Shattering the Myths Of The Pro-White Movement
Rahowa!
From _Resistance_, No. 7
If you're new to the scene, or just a casual observer, or even an
outright enemy, you probably have a lot of misconceptions about what
White racialists are really like. The media has worked feverishly to
create a stereotypical image of a Skinhead burning false impressions
into your mind through thousands of hours of television "programming."
But in many instances, the truth is far different. Here, in this
special piece, Resistance examines some of the common myths of the
pro-White movement, and sets the record straight once and for all.
Myth One: White racialists are stupid.
The myth that we are backwoods, sister-humping, booger-eating
rednecks, that live in trailer parks, and call ourselves "graduates"
if we get out of grade eight, is an outright lie. The "racists are
white trash" stigma is promoted relentlessly by the media, for obvious
reasons. Smart, decent, honest, hard-working White people don't want
to join a movement that they perceive as being dominated by a bunch of
dead-end losers. So the media lays it on thick, and many would-be
supporters stay as far away as possible.
But in reality, the average White racialist is far smarter and more
idea-oriented than the rest of the population. I have met dozens of
people with University degrees, genius-level IQs, and exceptional
mental aptitude in the White racialist community. Racists are, on
average, smart people who see through the equality lie, and desire a
return to a safer, cleaner, more upwardly mobile society.
Now, in the interest of not promulgating a new myth to shatter an old
one, I need to add that we indeed do have our share of half-wits, but
we should remember that this society is not exactly brimming over with
rocket scientists and brain surgeons. Life does indeed imitate art
somewhat, and with the media constantly promoting the notion that
stupid people join the pro-White movement, a few morons believe that
they'll have a safe-haven in our scene. But the next time that you see
some slobbering idiot on Geraldo claiming to represent the White Race;
take it for what it is and change the channel in shame. Just pop in
that videotape of John Metzger or Bob Heick waxing poetic with their
sardonic wit and relentlessly brilliant sneers, and remember that all
men are not created equal.
Myth Two: We think all White people are groovy.
This is just a huge, flabby, ugly, stinking lie that must be harpooned
with extreme prejudice. Feces comes in all hues, and there is more
White dung out there today than ever before in recorded history.
Throngs numbering in the millions of scummy, decadent, degenerate
Whites permeate all classes of White society. They come in many forms.
From the over-educated, liberal media prostitutes that grovel before
their Ashkenazi masters with offerings of anti-White propaganda; to
the soulless materialist men and women that would rather make a buck
on the death of the White Race than fight it; right down to the
semi-retarded rural and urban dwelling dirt, there are undoubtedly
legions of clamoring fools and character-deficient lowlifes that
masquerade as Whites due to their pale pigmentation.
Quite on the contrary, we White racialists only respect White people
that deserve respect, and hold in low-esteem Whites who deserve our
contempt. If anything, our recognition of the abundant supply of White
losers only reinforces our belief that all men are not created equal.
Myth Three: White racialists are violent people.
The stigma is that we like to get together and throw boot-parties on a
regular basis, and that initiation into the White Power movement is
based on how many people you can hurt. This is a farce promoted by
special interest groups like the Jewish Anti-Defamation League (ADL),
who attempt to propagandize police officers that we are a public
menace, and should therefore be dealt with as common criminals.
The intended response on the part of the cops is to treat our
concerts, rallies, and meetings as gang-related events that require
police presence and intervention. The logic being that if they can
successfully harass our peaceful, democratic gatherings, attendees
will become frustrated and decide not to attend in the future. If
anything, this "special treatment" only case-hardens our new
supporters, and convinces them of the wide-ranging conspiracy against
the survival, expansion, and advancement of the White Race.
Additionally, this propaganda tends to make parents concerned about
their teens coming home with a Bound For Glory CD, and I have on more
than one occasion heard accounts of young adults being kicked out of
their homes by parents who fear that they are getting involved in a
'gang" because they are discovering their Racial roots and showing a
little White Pride.
The truth is that Skinheads do love to fight, and you'll almost never
see a Skinhead back down to a challenge when confronted. However, huge
segments of our young people love to release youthful tension by
scrapping, and to try and single out Skins as major marketers of
physical aggression is just plain unfair. Television is saturated with
violence, and our young people spend endless days playing video games
like Mortal Kombat, where the player chocks up the maximum number of
points by murdering the most opponents. Hard Metal, Gangsta Rep,
"anti-Racist" hardcore like Rage Against The Machine, and several
other genres of music, are laden with violent images and concepts ...
but they are afforded artistic license to speak their minds and rise
up the Billboard charts with virtually no opposition.
At the same time, several stores that carry Resistance Records' White
Power CDs have been the target of boycotts and protests. So, to those
that claim that White racialists are more violent than the rest of
this demented society, look them straight in the eye and declare them
a hypocrite.
Myth Four: We think all Black people are bad.
Black comedian Chris Rock said it best in a recent HBO broadcast when
he quipped, "Blade people are more racist then White people, because
we hate niggers too! ... I hate niggers so much, I wanna join me the
Ku Klux Klan!"
The point is that there are two distinct groups of Africans living in
America: Blacks and niggers. Blacks are the group that pay their
bills, work for a living instead of mugging people, and are generally
acculturated to White society. They are smart enough to know how to
take advantage of the ample opportunities presented to them, through
affirmative action and demands for more positive black role models.
They are decent enough people, and it is pretty hard to hate them.
However, in many ways, these are the most dangerous threats to White
survival, because they have a greater chance of intermarrying with a
White girl, who doesn't want to bring a crack-smoking, ghetto-nigger
home to mom and dad if she has "Jungle fever." No, she would rather
bring a "nice, respectable" black guy home, who at least stands a
snowball's chance in Hades of being accepted by the family.
But just how many blacks are the useless, state-dependent types so
commonly seen loitering aimlessly in malls and on street corners
across the U.S.? What percentage of this messed-up Race is bad? Well,
let's look at U.S. FBI crime statistics, to find out whether or not
the real numbers support the argument that blacks are more violent
than Whites. Here are the results:
More than 1,600 Whites are murdered by blacks each year, which means
that blacks murder Whites at 18 times the rate that Whites murder
blacks.
