got stopped by a cop. Her friend was driving the car, and
thus the officer asked her to get out of the car and talked to her. He
proceeded to ask her if that was a Black girl in the car with her. When
she replied in the affirmative, he ordered her out as well, and searched
the car.
This story is not unlike countless other ones I've heard. It doesn't
happen to every Black person; but that it happens at all is a problem. It
would be one thing if there was a good reason to stop someone on the road
(driving very fast, unsafe lane changing, etc.), or to shadow someone in a
store (the person has a lot of bags on hand, or exhibits any behavior that
may raise a red flag). It's another thing to do something like this just
because of the person's skin color.
You are basically condoning people acting on prejudices they hold.
: I am for racial separation. This would solve all the problems above.
It would solve it on one level; and in addition, this solution is at
the cost of giving in to ignorance.
: Why wouldn't Blacks want their own nation? Is it because they don't want
: to live with other Blacks?
This is STUPID. Even in a diverse nation, Blacks CAN live with other
Blacks. Did you ever think of that one?
Many Black people I know personally don't care about the skin color
of those they associate/work/live with; they only care that the people
are decent people, and that treat them with the same respect they want to
be treated.
Phil Nation
In article <3573589c...@news.earthlink.net>,
Arthur Ed LeBouthillier (apen...@earthlink.net.nospam) wrote:
: >: Who are you?
: > Too vague a question to be answered here. Check out my homepage if
: >you want a summation on this.
: I'd rather not thank you.
You wanted an answer to the question, and I supplied one (though it's
admittedly not a direct answer, just one that I think can be better
answered through consulting my homepage, since it is a reflection of me).
: > Dodging again. In addition, Art, you don't allow for a dialogue.
: >You don't listen. That is a necessity for a dialogue.
: I am not dodging. I have a limited amount of time and effort and I
: hardly want to waste it on you.
Dodging.
: Apparently, unlike you, I have a full-time job and I occassionally
: check out the newsgroups.
In a few weeks, when I return to Cognex Corporation, I'll have that
in common with you. Right now, finals and a project are my main concern,
not to mention my duty as a resident assistant.
: >: >: First, there is no single factor that defines Whiteness. Whiteness,
: >: >: being a product of lineage is reflected in a pattern of traits.
: >: > Care to identify any of these traits?
: >: No.
: > Must be because there aren't any.
: It's because of several factors. One of them is my time and
: effort and the apparent gain I would receive in answering
: your questions.
Or is it because you can't answer them? Come on, Art. You made the
claim that there are traits of Whiteness, why can't you identify them?
: > Art, you have no business calling anyone a "White hater". Not to
: >mention, calling me one is greatly inaccurate.
: I have every business to call you a White hater because that is what
: you are. Yes; that is an ad-hominem but it is also an accurate
: portrayal of what you are. That you deny that truth doesn't make it
: any less true.
Art, I know we live in a digital world (for those reading this post
who aren't initiated, it means a case of things being 1/0, one or the other/
nothing in between, etc.), but you carry it to extremes. Perhaps you're
unaware that
a) Analog is not dead
b) The fact is that just about everything is not black and white,
but has gray area, and usually the gray area *IS* the issue.
I'll address your silly idea that I am a White hater, when you are
the hater, below.
: > I know *EXACTLY* who I am, and I am proud of who I am. As such,
: > I don't hold prejudices against those different from me, and can
: > appreciate them for who they are. This is not the case with you.
: Great. I know exactly who I am and I am proud of who I am.
This is false. Otherwise, you would be able to accept other people
who are different from you, as well as those like you.
This is reflected in your White supremacist views (which I'll outline
below where you ask for evidence of them), as well as your calling any
White person who calls you out for the White supremacist hater that you
are a "White hater". In your mind, it is either one or the other; if a
person agrees with you and subscribes to White supremacy, they are good;
if they disagree, they are a White hater.
You really need to examine your identity, Art. Try reading Janet E.
Helms' book regarding a model for it, entitled "Black and White Racial
Identity: Theory, Research and Practice" (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press,
1990). Based on your posts, you hold a negative model for White identity-
that the only model is one of believing in White supremacy, which is the
same idea held by, among others, the New Abolitionists. You believe that
Whiteness is all about privilege. Sorry, Art, it's not. (Exactly why I
do not support the New Abolitionists; I believe there can be a positive
White identity.) I know that being of European descent is not all about
feeling that I'm superior to others, and that I should treat those
different from me as though they are less than I am.
: I don't pretend that I don't hold prejudices against those different from
: me because I know it is impossible. Yes, Phil, even you have prejudices.
I'll admit, you got me there. I've even admitted this before, so I'll
take that back. What I will say is that I don't act on those prejudices,
as you do.
: Additionally, I can tell you right now that you understand very little
: about me to be making statements of the nature you just made.
In that case, the same goes for you and the statements you make about
me, Mr. Hypocrite.
: > Art, you are the one who needs to get your act together. You show
: > here, as you have before, that context is a foreign concept to you.
: Was that another of your "implied" statements?
:
: I assure you I understand context very well.
Your posts show otherwise. Your snipping part of this doesn't help
your cause, since you snipped the part where your inability to understand
context was evident.
I originally said:
: >"White" is defined as a racial category, with political meaning
: >attached to it, even though there are no races among humans.
The context of the word "race" was perfectly clear- it was perfectly
clear that I was discussing race as a political construct, and I always
make it clear that when I say race doesn't exist among humans, it is in a
biological context. That you miss the distinction is not my fault.
: I have spent many years studying languages both natural and
: computational.
Damn, Art. You and I could have been a dynamic team that could have
made great compilers to make programming so much easier (one of my
research interests is compilers, and I'm hoping to take a close look at
them during this next co-op during my spare time, and possibly do some
research in graduate school). Oh well...
: > Race is not biological, not among humans anyway. It is a political
: > construct. This is clear from what I posted.
: Race is both biological and ethnological. Just because you say
: otherwise doesn't make it true. I challenge you to prove your
: statement that "Race is not biological, not among humans anyway.
: It is a political construct."
I'll give you a little something to think about on this. I've said
before that a look at history shows that race is political, and it still
is today. This is taken from J. Jones, "Prejudice and Racism", 2nd ed.
(pp. 345-347)
"...in terms of blood type distribution, in Group 2 (they divide
up "racial groups" in different ways), Europeans are more like
Africans, Asians, and American Indians; in Group 4, they are more
like Australian aborigines. Looked at in a slightly different
fashion, 85 percent of all human genetic variation in enzymes and
other proteins occurs *within* (emphasis mine) a local racial
group, whereas only 15 percent of variation can be accounted for
by differences of group membership." (This part is also
elaborated on in Lewontin, Rosem and Kamin, "Not in Our Genes:
Biology, Ideology, and Human Nature" (1984).)
(p. 351)
"The concept of race was not biological in its derivation; it was
decidedly an evaluative label. The dividing line between 'them'
and 'us' was 'civilization', and Europeans viewed themselves as
being on the 'right' side, and others as being on the 'wrong'
side."