About 1 million Whites were murdered robbed, raped, or assaulted by
blacks in 1992 alone.
In the last 30 years, 170 million violent and non-violent crimes were
committed by blacks against Whites in the U.S.
In crimes of Racial bias, otherwise known as "hate-crimes," over 90%
of the victims are Whites.
Although they only comprise one-seventh of the population, blacks
commit 7.5 times more violent interracial crimes than Whites.
On a per-capita basis, blacks commit 50 times more violent crimes than
Whites.
In the past 20 years, violent crimes increased four times faster than
the population.
Between 1964 and 1994, more than 45,000 people were killed in
interracial murders (of which blacks commit 18 times more than Whites
- see item #1.) Compare this to the death toll of the Vietnam War
(58,000 Americans killed) and the Korean War (38,000 Americans
killed).
All of this has been plainly illustrated by current FBI statistics,
and reported in the Australian paper The Sydney Morning Herald on May
2, 1995.
Considering the staggering volume of black-on-White crimes in this
country, coupled with the awesome tax burden that the blacks
represent, it is no wonder that Whites who are aware of what is going
on get downright furious about the Racial nightmare that America is
becoming. All blacks are not criminals, granted, but an America
without blacks would be a much safer, cleaner, and more affluent
nation.
Myth Five: White racialists are motivated by hate.
This is entirely untrue, but I won't try and present a ridiculous
argument like "we don't hate people," because that would be a lie. But
the often-repeated pile of horse manure that we are "motivated by
Racial hatred" is a friggin' fraud. It is a big steaming pile of
anti-White propaganda.
In reality, we are motivated by the love of our Race, the most
precious thing to us in the entire world. "Loving the White Race" does
not mean loving all Whites though, it just means that you are
culturally aligned with the European experience; you understand and
appreciate the sacrifice of our great White ancestors, who conquered
the world for their future progeny; and you want to see our Race
uplifted in the years to come to what it is capable of becoming. For
any White racialist that has any lasting endurance in the movement,
their motivation comes not from hating people, rather from admiring
and having faith in an ideal that they are prepared to fight for.
That all having been said, and that myth having been debunked, let me
finish this point by adding that there is nothing wrong with hatred.
Much like love, hating too much will destroy you, but when kept in
check with your other natural, normal emotions, it is simply a defense
mechanism that clicks in when you or something you love is threatened.
It is both healthy and right to hate your enemies. Everyone does,
except for fools that deserve to be purged like a scourge. If a rapist
attacks your daughter, do you not hate the assailant with near insane
hatred and a burning desire to kill? Only a fool does not. But in such
a situation, would you be attacking the rapist out of "hatred" for
him, or out of love for the daughter that he attacked? The point is
plainly clear. We hate our enemies because we love the White Race.
Myth Six: We Can't Win.
Ahhhhh ... the mother of all crocks of crap. When all else fails, the
media loves to try and take a dump with the old futility argument.
"Why would you support such a hopeless cause?" is a typical question
they ask, hoping that you ignore the statement being made by the
question, and simply answer it as a legitimate query. But the end
result is the same old pinched loaf... "give up, Honky, the fight has
already been lost."
Like hell it has! The greatest Race to ever walk the earth will not
die without fighting a furious fight, and will most certainly respond
with unprecedented outrage when the system's treachery becomes
commonly known. Never in my nearly ten years in this movement have the
masses been so open to our ideas. Never have our ideas been so
commonly held. Never have radical opinions been in such high demand as
today. As the 21st Century approaches, we are sitting on a veritable
time-bomb of White and Black discontentment.
The proof that this society is based on falsehoods that cannot endure
is evident -- everybody feels like they are getting a raw deal today.
America's social fabric is ripped and torn, and held together by
Band-Aids and bubble gum. This whole mess is going to unravel, and it
is going to unravel but good. It could take another 50 years, but it
will eventually come undone. Anyone who thinks that we can't win is an
idiot. We can't lose!
Myth Seven: White racialists all think the same.
This is a myth that is less the result of media propaganda, and more
the result of human nature. The average person doesn't really know any
White racialists, and doesn't have the time or the inclination to get
to know the real story. They form an opinion, and simplify it all for
ease of understanding. But what they don't realize is that
generalizations are often too broad, especially when discussing modern
White Racialism.
We have National Socialists, and people who hate National Socialism.
We have people who honor the American flag, and others who burn it. We
have people that believe in the niceness of "White Pride," and others
that seethseethe hatred and call themselves "White Supremacists." We
have people that are conservative in their opinions, while others are
radical and revolutionary. Some of us want a small piece of America,
while others want to conquer the world for our kind. The energy that
is derived from all the opposing viewpoints is one of the factors that
makes our movement so dynamic, so I urge you to see the differences
amongst our ideas, and appreciate them.
RAHOWA!
DELENDA EST JUDAICA!
http://www.creator.org
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"Christianity was invented by the Jews as a
tool with which to destroy the white race."
-- Ben Klassen
Herman ten Klooster
>
> Shattering the Myths Of The Pro-White Movement
> From _Resistance_, No. 7
>
> Myth One: White racialists are stupid.
>
> The myth that we are backwoods, sister-humping, booger-eating
> rednecks, that live in trailer parks, and call ourselves "graduates"
> if we get out of grade eight, is an outright lie. The "racists are
> white trash" stigma is promoted relentlessly by the media, for obvious
> reasons. Smart, decent, honest, hard-working White people don't want
> to join a movement that they perceive as being dominated by a bunch of
> dead-end losers. So the media lays it on thick, and many would-be
> supporters stay as far away as possible.
>
> But in reality, the average White racialist is far smarter and more
> idea-oriented than the rest of the population. I have met dozens of
> people with University degrees, genius-level IQs, and exceptional
> mental aptitude in the White racialist community. Racists are, on
> average, smart people who see through the equality lie, and desire a
> return to a safer, cleaner, more upwardly mobile society.
<SNIP>
If you racists are so smart, why does everything you post or publish
indicate a negative IQ?
--
\\|//
(o o)
/===========================oOOo=(_)=oOOo=================\
| |
| Reality is only for those who lack imagination |
| .oooO |
| ( ) Oooo. |
\============================\ (==( )===================/
\_) ) /
(_/
Jonsa
Aren't you the guy that called Goebels "one of our geniuses"? There is no
truth like a half truth, right?