: Finally, what *I* mean by race may not be the same as you mean.
This is certainly true; and as long as we can't agree on a definition,
the likelihood is that we'll just talk past each other.
: >: Phil, I'm not a White supremacist; I am a White nationalist. I disavow
: >: supremacist premises. I have stated publicly before and therefore you
: >: are, as usual, lying.
: > This is completely false. You may have stated that you aren't a
: >White supremacist, and that you disavow such premises, but your words
: >in your posts are what really tell the story.
: Phil, in legitimate debate there is a standard of proof which requires
: that he who makes the positive statement is obligated to prove it.
: You claim that my words in my posts "really tell the story." Please,
: using words and passages from my posts, prove your statement.
: Please, show some intellectual honesty.
Okay, Art, you asked for it. Here are some past posts by you that
show your belief in White supremacy- your double standard regarding racial
discrimination, and even where you outright state your belief in White
supremacy. This does not include what brought on my original response
above, where you said that only certain White people are Americans. Let
me add a point of information: Racism and White supremacy are, in my eyes,
the same thing (even among non-Whites; I say that racist non-Whites have
White supremacist beliefs, since they contribute to the status quo of
White supremacy). You, or anyone else, may not agree, but this is my
belief, and I'm stating it as a point of information.
(Anyting in parentheses within the body of a post was added by me, so that
I didn't have to show the entire contents of a few long posts.)
==========begin quoted material
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: White privilege does exist-no matter what "Aryans" claim
Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 00:48:53 GMT
Message-ID: <356e028e...@news.earthlink.net>
On Thu, 28 May 1998 15:30:58 GMT, ORA...@aol.com (ORAC) wrote:
>Wrong. I'm positing that, in present-day U.S., whites still have
>advantages/privileges not shared by non-whites.
As we should.
(later)
Non-Whites need not apply.
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: White privilege does exist-no matter what "Aryans" claim
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 02:17:40 GMT
Message-ID: <35735dbe...@news.earthlink.net>
However, it is my position that Whites have a right to discriminate
against non-whites and that it is a violation of our rights to deny
it.
(after I list several forms of discrimination)
Discrimation of that sort is legitimate to me.
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: White privilege does exist-no matter what "Aryans" claim
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 02:21:56 GMT
Message-ID: <357360d3...@news.earthlink.net>
White is good, and non-White is bad.
Subject: Racism is good
From: pend...@cyberg8t.com (Arthur Ed LeBouthillier)
Date: 1997/11/04
Message-ID: <345eb3f2...@news.cyberg8t.com>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Racism is a doctrine of love for one's racial nation. It is
fundamentally a good thing. It serves the existence of
a people.
These anti-Whites seek to destroy that which we see as
fundamentally good and they must therefore misrepresent
what racism is and the goodness that it brings.
Subject: Re: Diversity is a fact of life; get used to it
From: pend...@cyberg8t.com (Arthur Ed LeBouthillier)
Date: 1997/01/03
Message-ID: <32cd2ac...@news.cyberg8t.com>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.immigration,
alt.politics.white-power
(in response to Laura Finsten)
If you utopian North America can accept a White nation-state, then problems
will be fewer than if you don't. If you can't accept that Whites might want
to organize ourselves into our own state, then you are creating the
conditions for extreme violence and hatred.
==========end quoted material
(Source: DejaNews)
There it is. You asked for it.
Jeff Yale
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> Once again, the Vange-bot regurgitates numerous quotes from Hitler
instead
> of giving a reasoned response. Funny, I didn't know Hitler was a
biologist
> and could therefore comment on the biological significance of race and
> evidence for it.
>
So, if there is no biological significance of race, how do forenics
detectives get a blood sample and are able to determine the race of the
victim?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.5
iQA/AwUBNXTjLOj+u3lLQubBEQLqpgCfTNY2taKrXDDjyefo2PQ7d0wTndIAmgJ8
o7vPKFDsVLERvSAXISYYfhfP
=1omh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Phil Nation
In article <35735dbe...@news.earthlink.net>,
Arthur Ed LeBouthillier (apen...@earthlink.net.nospam) wrote:
: >: >: Oh right, and we Whites are hassled because we're White.
: >: > Art, you really need to get out more, if you really believe that
: >: >non-Whites aren't discriminated against because of their skin color.
: >: Phil, you really need to get out more, if you really believe that
: >: Whites aren't discriminated against because of the color of our skin.
: > Now, Art, would you care to show exactly where I said such a thing?
: >Or will you admit that you are lying once again?
: Phil, you appear completely incapable of making reasonable
: conclusions. I was parodying you because you made a baseless
: accusation. Where have I ever said that non-Whites weren't
: discriminated against because of their skin? Please, show me.
The context of your reply above. You said that in response to another
poster making the point that non-Whites experience discrimination merely
because of their skin color. Your response was a denial of that, when you
said, "Oh right" to start it off.
: However, it is my position that Whites have a right to discriminate
: against non-whites and that it is a violation of our rights to deny
: it.
Yet, you would be the first to whine in a case of Whites being
discriminated against. This double standard of yours is further evidence
of your White supremacist beliefs.
: > Meantime, let me add this. Whites do get discriminated against;
: >some implementations of Affirmative Action do that (those in the form
: >of quotas); and to say that non-Whites can't be racist is ridiculous.
: > But this is nothing compared to what non-Whites experience.
: I don't care what non-Whites experience.
This is exactly why I *KNOW* you would not want a dialogue on the
issue of race. You have made statements such as this that show it. Part
of having a dialogue is taking in what others are saying, and thinking
about it. Even if you don't agree, you take it in, and think critically
about it. You haven't convinced me, due to statements such as this, that
you would be willing to do that.
Monday night at NU, a program I ran was essentially a dialogue: honest
questions were asked and opinions exchanged between students and staff
regarding ethnic/cultural organizations on campus, and race in general.
Everyone listened, and considered what was being said.
Statements like the one you made above illustrate to me that you would
not want to do that. As such, I don't think you really want a dialogue.
It seems that you would prefer that we keep talking past each other.
: But as you conceded, Whites do get discriminated against.
I have never denied it.
: >Answer these questions:
: >
: > How many times has a cop stopped you on the road, and tried his
: > best to come up with some reason to have pulled you over,
: > when you were simply driving along just fine? Furthermore,
: > how many times have you been beaten by a cop when you did
: > absolutely nothing but go about your business?
: Never, because I am careful about abiding by laws.
Art, I am talking about a case where the person involved was not doing
*anything* wrong- the person wasn't speeding, wasn't changing lanes in a
dangerous way, wasn't swerving, or what have you.
: (P.S. all of my friends are White).
Big shock. Of course, I'll wager that you have closed yourself off
to the possibility of having a friend that isn't. Well, it's your loss.
I'm glad I didn't do that, and then lose out.
: > How many times have you gone into a store and had an employee
: > follow you around, despite the fact that you were simply
: > looking around, and did nothing to even remotely indicate
: > that you might be "up to no good"?
: A store owner has a right to observe people within their premises.
: Are you saying that they don't?
Again, you miss the point. A store owner can certainly observe
shoppers. But shadowing someone who is not doing anything to remotely
indicating potential wrongdoing raises a red flag.
: > How many times has an empty cab passed you over, and picked up
: > someone just up the road?
: Several times. However, I recognize as legitimate the desire of taxi
: drivers to not pick up whomever they choose.
In other words, you'll condone their discrimination.
: >: > Mind you, even with these organizations, non-Whites still face
: >: >discrimination day in and day out.
: >: Good.
: > Why is that good?
: Because anything that leads to the dissolution of this multi-racial
: empire is good.
The only empire is that of White supremacy.
: > Hello H. Ross Perot... and Art, I stand by what I said.
: Hello Jesse Jackson....
You missed why I said that; it was a joke, from where you used the
words "you people", which Perot was famous for.
And, for the record, I am not a backer of Jesse Jackson. Jesse will
do something if he can get his face in the news, and he is a racist.
Let's not forget when he talked about his relief that several people
walking near him were not Black.
: I don't care if they're humans like myself (because they're not alike
: enough).
Art, they're more like you than you realize. From your posts, I get
the impression that you simply don't make the effort to do things that
would get you to realize that.
: > Your hatred of people who aren't White- human beings just like yourself-
: > and your responses to Whites who have called you out for the White
: > supremacist that you are illustrate that you hate White people.
: I hate you but it isn't because you're white (in fact, you're not).
Here's further proof of what I said in another response to you- your
model of White identity. You say I'm not White because I don't believe
in White supremacy; because I believe that people should be treated as
individuals, and allowed to succeed or fail based on their own merits,
and be given the tools to succeed. Your limited mind just can't imagine
someone being proud of who they are, but also being able to accept and
love others for who they are. Like I said, you need to examine your
identity, taking a look at Janet Helms' model. When you reach the
ultimate stage, you can accept those different from you, among other
things.
: I hate you because you're a non-White supremacist.
Completely false. Nothing I have ever said would back this up,
though you're invited to try and prove it.
: >: > You should treat him with the same respect you want to be treated
: >: >with. Period.
: >: Ditto.
: > So you agree that everyone should be treated with respect?
: No.
Allow me to qualify that: Do you believe that everyone should be
treated with respect, until they prove themselves undeserving of it?
Arthur Ed LeBouthillier
On 3 Jun 1998 05:47:47 GMT, pkas...@coe.neu.edu (Phil Nation) wrote:
>: Phil, you appear completely incapable of making reasonable
>: conclusions. I was parodying you because you made a baseless
>: accusation. Where have I ever said that non-Whites weren't
>: discriminated against because of their skin? Please, show me.
>
> The context of your reply above. You said that in response to another
>poster making the point that non-Whites experience discrimination merely
>because of their skin color. Your response was a denial of that, when you
>said, "Oh right" to start it off.
Context is not an answer. That I am making fun of your arguing style
by parodying you only proves one thing: I don't like your argying
style. However, I did not make that statement and "context" is
not a statement. You don't have proof.
> Yet, you would be the first to whine in a case of Whites being
>discriminated against. This double standard of yours is further evidence
>of your White supremacist beliefs.
It is not a double standard. I have only one standard: What is good
for Whites.
> This is exactly why I *KNOW* you would not want a dialogue on the
>issue of race. You have made statements such as this that show it.
> Part of having a dialogue is taking in what others are saying, and thinking
>about it. Even if you don't agree, you take it in, and think critically
>about it. You haven't convinced me, due to statements such as this, that
>you would be willing to do that.
You're right. I don't want a dialog of the sort you want. But then,
obviously, you don't want a dialog either. You don't hear what I say,
but what you want to hear said.
> Monday night at NU, a program I ran was essentially a dialogue: honest
>questions were asked and opinions exchanged between students and staff
>regarding ethnic/cultural organizations on campus, and race in general.
>Everyone listened, and considered what was being said.
> Statements like the one you made above illustrate to me that you would
>not want to do that. As such, I don't think you really want a dialogue.
>It seems that you would prefer that we keep talking past each other.
I don't think that a touchy-feely session constitutes a dialog.
>: >Answer these questions:
>: >
>: > How many times has a cop stopped you on the road, and tried his
>: > best to come up with some reason to have pulled you over,
>: > when you were simply driving along just fine? Furthermore,
>: > how many times have you been beaten by a cop when you did
>: > absolutely nothing but go about your business?
>
>: Never, because I am careful about abiding by laws.
>
> Art, I am talking about a case where the person involved was not doing
>*anything* wrong- the person wasn't speeding, wasn't changing lanes in a
>dangerous way, wasn't swerving, or what have you.
I understand the point you're making. On that issue, I concede that
cops may do it. It's not important to me. Skinheads get stopped all
the time because of the way that they look (I've hung around a lot of
skinheads although I'm not one myself). I've had cops play their
little information collection games with me too. Those are clear,
arbitrary violations of our liberties, but that's O.K. The more that
they do those things, the more that they alienate people.
>: (P.S. all of my friends are White).
>
> Big shock. Of course, I'll wager that you have closed yourself off
>to the possibility of having a friend that isn't. Well, it's your loss.
>I'm glad I didn't do that, and then lose out.
Oh, you make me feel all weepy and sad inside. Come on!!! Get real.
I've had all manner of non-White friends. I live in California; I work
with the people. And that's why I know you're full of shit.
Gang-bangers and idiots don't "enrich" my life.
> Again, you miss the point. A store owner can certainly observe
>shoppers. But shadowing someone who is not doing anything to remotely
>indicating potential wrongdoing raises a red flag.
I understand the point you're trying to make. I find it legitimate
that a person might decide to watch people who statistically are
involved in more crime per capita.
That blacks don't like being observed or suspected is irrelevant to
the fact that, per capita, they produce more crime. If they didn't
like it, they could change their behavior.
>: Several times. However, I recognize as legitimate the desire of taxi
>: drivers to not pick up whomever they choose.
>
> In other words, you'll condone their discrimination.
Yes, as a matter of fact I do.
Discrimination is choice. And I reconize their right to make a choice.
>: Because anything that leads to the dissolution of this multi-racial
>: empire is good.
>
> The only empire is that of White supremacy.
False. This is truly an igorant point you have made and is evidence
of why I don't really waste much time considering what you say. In
the parlance of political science, an empire is a multi-ethnic state.
What you are supporting is a just that: an empire. What I want
is a nation-state: a state that promotes the interests of one nation
(defined as being equivalent to an ethnic group).
> You missed why I said that; it was a joke, from where you used the
>words "you people", which Perot was famous for.
I have to admit that I did miss that. I don't really listen to Ross
Perot much.
> And, for the record, I am not a backer of Jesse Jackson. Jesse will
>do something if he can get his face in the news, and he is a racist.
>Let's not forget when he talked about his relief that several people
>walking near him were not Black.
Come on!! You don't like Messy Jesse? That champion of "cibil raits?"
The former Black Panther and cook who used to spit in White people's
food? I find that hard to believe.