Myth 1 - I agree they are not all stupid, just ignorant.
Myth 2 - Your white, right?
Myth 3 - Racialist are not all violent, but then again not all Nazi's were
in the SS either. You got plenty of violent people to do your bidding now
don't you. doesn't Rahowa mean - racial holy war?
Myth 4 - I can just imagine your daughter bringing home a "black" as you put
it. How long would it take before he was swinging?
Myth 5 - Play the semantic game all you want, the bottom line is that you
hate and that hatred is manifest and apparent in all the disgusting white
power websites, publications, demonstrations, etc. What, were you just
fooling?
Myth 6 - One on one, I bet you can beat up a lot of people, but attaining
real political power (demographics)? You must smoke really good drugs.
Myth 7 - Lots of opinions, lots of dreams but all rooted in a desire to be
better than someone else. Like the color of their skin or the object of
their faith makes them less than you. I believe it is clinically called an
inferiority complex.
To anyone with a modicum of intelligence, these kinds of efforts on your
part, are completely transparent.
"Rahowa!" <rah...@pcpostal.com> wrote in message
news:9308791.01082...@posting.google.com...
Richard G. Phillips
Herman ten Klooster wrote:
> Rahowa! wrote:
> >
> > Shattering the Myths Of The Pro-White Movement
> > From _Resistance_, No. 7
> >
> <SNIP>
>
> > Myth One: White racialists are stupid.
> >
> > The myth that we are backwoods, sister-humping, booger-eating
> > rednecks, that live in trailer parks, and call ourselves "graduates"
> > if we get out of grade eight, is an outright lie. The "racists are
> > white trash" stigma is promoted relentlessly by the media, for obvious
> > reasons. Smart, decent, honest, hard-working White people don't want
> > to join a movement that they perceive as being dominated by a bunch of
> > dead-end losers. So the media lays it on thick, and many would-be
> > supporters stay as far away as possible.
> >
> > But in reality, the average White racialist is far smarter and more
> > idea-oriented than the rest of the population. I have met dozens of
> > people with University degrees, genius-level IQs, and exceptional
> > mental aptitude in the White racialist community. Racists are, on
> > average, smart people who see through the equality lie, and desire a
> > return to a safer, cleaner, more upwardly mobile society.
>
> <SNIP>
>
> If you racists are so smart, why does everything you post or publish
> indicate a negative IQ?
=======================================
Phillip
Allow me to expand the scope of your question away from the lone individual
you are talking about to racialists, generally.
(1) Have you read 'Culture of Critique' by Kevin McDonald? Does he strike
you as having a negative IQ (????)
(2) Have you read 'Race and Reason' by Carleton Putnam? Does he strike you
that way.
(3) Have you read 'The Bell Curve' by Murray and Herrnstein? Do they strike
you that way?
Are you aware that the number of studies of white vs black IQ are believed
to run into the hundreds and, to the best or present knowledge, all say
pretty much the same thing: 15 pt difference.
==================================================
>
>
> --
>
kmsp...@sympatico.ca
I don't think Kevin MacDonald regards himself as "Pro-White". Or do
you know something about his politics that most people don't?
>(2) Have you read 'Race and Reason' by Carleton Putnam? Does he strike you
>that way.
Yes, and yes. But do you think he would have openly declared himself
to be a racist?
>(3) Have you read 'The Bell Curve' by Murray and Herrnstein? Do they strike
>you that way?
Yes, but they denied being racists.
>Are you aware that the number of studies of white vs black IQ are believed
>to run into the hundreds and, to the best or present knowledge, all say
>pretty much the same thing: 15 pt difference.
Yes. And compared to Asians and Ashkenazi Jews, "Whites" are dummies.
By those same measures, that is. So the ZOG takeover of the world is
not only inevitable, but in the natural order of things. You know
that expression: "The geek shall inherit the earth".
kmsp...@sympatico.ca
>Shattering the Myths Of The Pro-White Movement
>From _Resistance_, No. 7
>
>If you're new to the scene, or just a casual observer, or even an
>outright enemy, you probably have a lot of misconceptions about what
>White racialists are really like. The media has worked feverishly to
>create a stereotypical image of a Skinhead burning false impressions
>into your mind through thousands of hours of television "programming."
>But in many instances, the truth is far different. Here, in this
>special piece, Resistance examines some of the common myths of the
>pro-White movement, and sets the record straight once and for all.
>
>Myth One: White racialists are stupid.
>
>The myth that we are backwoods, sister-humping, booger-eating
>rednecks, that live in trailer parks, and call ourselves "graduates"
>if we get out of grade eight, is an outright lie. The "racists are
>white trash" stigma is promoted relentlessly by the media, for obvious
>reasons. Smart, decent, honest, hard-working White people don't want
>to join a movement that they perceive as being dominated by a bunch of
>dead-end losers. So the media lays it on thick, and many would-be
>supporters stay as far away as possible.
With a little help from pro-White types like David Irving, the media
doesn't have to lay it on thick. If he's an example of the "smart,
decent, honest" White people you're talking about, you're in bad
shape. A proven liar who so loves the spotlight that he parks
whatever smarts he has as long as it shines the glaring light of
publicity on him. So the entire world can watch him fall on his face.
Delightful.
>But in reality, the average White racialist is far smarter and more
>idea-oriented than the rest of the population. I have met dozens of
>people with University degrees, genius-level IQs, and exceptional
>mental aptitude in the White racialist community.
Dozens you say! How many millions of people in the United States hold
University degrees?
>Racists are, on
>average, smart people who see through the equality lie, and desire a
>return to a safer, cleaner, more upwardly mobile society.
You mean more upwardly mobile for White people, don't you?
>Now, in the interest of not promulgating a new myth to shatter an old
>one, I need to add that we indeed do have our share of half-wits, but
>we should remember that this society is not exactly brimming over with
>rocket scientists and brain surgeons.
But there sure are many more than "dozens" of university graduates!
[nip remaining drivel]
lynx
<9308791.01082...@posting.google.com>:
> Myth One: White racialists are stupid.
the truth is they're unimaginably moronic, microcephalic utter CRETINS.