> Art, they're more like you than you realize. From your posts, I get
>the impression that you simply don't make the effort to do things that
>would get you to realize that.
Again, you know little about me (which is not to say that I would make
such an effort).
> Here's further proof of what I said in another response to you- your
>model of White identity.
You don't understand my identity.
> You say I'm not White because I don't believe in White supremacy;
> because I believe that people should be treated as individuals, and
> allowed to succeed or fail based on their own merits, and be given the
> tools to succeed.
No, I say you're not White because Whiteness, as I use the term, is an
ethnicity. Although the ethnicity has lineal properties, I don't think
that identity is any less important. YOU want race to mean solely the
physical traits that a person evidences. To me, race is both
biological and ethnological.
Finally, since you say that race has no biological meaning, you can't
say that you mean White in any kind of biological way. You can't say
"I'm White because I'm European and I have light skin." Come on!
Show some intellectual honesty. Show that you are capable of reviewing
the implications of your own ideas and values. As I understand it,
scientists who classify humans by race (the biological definitions of
race) generally recognize three major categories: Negroid, Caucasoid
and Mongoloid. Therefore, "White" is not "Caucasoid." You might be
a caucasoid but you're not White as I see it.
> Your limited mind just can't imagine someone being proud of who
> they are, but also being able to accept and love others for who
> they are.
Oh!! My "limited mind." Isn't that just so typical of you touchy-feely
anti-racists. If someone doesn't agree with you, then they have a
"limited mind" and are "ignorant." Get a clue, grow up. I've lived
more years with non-Whites than I care to admit. I've grown up
near the heart of Watts, in government-funded "projects," and
generally with these people all my life. Therefore, I am not
prejudiced, but post-judiced.
> Like I said, you need to examine your identity, taking a look at Janet Helms' model.
> When you reach the ultimate stage, you can accept those different from you,
> among other things.
I don't have that book. I might make some effort to obtain it from a
library but probably not. You don't understand my identity. You
understand little about me. Just because I parody you and make
fun of the touchy-feely crap you spew on this website and say
things purposely made to provoke a response from you does not
constitute a full expression of my identity.
>: I hate you because you're a non-White supremacist.
>
> Completely false. Nothing I have ever said would back this up,
>though you're invited to try and prove it.
Using your argument, it's in the context.
However, I am basing my definition of supremacist on what appears to
be the definition you are using:
A supremacist is a person who holds a thing to be important.
I don't use this definition, but it appears to be the one you use.
Using this definition, you are a non-White supremacist because
you think non-Whites are important. According to you, I'm a
White Supremacist because I hold White people to be important.
A Catholic is a Catholic Supremacist because they think Catholicism is
important, Jews are Jewish supremacists because they think being
Jewish is imporrtant, Blacks are Black supramacists because they think
that Blacks are important, Democrats are Democrat Supramacists because
they think Democrats are important, Druggies are Drug Supramacists
because they think Drugs are important, Dog lovers are Dog
supramacists, sometimes I'm even a Simpsons Supramacist because I
like to watch the Simpsons. etc ad nauseum. Do you get the point
I'm making?
>: > So you agree that everyone should be treated with respect?
>
>: No.
>
> Allow me to qualify that: Do you believe that everyone should be
>treated with respect, until they prove themselves undeserving of it?
No.
14 Words,
Arthur LeBouthillier
Ian McKinney
ORAC
In article <01bd8eb2$fbeedc60$6f265dcf@lap-top>, "Jeff Yale"
<zrce...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>So, if there is no biological significance of race, how do forenics
>detectives get a blood sample and are able to determine the race of the
>victim?
Not a bad question.
First, certain restriction length polymorphisms and DNA sequences are
found more frequently in different populations. However, these are most
often found in stretches of DNA that don't code for any gene product, and
therefore do not affect gene function. Second, genetic variability between
different people of the same race is comparable to that found between
races; consequently, most differences between what we call races have
little, if any, biological significance. Equal differences can be found
between members of the same race. Many such differences, when analyzed,
turn out to be more a function of socioeconomic status than biology.
I'm not questioning that there are some minor differences between what we
call "races." What I am saying is that they are minor; few of them have
any biological significance; and those that do are no more significant
than differences between different members of the same race.
--
ORA...@aol.com ACCEPTS MAIL ONLY FROM FAMILY AND FRIENDS.
TO REPLY TO ME BY E-MAIL, USE dgorski(at)xsite(dot)net!
ORAC |"A statement of fact cannot be
Alex Vange
Michael Ejercito <meje...@csulb.edu> wrote in article
<mejercit-020...@134.139.52.15>...
> In article <01bd8db7$78e2c120$ef3ae6cf@default>, "Alex Vange"
> <va...@i1.net> wrote:
>
> > Phil Nation <pkas...@coe.neu.edu> wrote in article
> > <6kub9u$fv0$1...@isn.dac.neu.edu>...
> > > elsewhere. What biological significance does race have among humans?
> >
> > Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
> You mean the Mein Kampf written by Adolf Hitler?
>
Yes, here is another quote form Mein Kampf:
"The man who is not opposed and vilified and slandered in the Jewish
Press is not a staunch German and not a true National Socialist. The best
rule whereby the sincerity of his convictions, his character and strength
of will, can be measured is by the hostility which his name arouses among
the mortal enemies of our people.
"The followers of the movement, and indeed the whole nation, must be
reminded again and again of the fact that, through the medium of his
newspapers, the Jew is always spreading falsehood and that if he tells the
truth on some occasions it is only for the purpose of masking some greater
deceit, which turns the apparent truth into a deliberate falsehood. The Jew
is the Great Master of Lies. Falsehood and duplicity are the weapons with
which he fights.
"Every calumny and falsehood published by the Jews are tokens of
honour which can be worn by our comrades. He whom the decry most is nearest
to our hearts and he whom they mortally hate is our best friend.
"If a comrade of ours opens a Jewish newspaper in the morning and
does not find himself vilified there, then he has spent yesterday to no
account. For if he had achieved something he would be persecuted,
slandered, derided and abused. Those who effectively combat this mortal
enemy of our people, who is at the same time the enemy of all Aryan peoples
and all culture, can only expect to arouse opposition on the part of this
race and become the object of its slanderous attacks.
"When these truths become part of the flesh and blood, as it were, of
our members, then the movement will be impregnable and invincible."
Alex Vange
ORAC <ORA...@aol.com> wrote in article
<ORACII-0306...@mickey.bsd.uchicago.edu>...
> In article <01bd8eb2$fbeedc60$6f265dcf@lap-top>, "Jeff Yale"
> <zrce...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >So, if there is no biological significance of race, how do forenics
> >detectives get a blood sample and are able to determine the race of the
> >victim?
>
> Not a bad question.
>
> First, certain restriction length polymorphisms and DNA sequences are
> found more frequently in different populations. However, these are most
> often found in stretches of DNA that don't code for any gene product, and
> therefore do not affect gene function. Second, genetic variability
between
> different people of the same race is comparable to that found between
> races; consequently, most differences between what we call races have
> little, if any, biological significance. Equal differences can be found
> between members of the same race. Many such differences, when analyzed,
> turn out to be more a function of socioeconomic status than biology.
>
> I'm not questioning that there are some minor differences between what we
> call "races." What I am saying is that they are minor; few of them have
> any biological significance; and those that do are no more significant
> than differences between different members of the same race.
>
Why are all Black nations such as in Africa backward, while all White
nations are highly advanced?
Gord McFee
In <35735ccf...@news.earthlink.net>, on Tue, 02 Jun 1998 02:02:59
GMT, apen...@earthlink.net.nospam (Arthur Ed LeBouthillier) wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Jun 1998 21:36:09 GMT, gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:
>
> >No, he's funnier. You are a fart in a spacesuit and he's much funnier
> >than you. Much more intelligent too.
> >
> >I hope that wasn't too aggressive, Deady-Heady-Eddy.
>
> Gurdy, my one-year-old nephew demonstrates greater reasoning prowess
> than you.
Brilliant retort, Eddie. I suppose you run away from him too?
> >> I don't do "bad premises." I am under no obligation to be the
> >> sole answerer of every question he directs towards me. I will
> >> answer questions when there is a "dialog" not a "diatribe."
> >
> >Run away....
>
> No Gordy, you're not worth my time. You are insignificant. I don't
> want to waste too much of my time on people who aren't capable
> of learning (that's you in case you haven't figured it out).
Still running away, eh Eddie?
> >Run away.....
>
> Gordy, if you had a point, you'd probably stab yourself with it.
Maybe. You certainly wouldn't understand it. Maybe you had better get
that one-year old nephew to give you a spine transplant.
--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time
Visit the Holocaust History Project
http://www.holocaust-history.org
Visit the Nizkor site
http://www.nizkor.org
TIMOTHY GUEGUEN
ORAC (ORA...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <01bd8db7$78e2c120$ef3ae6cf@default>, "Alex Vange"
: <va...@i1.net> wrote:
: >Phil Nation <pkas...@coe.neu.edu> wrote in article
: ><6kub9u$fv0$1...@isn.dac.neu.edu>...
: >> elsewhere. What biological significance does race have among humans?
: >
: > Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
: [Irrelevant quotes from MEIN KAMPF deleted]
: Once again, the Vange-bot regurgitates numerous quotes from Hitler instead
: of giving a reasoned response. Funny, I didn't know Hitler was a biologist
: and could therefore comment on the biological significance of race and
: evidence for it.
: Vange, as I've said before with many of your Hitler quotes, just because
: Hitler believed something to be true DOES NOT mean that it is true, no
: matter what Hitler worshipers like yourself may think.
Its amazing that they worship Hitler so much. What did Hitler do? Cause
the death of millions of Germans and others, brought mass destruction to
Germany, brought shame onto the heads of Germans everywhere, and ensured
that millions of Germans spent decades under one of the nastier of the post
war Communist regimes. With "great leaders" like these, who needs enemies?
tim gueguen 101867
ORAC
In article <01bd8f53$eda03900$e730e6cf@default>, "Alex Vange"
<va...@i1.net> wrote:
Could this have something to do with long histories of being colonized by
"white" nations and used for slaves?
Besides, what does being "backward" have to do with biology? Oh, wait. I
know. You're going to trot out that old discredited canard about how
"white" people are supposedly "more intelligent" than blacks.
ORAC
In article <6l57sj$gal$1...@missing.its.to>, ad...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca
(TIMOTHY GUEGUEN) wrote:
>ORAC (ORA...@aol.com) wrote:
>: Vange, as I've said before with many of your Hitler quotes, just because
>: Hitler believed something to be true DOES NOT mean that it is true, no
>: matter what Hitler worshipers like yourself may think.
>
>Its amazing that they worship Hitler so much. What did Hitler do? Cause
>the death of millions of Germans and others, brought mass destruction to
>Germany, brought shame onto the heads of Germans everywhere, and ensured
>that millions of Germans spent decades under one of the nastier of the post
> war Communist regimes. With "great leaders" like these, who needs enemies?
I've often wondered the same thing. They seem very willing to excuse his
atrocities and ultimate failure (which led to the utter destruction of
Germany and its partitioning for fifty years) because his goal coincided
with their belief in white nationalism.
Joseph Hertzlinger
In <01bd8f53$eda03900$e730e6cf@default> "Alex Vange" <va...@i1.net>
writes:
> Why are all Black nations such as in Africa backward, while all White
>nations are highly advanced?
1500 years ago the White areas were backward.
Why was that?
Arthur Ed LeBouthillier
On Thu, 04 Jun 1998 03:35:56 GMT, gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:
>> Gurdy, my one-year-old nephew demonstrates greater reasoning prowess
>> than you.
>
>Brilliant retort, Eddie. I suppose you run away from him too?
Only from your body odor.
>Still running away, eh Eddie?
Sniff. Sniff. Are you still there?
>Maybe. You certainly wouldn't understand it. Maybe you had better get
>that one-year old nephew to give you a spine transplant.
Yuck, yuck.
14 Words,
Art LeBouthillier
Arthur Ed LeBouthillier
On 3 Jun 1998 05:29:03 GMT, pkas...@coe.neu.edu (Phil Nation) wrote:
> You wanted an answer to the question, and I supplied one (though it's
>admittedly not a direct answer, just one that I think can be better
>answered through consulting my homepage, since it is a reflection of me).
Whatever, I checked your page out.
>: I am not dodging. I have a limited amount of time and effort and I
>: hardly want to waste it on you.
>
> Dodging.
Oh Right! I'm dodging.
> In a few weeks, when I return to Cognex Corporation, I'll have that
>in common with you. Right now, finals and a project are my main concern,
>not to mention my duty as a resident assistant.
Again, I work. I have other obligations. I don't have too much time at
the moment to be chatting. But, I'm gracing this wonderful newsgroup
with my presence anyways.
>: >: No.
>
>: > Must be because there aren't any.
No, because they are irrelevant to anything that I have to say.
I don't have to address your strawmen.
>: It's because of several factors. One of them is my time and
>: effort and the apparent gain I would receive in answering
>: your questions.
>
> Or is it because you can't answer them? Come on, Art. You made the
>claim that there are traits of Whiteness, why can't you identify them?
I said that Whites evidence a pattern of traits. One element of those
patterns is skin color which is quite light compared to a lot of
non-White peoples. Another trait pattern is an abudance of recessive
traits among them, blonde hair, blue, green, light brown, hazel and
other recessive eye colors. Another trait is a pattern of skull shape,
thickness and other similar bone features of the skull. Another trait
is a general body build which is different from the norm of African
(negroid) body types. Another pattern trait is a stronger nose
cartilage. Another trait is the presence of Rh- factors among some of
the members. Another trait is hair types and thicknesses. Another
trait is lip shapes which differ from many negroids and mongoloids.
There are a whole bunch of other traits that are part of the part
which is representative of Whites. Check out an anthropology or
forensic text if you want more. However, contrary to the way that
anti-racists want to portray it, the statistical distribution of these
traits is not random, but rather constrained by lineage. People of
a certain lineage and heritage evidence these traits dependent
upon their genetic heritage. Get it?