"stupid" is what they can't hope to ever graduate to.
--
PGP/GnuPG key (ID 1024D/BFE0D6D0) available from keyservers everywhere
Key fingerprint = 3EBC 97FC 68AA 65F1 65E6 3D36 35F6 4213 BFE0 D6D0
"...life goes on
long after the thrill of living is gone..."
Aidan Kelly
> Rahowa! wrote:
> >
> > Shattering the Myths Of The Pro-White Movement
> > From _Resistance_, No. 7
> >
> <SNIP>
>
> > Myth One: White racialists are stupid.
> >
> > The myth that we are backwoods, sister-humping, booger-eating
> > rednecks, that live in trailer parks, and call ourselves "graduates"
> > if we get out of grade eight, is an outright lie. The "racists are
> > white trash" stigma is promoted relentlessly by the media, for obvious
> > reasons. Smart, decent, honest, hard-working White people don't want
> > to join a movement that they perceive as being dominated by a bunch of
> > dead-end losers. So the media lays it on thick, and many would-be
> > supporters stay as far away as possible.
> >
> > But in reality, the average White racialist is far smarter and more
> > idea-oriented than the rest of the population. I have met dozens of
> > people with University degrees, genius-level IQs, and exceptional
> > mental aptitude in the White racialist community. Racists are, on
> > average, smart people who see through the equality lie, and desire a
> > return to a safer, cleaner, more upwardly mobile society.
>
> <SNIP>
>
> If you racists are so smart, why does everything you post or publish
> indicate a negative IQ?
It doesn't indicate any such thing. Why do you
feel the need to lie? Is it that you are not able
to put together a credible argument? Why is it that
you *must* resort to childish insults, every time
you post?
a.k.
Aidan Kelly
> Aren't you the guy that called Goebels "one of our geniuses"?
That should be "Goebbels". The fact that he was a
genius is obvious.
>There is no
> truth like a half truth, right?
Quite so, and "half truths" are what the present
Establishment thrives upon. Those, along with
fabrications, distortions and outright lies.
>
> Myth 1 - I agree they are not all stupid, just ignorant.
Just how, in your mind, does acknowledging the
realities of race make one "ignorant"?
> Myth 2 - Your white, right?
Yes.
> Myth 3 - Racialist are not all violent, but then again not all Nazi's were
> in the SS either. You got plenty of violent people to do your bidding now
> don't you. doesn't Rahowa mean - racial holy war?
Yes it does. First, we must win the propaganda war.
> Myth 4 - I can just imagine your daughter bringing home a "black" as you put
> it. How long would it take before he was swinging?
A spiritually and mentally healthy person will never
have to worry about succumbing to such deviant and
destructive behavior.
> Myth 5 - Play the semantic game all you want, the bottom line is that you
> hate and that hatred is manifest and apparent in all the disgusting white
> power websites, publications, demonstrations, etc. What, were you just
> fooling?
Hatred is natural. It appears to be just as pronounced, if
not more, on the "anti-racist" side of the equation. Whether
or not one is "hateful" has nothing to do with intelligence.
> Myth 6 - One on one, I bet you can beat up a lot of people, but attaining
> real political power (demographics)? You must smoke really good drugs.
We've already attained significant power and influence in
France (Front National) and Austria (Freedom Party), to
name just two examples. Both of those parties are of a
decidedly racialist bent. In the United States, dozens of
racialists (such as members of the CofCC and NCF) serve
in state legislatures, various offices, etc. We are far
from having full power at this point, but it is clear that
such an eventual victory is not out of the question.
> Myth 7 - Lots of opinions, lots of dreams but all rooted in a desire to be
> better than someone else. Like the color of their skin or the object of
> their faith makes them less than you. I believe it is clinically called an
> inferiority complex.
Not at all. Racialism is grounded in the recognition of
evolutionary realities. Race has little to do with skin
color.
>
> To anyone with a modicum of intelligence, these kinds of efforts on your
> part, are completely transparent.
Anyone with a modicum of intelligence realizes that
the media portrayal of "racists" is profoundly dishonest,
though it may be loaded with propaganda value.
Susan Cohen
kmsp...@sympatico.ca wrote:
(Especially ones who insist that Jews can't be White/Asian, or vice versa...)
> By those same measures, that is. So the ZOG takeover of the world is
> not only inevitable, but in the natural order of things. You know
> that expression: "The geek shall inherit the earth".
And what none of these racist losers want to admit
is that it's all cultural.
If I were to take the [fitb] child of a low-income/low education
family who did not have *actual* brain damage due to health
abuses on the part of the mother pre-birth, the child would
grow up just as smart as mine.
Susan
Susan Cohen
Aidan Kelly wrote:
> Just how, in your mind, does acknowledging the
> realities of race make one "ignorant"?
Thinking that race -especially in the sense you mean it -
is a reality is what makes you ignorant.
Aidan Kelly
<3B81C92B...@his.com> :
One recalls the vituperation directed at William
Shockley, co-inventor of the transistor, when he
dared to tell the truth about race. It could well
be compared to the persecution of Galileo at the
hands of clergymen. Racial equality is a religion,
no less than Christianity.
Challenging this irrational faith does not make me
ignorant, anymore than Galileo was ignorant for
challenging the tyranny of the Christian church.
a.k.
raven1
>Myth One: White racialists are stupid.
^^^^^^^
You misspelled "fact".
Now be a good little idiot teen skinhead and stop posting this shit to
alt.atheism.
raven1
wrote:
>"Jonsa" <jons...@home.com> wrote in message news:<RBgg7.60961$281.10...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com>...
>> Aren't you the guy that called Goebels "one of our geniuses"?
>
>That should be "Goebbels". The fact that he was a
>genius is obvious.
An evil genius is still evil.
Richard G. Phillips
Susan Cohen wrote:
> kmsp...@sympatico.ca wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 20 Aug 2001 23:08:53 GMT, "Richard G. Phillips"
> > <rgp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >Are you aware that the number of studies of white vs black IQ are believed
> > >to run into the hundreds and, to the best or present knowledge, all say
> > >pretty much the same thing: 15 pt difference.