The reason that I don't really care to address this issue is twofold:
1) I don't have a strong background in human genetics
2) It's not relevant to the point I'm making.
> Art, I know we live in a digital world (for those reading this post
>who aren't initiated, it means a case of things being 1/0, one or the other/
>nothing in between, etc.), but you carry it to extremes. Perhaps you're
>unaware that
>
> a) Analog is not dead
> b) The fact is that just about everything is not black and white,
> but has gray area, and usually the gray area *IS* the issue.
>
> I'll address your silly idea that I am a White hater, when you are
>the hater, below.
Phil, you're dodging the issue. The issue is your hatred of White
ethnicity. You hate people (such as myself) who express our identity
and you seek to eliminate ethnic identity among Whites.
The reason is your hatred. Let's address what hatred is. Hatred, Phil,
is an emotion. It is an extension of anger. Hatred is a negative
emotion (which does not mean that it is bad) because it motivates
the one expressing it to eliminate the cause (unlike positive emotions
which motivate the expressor to continue their cause). I know this
is probably difficult for you.
Anyways, the object of hatred is another individual (or individuals)
whom the hater blames for some negative condition. Does this
make sense to you? You are a hater because you you blame
Whites for the problems that non-Whites face. You blame Whites
for things which we are not responsible and for which we have no
obligation to avoid. That is why you are a White hater, Phil.
I don't pretend that I am incapable of hatred, Phil. It is a human
emotion and the only way that one can stop feeling it is by stop
holding things as important (apathy) which, in my mind is far worse
than hatred.
>: Great. I know exactly who I am and I am proud of who I am.
>
> This is false. Otherwise, you would be able to accept other people
>who are different from you, as well as those like you.
Now you're pretending to know better than I what I do or don't know!
Sorry, bubba, but *I* am the expert on my own beliefs and
understanding of the world. I experience pride (of which there are
several kinds). Pride is a positive emotion one feels under several
circumstances, among which are:
1) Abiding by one's values and morals despite the difficulty of
doing so.
2) Accomplishing something significant.
3) Identification of the self with a group and abiding by the
group's ideals and morals.
I feel pride for myself in all three ways.
> This is reflected in your White supremacist views (which I'll outline
>below where you ask for evidence of them), as well as your calling any
>White person who calls you out for the White supremacist hater that you
>are a "White hater". In your mind, it is either one or the other; if a
>person agrees with you and subscribes to White supremacy, they are good;
>if they disagree, they are a White hater.
I don't call any White person who calls [me] out for a White
supremacist hater since I am not a White supremacist.
Sorry, Phil, you make absolutely no sense.
> You really need to examine your identity, Art. Try reading Janet E.
>Helms' book regarding a model for it, entitled "Black and White Racial
>Identity: Theory, Research and Practice" (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press,
>1990). Based on your posts, you hold a negative model for White identity-
>that the only model is one of believing in White supremacy, which is the
>same idea held by, among others, the New Abolitionists. You believe that
>Whiteness is all about privilege. Sorry, Art, it's not. (Exactly why I
>do not support the New Abolitionists; I believe there can be a positive
>White identity.) I know that being of European descent is not all about
>feeling that I'm superior to others, and that I should treat those
>different from me as though they are less than I am.
Look, just because you happen to agree with Janet E. Helm's book
doesn't imply that what she has to say is worthy. Additionally, I
don't know how objective she is in her analysis. I will see if I can
get the book since, if she is objective, I can use her report to
advance racism among Whites. Thank you for the tip.
However, my identity is a little different than you claim so I don't
have to worry about your hateful accusations about me.
> I'll admit, you got me there. I've even admitted this before, so I'll
>take that back. What I will say is that I don't act on those prejudices,
>as you do.
I most definitely do act on prejudices since all generalizations are
prejudices and one cannot think without them. Attitudes and
generalizations are a vital part of human cognition and neither you
nor I can avoid using them.
>: Additionally, I can tell you right now that you understand very little
>: about me to be making statements of the nature you just made.
>
> In that case, the same goes for you and the statements you make about
>me, Mr. Hypocrite.
I'm not a hypocrite, I'm purposely trying to piss you off, dingbat.
>: I assure you I understand context very well.
>
> Your posts show otherwise. Your snipping part of this doesn't help
>your cause, since you snipped the part where your inability to understand
>context was evident.
Sorry, the problem is that you've been taught by the shitty school
system of this country that insinuations, innuendos, half-connected
ideas and non-related assertions make valid reasoning. Sorry, but
you have a lot to learn.
> I originally said:
>
>: >"White" is defined as a racial category, with political meaning
>: >attached to it, even though there are no races among humans.
>
> The context of the word "race" was perfectly clear- it was perfectly
>clear that I was discussing race as a political construct, and I always
>make it clear that when I say race doesn't exist among humans, it is in a
>biological context. That you miss the distinction is not my fault.
I don't care how YOU'RE discussing race. I've defined how I use the
term race:
A lineal ethnic group.
That _YOU_ miss the distinction is not my fault.
> Damn, Art. You and I could have been a dynamic team that could have
>made great compilers to make programming so much easier (one of my
>research interests is compilers, and I'm hoping to take a close look at
>them during this next co-op during my spare time, and possibly do some
>research in graduate school). Oh well...
We could have? What's stopping you other than your hatred for Whites?
>: Race is both biological and ethnological. Just because you say
>: otherwise doesn't make it true. I challenge you to prove your
>: statement that "Race is not biological, not among humans anyway.
>: It is a political construct."
>
> I'll give you a little something to think about on this. I've said
>before that a look at history shows that race is political, and it still
>is today. This is taken from J. Jones, "Prejudice and Racism", 2nd ed.
Oh gee! Sounds like a real unbiased book to me. I don't care what
he says. He's an asshole.
>(pp. 345-347)
>
> "...in terms of blood type distribution, in Group 2 (they divide
> up "racial groups" in different ways), Europeans are more like
> Africans, Asians, and American Indians; in Group 4, they are more
> like Australian aborigines. Looked at in a slightly different
> fashion, 85 percent of all human genetic variation in enzymes and
> other proteins occurs *within* (emphasis mine) a local racial
> group, whereas only 15 percent of variation can be accounted for
> by differences of group membership." (This part is also
> elaborated on in Lewontin, Rosem and Kamin, "Not in Our Genes:
> Biology, Ideology, and Human Nature" (1984).)
>
>(p. 351)
>
> "The concept of race was not biological in its derivation; it was
> decidedly an evaluative label. The dividing line between 'them'
> and 'us' was 'civilization', and Europeans viewed themselves as
> being on the 'right' side, and others as being on the 'wrong'
> side."
This is all irrelevant. That race (as this author defines it) is a
political construct does not make it any less important, anyways.
Politics, using Aristotle's definition, is the search for the good
life. I happen to find my good life in race.
>: Finally, what *I* mean by race may not be the same as you mean.