> >
> > Yes. And compared to Asians and Ashkenazi Jews, "Whites" are dummies.
===================================================
Phillips
It was not my object to show that whites are the brightest people in the world -
only that they are brighter than black people by 15 IQ points.
Now, regarding your 'Whites are dummies' statement: do I detect a centain note of
relish in the way you made the statement and is it possible there might be a
connection between this relish and the name Cohen?
=========================================================
>
>
> (Especially ones who insist that Jews can't be White/Asian, or vice versa...)
>
> > By those same measures, that is. So the ZOG takeover of the world is
> > not only inevitable, but in the natural order of things. You know
> > that expression: "The geek shall inherit the earth".
>
> And what none of these racist losers want to admit
> is that it's all cultural.
> If I were to take the [fitb] child of a low-income/low education
> family who did not have *actual* brain damage due to health
> abuses on the part of the mother pre-birth, the child would
> grow up just as smart as mine.
>
> Susan
======================================
Phillips
I'm glad you brought this up because it gives me an opportunity to talk about the
Tanser Experiment which took place around 1930.
Before and during the Civil War a number of escaped slaves settled in a town in
Ontario Canada. THere was little if any intermarriage with their white neighbors,
but they enjoyed an atmosphere completely free of what we call 'racism.' If your
theories are to be believed, one would expect that in the year 1930 (three
generations free of any racism) their intellectual capacities ought to have
measured about the same as those of the surrounding whites.
Nope. 15 pt difference. I say, frightfully sorry about that, old girl.
================================
Aidan Kelly
<qJ2BO4BsAB7NFO...@4ax.com> :
>>
>>> Rahowa! wrote:
>>> >
>>> > From _Resistance_, No. 7
>>> >
>>>
>>> > Myth One: White racialists are stupid.
>>> >
>>> > The myth that we are backwoods, sister-humping, booger-eating
>>> > rednecks, that live in trailer parks, and call ourselves "graduates"
>>> > if we get out of grade eight, is an outright lie. The "racists are
>>> > white trash" stigma is promoted relentlessly by the media, for obvious
>>> > reasons. Smart, decent, honest, hard-working White people don't want
>>> > to join a movement that they perceive as being dominated by a bunch of
>>> > dead-end losers. So the media lays it on thick, and many would-be
>>> > supporters stay as far away as possible.
>>> >
>>> > But in reality, the average White racialist is far smarter and more
>>> > idea-oriented than the rest of the population. I have met dozens of
>>> > people with University degrees, genius-level IQs, and exceptional
>>> > mental aptitude in the White racialist community. Racists are, on
>>> > average, smart people who see through the equality lie, and desire a
>>> > return to a safer, cleaner, more upwardly mobile society.
>>>
>>>
>>> If you racists are so smart, why does everything you post or publish
>>> indicate a negative IQ?
>>
>>Phillip
>>
>>Allow me to expand the scope of your question away from the lone individual
>>you are talking about to racialists, generally.
>>
>>(1) Have you read 'Culture of Critique' by Kevin McDonald? Does he strike
>>you as having a negative IQ (????)
>
>I don't think Kevin MacDonald regards himself as "Pro-White". Or do
>you know something about his politics that most people don't?
Anyone who doesn't live under a rock knows that he testified
on behalf of David Irving. He also referred to Deborah Lipstadt
as being an "ethnic activist," and not a legitimate historian.
>
>>(2) Have you read 'Race and Reason' by Carleton Putnam? Does he strike you
>>that way.
>Yes, and yes. But do you think he would have openly declared himself
>to be a racist?
Putnam noted frequently that Jews are behind the "anti-racist"
movement. See Jonathon Marks, "Human Biodiversity: Genes, Race,
and History", p.57.
>
>>(3) Have you read 'The Bell Curve' by Murray and Herrnstein? Do they strike
>>you that way?
>
>Yes, but they denied being racists.
True enough, but Jared Taylor, William Shockley, Peter
Brimelow and many other scientists, past and present, have
eloquently defended the racialist cause.
a.k.
Richard G. Phillips
Aidan Kelly wrote:
=================================
Phillips
He does not talk much about white/black relationships though he is adamant on the
corrosive effects of Jewish power in America. I think MacDonald DOES regard
himself as pro-white.
=====================================
>
>
> Anyone who doesn't live under a rock knows that he testified
> on behalf of David Irving. He also referred to Deborah Lipstadt
> as being an "ethnic activist," and not a legitimate historian.
================================================
Phillips
I agree with both those positions. I'm not sure what you are trying to prove.
=========================================
>
>
> >
> >>(2) Have you read 'Race and Reason' by Carleton Putnam? Does he strike you
> >>that way.
> >Yes, and yes.
===============================================
Phillips
Oh? You have read his book and you regard him as a dimwit. I should like to know
why you think so. And please to remember: the mere fact that he says things that
outrage you does not count.
=========================================
> But do you think he would have openly declared himself
> >to be a racist?
===================================
Phillips
Whether he has openly declared himself to be a racist is not of the slightest
importance. His position is an uncompromising one of the Negro's intellectual asd
cultural inferiority. If that doen't make a man a racist then Julius Streicher
was a multiculturalist.
================================
Aidan Kelly
<3B81DAEA...@earthlink.net> :
>
>Aidan Kelly wrote:
>
>> kmsp...@sympatico.ca wrote in article
>> <qJ2BO4BsAB7NFO...@4ax.com> :
>> >On Mon, 20 Aug 2001 23:08:53 GMT, "Richard G. Phillips"
>> >
>> >I don't think Kevin MacDonald regards himself as "Pro-White". Or do
>> >you know something about his politics that most people don't?
>
>=================================
>Phillips
I think MacDonald DOES regard
>himself as pro-white.
>
>=====================================
Agreed.
>>
>>
>> Anyone who doesn't live under a rock knows that he testified
>> on behalf of David Irving. He also referred to Deborah Lipstadt
>> as being an "ethnic activist," and not a legitimate historian.
>
>================================================
>Phillips
>
>I agree with both those positions. I'm not sure what you are trying to prove.
>
>=========================================
Just demonstrating that MacDonald does NOT mind being
regarded as a "racist."
a.k.
Harry Lime
> >>If you're new to the scene, or just a casual observer, or even an
> outright enemy, you probably have a lot of misconceptions about what
> White racialists are really like. The media has worked feverishly to
> create a stereotypical image of a Skinhead burning false impressions
> into your mind through thousands of hours of television "programming."
> But in many instances, the truth is far different. Here, in this
> special piece, Resistance examines some of the common myths of the
> pro-White movement, and sets the record straight once and for all.
>
> Myth One: White racialists are stupid.
>
> The myth that we are backwoods, sister-humping, booger-eating
> rednecks, that live in trailer parks, and call ourselves "graduates"
> if we get out of grade eight, is an outright lie. The "racists are
> white trash" stigma is promoted relentlessly by the media, for obvious
> reasons. Smart, decent, honest, hard-working White people don't want
> to join a movement that they perceive as being dominated by a bunch of
> dead-end losers. So the media lays it on thick, and many would-be
> supporters stay as far away as possible.
>
> But in reality, the average White racialist is far smarter and more
> idea-oriented than the rest of the population. I have met dozens of
> people with University degrees, genius-level IQs, and exceptional
> mental aptitude in the White racialist community.<<
Please give us some names. Otherwise anecdotes are not considered
evidence -- your fearless leader Matt Hale, P.M. (Perpetually Moronic)
should know this being a law school graduate.
>>Racists are, on average, smart people who see through the equality lie,
and desire a return to a safer, cleaner, more upwardly mobile society.
Now, in the interest of not promulgating a new myth to shatter an old one,
I need to add that we indeed do have our share of half-wits, but we should
remember that this society is not exactly brimming over with rocket
scientists and brain surgeons. Life does indeed imitate art somewhat, and
with the media constantly promoting the notion that stupid people join the
pro-White movement, a few morons believe that they'll have a safe-haven in
our scene.<<
I think that most of us would agree here that we are tired of racists
whining about Jews, Blacks, Asians, Mexicans, and whatever other racial
group you hate being the cause of your failure in American Society. You
need to blame yourselves for your dismal lives, not others.
>>But the next time that you see some slobbering idiot on Geraldo claiming
to represent the White Race; take it for what it is and change the channel
in shame. Just pop inthat videotape of John Metzger or Bob Heick waxing
poetic with their sardonic wit and relentlessly brilliant sneers, and
remember that allmen are not created equal.<<
So you don't remember that Tom and John Metzger were guests on Geraldo?
Were they "slobbering idiots" as guests? I'd have to agree with you that
they were, but I'm not convinced they've changed one iota.
You might want to ask Tom about the time he accidently offered a friend of
mine (a news director at a San Diego county radio station) to join the
KKK. Problem was, Tom never met the man in person and didn't realize that
he is Black. Tom was made quite a fool of by that mistake. Tom is still
an uneducated TV repair man without a college degree. Just curious, does
he still refuse to repair foreign-made televisions?
> >>Myth Two: We think all White people are groovy.
>
> This is just a huge, flabby, ugly, stinking lie that must be harpooned
> with extreme prejudice. Feces comes in all hues, and there is more
> White dung out there today than ever before in recorded history.
> Throngs numbering in the millions of scummy, decadent, degenerate
> Whites permeate all classes of White society. They come in many forms.
> From the over-educated, liberal media prostitutes that grovel before
> their Ashkenazi masters with offerings of anti-White propaganda; to
> the soulless materialist men and women that would rather make a buck
> on the death of the White Race than fight it; right down to the
> semi-retarded rural and urban dwelling dirt, there are undoubtedly
> legions of clamoring fools and character-deficient lowlifes that
> masquerade as Whites due to their pale pigmentation.<<
I think thou dost protest too much. Ever heard of taking responsibility
for your own life and quite blaming more successful people for your
failures?
> >>Quite on the contrary, we White racialists only respect White people
> that deserve respect, and hold in low-esteem Whites who deserve our
> contempt. If anything, our recognition of the abundant supply of White
> losers only reinforces our belief that all men are not created equal.
> Myth Three: White racialists are violent people.
> The stigma is that we like to get together and throw boot-parties on a
> regular basis, and that initiation into the White Power movement is
> based on how many people you can hurt. This is a farce promoted by
> special interest groups like the Jewish Anti-Defamation League (ADL),
> who attempt to propagandize police officers that we are a public
> menace, and should therefore be dealt with as common criminals.<<
So why did Metzger lose his case here in Portland, Oregon? Do you think
that people don't remember that he advocated violence that got an Ethopian
student killed?
> >>The intended response on the part of the cops is to treat our
> concerts, rallies, and meetings as gang-related events that require
> police presence and intervention. The logic being that if they can
> successfully harass our peaceful, democratic gatherings, attendees
> will become frustrated and decide not to attend in the future. If
> anything, this "special treatment" only case-hardens our new
> supporters, and convinces them of the wide-ranging conspiracy against
> the survival, expansion, and advancement of the White Race.<<
Really, I wish that somehow, the police just didn't show up to protect
your rallies. This would be quite fun and entertaining.
> >>Additionally, this propaganda tends to make parents concerned about
> their teens coming home with a Bound For Glory CD, and I have on more
> than one occasion heard accounts of young adults being kicked out of
> their homes by parents who fear that they are getting involved in a
> 'gang" because they are discovering their Racial roots and showing a
> little White Pride.<<
Shows that the parents have more sense than your group does.
> >>The truth is that Skinheads do love to fight, and you'll almost never
> see a Skinhead back down to a challenge when confronted. However, huge
> segments of our young people love to release youthful tension by
> scrapping, and to try and single out Skins as major marketers of
> physical aggression is just plain unfair.<<
Not all Skins are racist you moron.
> Television is saturated with violence, and our young people spend
> endless days playing video games like Mortal Kombat, where the player
> chocks up the maximum number of points by murdering the most opponents.
> Hard Metal, Gangsta Rep, "anti-Racist" hardcore like Rage Against The
> Machine, and several
> other genres of music, are laden with violent images and concepts ...
> but they are afforded artistic license to speak their minds and rise
> up the Billboard charts with virtually no opposition.<<
By any means necessary, bitch.