>
> This is certainly true; and as long as we can't agree on a definition,
>the likelihood is that we'll just talk past each other.
We're talking right past each other because, just as you claim about
me, you are not listening to me. _YOU_ don't want a dialog just like
you claim about me. However, I'm a lot more conscious of my activities
than you make allowances for (your "prejudices" are getting in the way
of understanding me).
That's typical of exactly what I said about you. You don't know how to
reason. I asked you to _PROVE_ your assertion. Let me help you with
understanding what a proof is. A proof is a body of logically-related
assertions logically linking one's premises with one's conclusions. A
random selection of evidence is proof of nothing because there is no
chain of logic. Sorry, you fail my test for your ability to think
logically. You have not proven your assertions.
What are your premises? What is the relationship between your
conclusion and your premises? I doubt that you'd be able to figure
that out. Why don't you start out with a definition of what you mean
when a person is a "supremacist" and why you think I am a "White
Supremacist" (despite the fact that I disavow supremacist beliefs).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We must secure the existence of our people
and a future for White children.
Arthur LeBouthillier
http://home.earthlink.net/~apendragn/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loki
Lol. An intelligent and articulate writer, and a comedian! An anti-whites
worst nightmare. Go Eddy!
Arthur Ed LeBouthillier <apen...@earthlink.net.nospam> wrote in article
<3577566...@news.earthlink.net>...
ORAC
In article <3577570...@news.earthlink.net>,
apen...@earthlink.net.nospam (Arthur Ed LeBouthillier) wrote:
>The reason that I don't really care to address this issue is twofold:
>
> 1) I don't have a strong background in human genetics
> 2) It's not relevant to the point I'm making.
Translation:
1.) I don't know what I'm talking about.
2.) It doesn't matter to me that I don't know what I'm talking about.
[Snip]
>> I'll give you a little something to think about on this. I've said
>>before that a look at history shows that race is political, and it still
>>is today. This is taken from J. Jones, "Prejudice and Racism", 2nd ed.
>
>Oh gee! Sounds like a real unbiased book to me. I don't care what
>he says. He's an asshole.
Translation: This book says things that disagree with my prejudices and
racism. Therefore, the author must be an asshole.
>>(pp. 345-347)
>>
>> "...in terms of blood type distribution, in Group 2 (they divide
>> up "racial groups" in different ways), Europeans are more like
>> Africans, Asians, and American Indians; in Group 4, they are more
>> like Australian aborigines. Looked at in a slightly different
>> fashion, 85 percent of all human genetic variation in enzymes and
>> other proteins occurs *within* (emphasis mine) a local racial
>> group, whereas only 15 percent of variation can be accounted for
>> by differences of group membership." (This part is also
>> elaborated on in Lewontin, Rosem and Kamin, "Not in Our Genes:
>> Biology, Ideology, and Human Nature" (1984).)
>>
>>(p. 351)
>>
>> "The concept of race was not biological in its derivation; it was
>> decidedly an evaluative label. The dividing line between 'them'
>> and 'us' was 'civilization', and Europeans viewed themselves as
>> being on the 'right' side, and others as being on the 'wrong'
>> side."
>
>This is all irrelevant. That race (as this author defines it) is a
>political construct does not make it any less important, anyways.
>Politics, using Aristotle's definition, is the search for the good
>life. I happen to find my good life in race.
Translation: I don't care that race has little meaning biologically and is
not a biological construct. Having failed at demonstrating race to be a
biological construct, I will use a political argument.
Gord McFee
In <3577566...@news.earthlink.net>, on Fri, 05 Jun 1998 02:23:26
GMT, apen...@earthlink.net.nospam (Arthur Ed LeBouthillier) wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Jun 1998 03:35:56 GMT, gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:
>
> >> Gurdy, my one-year-old nephew demonstrates greater reasoning prowess
> >> than you.
> >
> >Brilliant retort, Eddie. I suppose you run away from him too?
>
> Only from your body odor.
What a nasty thing to say about your one-year old nephew. Is he potty
trained or does he smell like you?
> >Still running away, eh Eddie?
>
> Sniff. Sniff. Are you still there?
Überallhin, Eddie.
> >Maybe. You certainly wouldn't understand it. Maybe you had better get
> >that one-year old nephew to give you a spine transplant.
>
> Yuck, yuck.
Perhaps he could lend you a Pamper?
> 14 Words,
I am Eddie Artie LeBouthillier, and am a brain-dead Nazi wanabee almost
potty-trained loser.
Yup, that's 14 words.
Say good night, Eddie.
Gord McFee
In <3577570...@news.earthlink.net>, on Fri, 05 Jun 1998 03:03:29
GMT, apen...@earthlink.net.nospam (Arthur Ed LeBouthillier) wrote:
> Again, I work. I have other obligations. I don't have too much time at
> the moment to be chatting. But, I'm gracing this wonderful newsgroup
> with my presence anyways.
Hurray! Don't put yourself out.
Arthur Ed LeBouthillier
On Fri, 5 Jun 1998 14:02:42 GMT, ORA...@aol.com (ORAC) wrote:
>> 1) I don't have a strong background in human genetics
>> 2) It's not relevant to the point I'm making.
>
>Translation:
>
> 1.) I don't know what I'm talking about.
> 2.) It doesn't matter to me that I don't know what I'm talking about.
Hey Oraci, you're a buttwipe.
>Translation: This book says things that disagree with my prejudices and
>racism. Therefore, the author must be an asshole.
You too.
>Translation: I don't care that race has little meaning biologically and is
>not a biological construct. Having failed at demonstrating race to be a
>biological construct, I will use a political argument.
Of course race does have a biological meaning, just not one you would
understand.
14 Words,
Art
Alex Vange
ORAC <ORA...@aol.com> wrote in article
<ORACII-0506...@maxreader.bsd.uchicago.edu>...
>>is today. This is taken from J. Jones, "Prejudice and Racism", 2nd ed.
> >
> >Oh gee! Sounds like a real unbiased book to me. I don't care what
> >he says. He's an asshole.
>
> Translation: This book says things that disagree with my prejudices and
> racism. Therefore, the author must be an asshole.
Another book about race is Race and Reason by Carleton Putnam. Is this
one found in bookstores or libraries? Here is a qoute form it:
"Where in the U.S. could a psychologist, sociologist or anthropologist find
employment if he openly and unreservedly espoused the theory of the racial
inequality of man?"
Yale F. Edeiken
> apen...@earthlink.net.nospam (Arthur Ed LeBouthillier) writes:
> >> 1) I don't have a strong background in human genetics
> >> 2) It's not relevant to the point I'm making.
> >Translation:
> Of course race does have a biological meaning, just not one you would
> understand.
Apparently it can only be understood by those ignorant of human genetics.
Next he will state he doesn't know much about economics, then proceed
to analyse the bail-out of the Crysler Corporation.
And expect everybody to take him seriously.