> >>At the same time, several stores that carry Resistance Records' White
> Power CDs have been the target of boycotts and protests. So, to those
> that claim that White racialists are more violent than the rest of
> this demented society, look them straight in the eye and declare them
> a hypocrite.<<
It's still a free country, fuckwit.
> >>Myth Four: We think all Black people are bad.
>
> Black comedian Chris Rock said it best in a recent HBO broadcast when
> he quipped, "Blade people are more racist then White people, because
> we hate niggers too! ... I hate niggers so much, I wanna join me the
> Ku Klux Klan!"<<
Just what's a "Blade people?" Ever heard of a spellchecker?
> >>The point is that there are two distinct groups of Africans living in
> America: Blacks and niggers. Blacks are the group that pay their
> bills, work for a living instead of mugging people, and are generally
> acculturated to White society. They are smart enough to know how to
> take advantage of the ample opportunities presented to them, through
> affirmative action and demands for more positive black role models.
> They are decent enough people, and it is pretty hard to hate them.
> However, in many ways, these are the most dangerous threats to White
> survival, because they have a greater chance of intermarrying with a
> White girl, who doesn't want to bring a crack-smoking, ghetto-nigger
> home to mom and dad if she has "Jungle fever." No, she would rather
> bring a "nice, respectable" black guy home, who at least stands a
> snowball's chance in Hades of being accepted by the family.<<
Why don't you just be honest and say you hate all blacks?
So you're saying that whites are an exploited minority now? With Blacks
making up about 12 percent of the population, this is fallacious. If you
look at the data from a socioeconomic point-of-view, you'll find that poor
Whites and poor Blacks have about the same rate of violent crime within
their economic strata. The poor White population is very small in the USA
compared with the percentage of Blacks that fall below the poverty line.
Further, considering that the White population is so much bigger than the
Black population (in toto) the above statistics are not surprising. You
need to read deeper into the FBI statistics, but that wouldn't serve your
purpose of distorting the truth.
>>Considering the staggering volume of black-on-White crimes in this
country, coupled with the awesome tax burden that the blacks represent, it
is no wonder that Whites who are aware of what is going on get downright
furious about the Racial nightmare that America is becoming. All blacks
are not criminals, granted, but an America without blacks would be a much
safer, cleaner, and more affluent nation.<<
Using that logic, a USA without people would be completely crime free and
there wouldn't be any need for government welfare programs.
> Myth Five: White racialists are motivated by hate.
>
> This is entirely untrue, but I won't try and present a ridiculous
> argument like "we don't hate people," because that would be a lie. But
> the often-repeated pile of horse manure that we are "motivated by
> Racial hatred" is a friggin' fraud. It is a big steaming pile of
> anti-White propaganda.
>
> In reality, we are motivated by the love of our Race, the most
> precious thing to us in the entire world. "Loving the White Race" does
> not mean loving all Whites though, it just means that you are
> culturally aligned with the European experience; you understand and
> appreciate the sacrifice of our great White ancestors, who conquered
> the world for their future progeny; and you want to see our Race
> uplifted in the years to come to what it is capable of becoming. For
> any White racialist that has any lasting endurance in the movement,
> their motivation comes not from hating people, rather from admiring
> and having faith in an ideal that they are prepared to fight for.<<
>
Excuse me while I laugh uncontrollably.
> >>That all having been said, and that myth having been debunked, let me
> finish this point by adding that there is nothing wrong with hatred.<<
Sorry, Skippy, you haven't debunked anything.
> >>Much like love, hating too much will destroy you, but when kept in
> check with your other natural, normal emotions, it is simply a defense
> mechanism that clicks in when you or something you love is threatened.
> It is both healthy and right to hate your enemies. Everyone does,
> except for fools that deserve to be purged like a scourge. If a rapist
> attacks your daughter, do you not hate the assailant with near insane
> hatred and a burning desire to kill? Only a fool does not. But in such
> a situation, would you be attacking the rapist out of "hatred" for
> him, or out of love for the daughter that he attacked? The point is
> plainly clear. We hate our enemies because we love the White Race.
>
No, it's because you simply cannot take responsibility for your failures
in life and want to blame others.
>
> Myth Six: We Can't Win.
>
> Ahhhhh ... the mother of all crocks of crap. When all else fails, the
> media loves to try and take a dump with the old futility argument.
> "Why would you support such a hopeless cause?" is a typical question
> they ask, hoping that you ignore the statement being made by the
> question, and simply answer it as a legitimate query. But the end
> result is the same old pinched loaf... "give up, Honky, the fight has
> already been lost."
>
> Like hell it has! The greatest Race to ever walk the earth will not
> die without fighting a furious fight, and will most certainly respond
> with unprecedented outrage when the system's treachery becomes
> commonly known. Never in my nearly ten years in this movement have the
> masses been so open to our ideas. Never have our ideas been so
> commonly held. Never have radical opinions been in such high demand as
> today. As the 21st Century approaches, we are sitting on a veritable
> time-bomb of White and Black discontentment.
>
You really need to get out more often. Maybe in your group this might be
true, but not society in general.
> The proof that this society is based on falsehoods that cannot endure
> is evident -- everybody feels like they are getting a raw deal today.
> America's social fabric is ripped and torn, and held together by
> Band-Aids and bubble gum. This whole mess is going to unravel, and it
> is going to unravel but good. It could take another 50 years, but it
> will eventually come undone. Anyone who thinks that we can't win is an
> idiot. We can't lose!<<
>
That's why need police protection at your 'rallies'? Eighty to one
hundred shitbags at a gathering of racists is hardly a movement -- except
for a bowel movement perhaps.
> >>Myth Seven: White racialists all think the same.
>
> This is a myth that is less the result of media propaganda, and more
> the result of human nature. The average person doesn't really know any
> White racialists, and doesn't have the time or the inclination to get
> to know the real story. They form an opinion, and simplify it all for
> ease of understanding. But what they don't realize is that
> generalizations are often too broad, especially when discussing modern
> White Racialism.
>
> We have National Socialists, and people who hate National Socialism.