--YFE
The Holocaust History Project is at http://www.holocaust-history.org/
The Nizkor Project is at http://www.nizkor.org/
The Einsatzgruppen page is at http://www.pgonline.com/electriczen/
The Cybrary of the Holocaust is at http://www.remember.org/
Arthur Ed LeBouthillier
On Sat, 06 Jun 1998 05:48:59 GMT, gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:
>I am Eddie Artie LeBouthillier, and am a brain-dead Nazi wanabee almost
>potty-trained loser.
It must suck being you, McFly.
14 Words,
Arthur Ed LeBouthillier
Brian Harmon
Alex Vange wrote:
[..]
> Another book about race is Race and Reason by Carleton Putnam. Is this
> one found in bookstores or libraries? Here is a qoute form it:
Yes. The Los Angeles Public library has a copy:
Author Putnam, Carleton, 1901-
Title(s) Race and reason, a Yankee view.
Publisher Washington, Public Affairs Press [1961]
Paging 125 p. 24 cm.
Barnes and Noble.com lists it as available as does
amazon.com.
These books are easily available in libraries or from
'leftist' booksellers. So much for your cries of
persecution and repression.
--
Brian Harmon <bra...@itsa.ucsf.edu>
====================================
ORAC
In article <3578eaf...@news.earthlink.net>,
apen...@earthlink.net.nospam (Arthur Ed LeBouthillier) wrote:
>On Fri, 5 Jun 1998 14:02:42 GMT, ORA...@aol.com (ORAC) wrote:
>
>>> 1) I don't have a strong background in human genetics
>>> 2) It's not relevant to the point I'm making.
>>
>>Translation:
>>
>> 1.) I don't know what I'm talking about.
>> 2.) It doesn't matter to me that I don't know what I'm talking about.
>
>Hey Oraci, you're a buttwipe.
Translation: I can't answer ORAC's criticisms of my assertions. Therefore
ORAC must be a buttwipe.
(Such is the typical level of sophistication and intelligence exhibited by
Aryan nationalists when trying to rebut anyone who disagrees with them.
I've heard more interesting and intelligent insults from your average
kindergarten student.)
>>Translation: This book says things that disagree with my prejudices and
>>racism. Therefore, the author must be an asshole.
>
>You too.
Translation: ORAC (a.k.a. David Gorski) also disagrees with me and my
prejudices and tries to rebut them. Therefore, he must be an asshole, too.
(I'll give you one thing, LeBouthillier. At least you're consistent.)
>>Translation: I don't care that race has little meaning biologically and is
>>not a biological construct. Having failed at demonstrating race to be a
>>biological construct, I will use a political argument.
>
>Of course race does have a biological meaning, just not one you would
>understand.
Translation: We Aryan nationalists say that race has a biological meaning.
It's just not any meaning that has any empirical scientific evidence to
back it up. In other words, you should just accept our assertions
regarding the supposed biological relevance of race without any empirical
scientific evidence simply because we make them.
--
THE ABOVE E-MAIL ADDRESS ONLY ACCEPTS MAIL FROM FAMILY
AND FRIENDS. TO E-MAIL ME, USE: dgorski[at]xsite[dot]net!
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
ORAC |"A statement of fact cannot be
a.k.a. David Gorski | insolent." ORAC
Chicago, IL |
ORAC
>In <3577570...@news.earthlink.net>, on Fri, 05 Jun 1998 03:03:29
>GMT, apen...@earthlink.net.nospam (Arthur Ed LeBouthillier) wrote:
>
>> Again, I work. I have other obligations. I don't have too much time at
>> the moment to be chatting. But, I'm gracing this wonderful newsgroup
>> with my presence anyways.
>
>Hurray! Don't put yourself out.
What, Gord? You don't feel honored?
ORAC
In article <01bd913d$b01460c0$5a3ae6cf@default>, "Alex Vange"
<va...@i1.net> wrote:
>ORAC <ORA...@aol.com> wrote in article
><ORACII-0506...@maxreader.bsd.uchicago.edu>...
>>>is today. This is taken from J. Jones, "Prejudice and Racism", 2nd ed.
>> >
>> >Oh gee! Sounds like a real unbiased book to me. I don't care what
>> >he says. He's an asshole.
>>
>> Translation: This book says things that disagree with my prejudices and
>> racism. Therefore, the author must be an asshole.
>
> Another book about race is Race and Reason by Carleton Putnam. Is this
>one found in bookstores or libraries?
You're quoting from it and you're asking if it's found in bookstores or
libraries? You mean you don't know?
>Here is a qoute form it:
>
>"Where in the U.S. could a psychologist, sociologist or anthropologist find
>employment if he openly and unreservedly espoused the theory of the racial
>inequality of man?"
Probably not, but not for the reason you imply. A reason closer to the
truth would be that there is at present no credible evidence for this
theory. It would be akin to a physicist "openly and unreservedly"
espousing a viewpoint that Newton's Laws of Gravitation and Einstein's
Theory of Relativity are completely wrong. Could such a physicist find
employment, much less grant support to do research? Probably not, unless
he had some exceedingly good experimental evidence.
If such a scholar ever came up with strong evidence for such a theory,
then eventually it would have to be accepted, no matter how much the
theory conflicts with what we know now. (It might take a long time, as it
did for Copernicus and Galileo.) The problem, of course, that you so
conveniently gloss over is the little matter of coming up with suitable
evidence. Right now, there is no good evidence for such a theory, and what
"evidence" is out there is relatively easily debunked.
ORAC
In article <357983...@itsa.ucsf.edu>, Brian Harmon
<bra...@itsa.ucsf.edu> wrote:
>Alex Vange wrote:
>[..]
>> Another book about race is Race and Reason by Carleton Putnam. Is this
>> one found in bookstores or libraries? Here is a qoute form it:
>
>Yes. The Los Angeles Public library has a copy:
>
>Author Putnam, Carleton, 1901-
>Title(s) Race and reason, a Yankee view.
>Publisher Washington, Public Affairs Press [1961]
>Paging 125 p. 24 cm.
>
>Barnes and Noble.com lists it as available as does
>amazon.com.
>
>These books are easily available in libraries or from
>'leftist' booksellers. So much for your cries of
>persecution and repression.
Now, Brian, you wouldn't want to go and ruin Alex's view of himself and
his cause as martyrs at the hands of the "eeeeeevvvvillll Jews," now would
you?
Arthur Ed LeBouthillier
On 5 Jun 1998 03:29:16 GMT, "Loki" <mada...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Lol. An intelligent and articulate writer, and a comedian! An anti-whites
>worst nightmare. Go Eddy!
Yes, for the most part these people are pathetic. You have Gordon
McFly spitting and sputtering like a drooling, babbling fool. You have
Mr. Gordski posturing and strutting pretending that I've made
statements that I haven't and when I call him on it, he has to
misrepresent everything I've said, claiming things that aren't true.
They're both just a few sandwiches short of a picnic.
They're really a disheveled, over-pressured, bunch who are
just as likely to turn their hatred on each other as they are
on us.
The only one that I have any respect for is Mr. Kasiecki, although
he has a lot to learn. However, probably for showing the slightest
amount of reason, his other companions will probably hate him
for flirting with the opponents.
14 Words,
Art LeBouthillier