> We have people who honor the American flag, and others who burn it. We
> have people that believe in the niceness of "White Pride," and others
> that seethseethe hatred and call themselves "White Supremacists." We
> have people that are conservative in their opinions, while others are
> radical and revolutionary. Some of us want a small piece of America,
> while others want to conquer the world for our kind. The energy that
> is derived from all the opposing viewpoints is one of the factors that
> makes our movement so dynamic, so I urge you to see the differences
> amongst our ideas, and appreciate them.<<
>
No white racists just don't think.
Regards,
Harry Lime
http://www.harrylimetv.com
> "Christ I need a Jew's cock up my ass. A big
> tool with which to violate my asshole."
>
> -- Ben Klassen
Fury
news:3B8207E1...@home.com...
>
> You might want to ask Tom about the time he accidently offered a friend of
> mine (a news director at a San Diego county radio station) to join the
> KKK. Problem was, Tom never met the man in person and didn't realize that
> he is Black. Tom was made quite a fool of by that mistake. Tom is still
> an uneducated TV repair man without a college degree. Just curious, does
> he still refuse to repair foreign-made televisions?
Hehe...IIRC, there are no American-made TV's on the market anymore...the
various American companies sold off their color-TV manufacturing to the
English, Germans, and Japanese in the 80s. Don't know if they turned
themselves inside out trying to get those subsidiaries back, but for a short
while, Curtis-Mathis was the last one. Maybe that's what drive little Tommy
out into the Big Bad World?
For that matter, if "white racialists" aren't violent, why is WhiteTrashawa
using that nickname? What else are we to conclude from RAcial HOly WAr?
>
> > >>The intended response on the part of the cops is to treat our
> > concerts, rallies, and meetings as gang-related events that require
> > police presence and intervention. The logic being that if they can
> > successfully harass our peaceful, democratic gatherings, attendees
> > will become frustrated and decide not to attend in the future. If
> > anything, this "special treatment" only case-hardens our new
> > supporters, and convinces them of the wide-ranging conspiracy against
> > the survival, expansion, and advancement of the White Race.<<
>
> Really, I wish that somehow, the police just didn't show up to protect
> your rallies. This would be quite fun and entertaining.
I would pay good money to see it.
Susan Cohen
Harry Lime wrote:
> White Trashowa Wrote:
>
> > Black comedian Chris Rock said it best in a recent HBO broadcast when
> > he quipped, "Blade people are more racist then White people, because
> > we hate niggers too! ... I hate niggers so much, I wanna join me the
> > Ku Klux Klan!"<<
>
> Just what's a "Blade people?" Ever heard of a spellchecker?
His spelling mistakes don't show his stupidity nearly as much as his
taking the word of a COMEDIAN as bolstering his own bigotry.
Susan
Fury
> >>If yore new tuh the scene, or gist uh casual observer, or evun an
> outright enemy, yawl probably havuh lot uh misconceptions bout whut
> White racialists is really lahk. The media has worked feverishly to
> create uh stereotypical image uh a Skinhead burnin' false impressions
> into chur mind thoo thousuns uh hours uh television "programming."
> But in many instances, thuh truth iz far difernt. Here, in thus
> special piece, Resistance examines sum uh the common myths uh the
> pro-White movement, an sets thuh record straight once an for all.
>
> Myth One: White racialists is stupid.
>
> The myth thet way are backwoods, sister-humping, booger-eating
> rayudnecks, thet live in trailer parks, an call ourselves "graduates"
> hif we git out uh grade ate, iz an outright lah. The "racists are
> wot trash" stigma iz promoted relentlessly by thuh media, fahwar obvious
> reasons. Smart, decent, honest, hayud-workin' White paypul don't want
> tuh join uh movement thet thay perceive as bein' dominated by uh bunch of
> dead-end losers. So thuh media lays hit on thick, an many would-be
> supporters stay as far awf as possible.
>
> But in reeyulity, thuh average White racialist iz far smarter an more
> idea-oriented than thuh rest uh the population. Ahv met dozens of
> paypul with University degrees, genius-level IQs, an exceptional
> mental aptitude in thuh White racialist community.<<
>>Racists are, on average, smart paypul who say thoo thuh equality lah,
and desire uh return tuh a safer, klaneer, more upwardly mobile society.
Now, in thuh interest uh not promulgatin' a new myth tuh shatter an ode one,
I need tuh add thet way indeed do hav our share uh half-wits, but way should
remember thet thus society iz not zakly brimmin' over with rocket
scientists an brain surgeons. Life duz indeed imitate art sumwhat, and
with thuh media constantly promotin' the notion thet stupid paypul join thuh
pro-White movement, uh few morons bleeve thet thay'll havuh safe-haven in
our scene.<<
>>But thuh next tom thet yawl see sum slobberin' idiot on Geraldo claiming
to represent thuh White Race; take hit for whut hit's an change thuh channel
in shame. Just pop inthat videotape uh John Metzger or Bob Heick waxing
poetic with thur sardonic wit an relentlessly brilliant sneers, and
remember thet allmen is not created equal.<<
> >>Myth Two: We thank all White paypul is groovy.
>
> This iz just uh huge, flabby, ugly, stinkin' lie thet must bay harpooned
> with extreme prejudice. Feces comes in all hues, an there iz more
> White dung out thare tuhday than evur before in recorded history.
> Throngs numberin' in thuh millions uh scummy, decadent, degenerate
> Whites permeate all classes uh White society. They come in many forms.
> From thuh ovur-educated, liberal media prostitutes thet grovel before
> thur Ashkenazi masters with awferings uh anti-White propaganda; to
> thuh soulless mahtearyulist men an women thet would ruthur make uh buck
> on thuh dayuth uh the White Race than fite it; rot down tuh the
> semi-retarded rural an urban dwellin' dirt, thare is undoubtedly
> legions uh clamorin' fools an character-deficient lowlifes thet
> masquerade as Whites due tuh their pale pigmentation.<<
> >>Quite on thuh contrary, way White racialists monly respect White paypul
> thet deserve respect, an hold in low-esteem Whites who deserve our
> contempt. If anything, our recognition uh the abundant supply uh White
> losers monly reinforces our belief thet all men is not created equal.
> Myth Three: White racialists is violent paypul.
> The stigma izzat we lahk tuh get together an throw boot-parties on a
> regular basis, an that initiation into thuh White Power movement is
> based on how many paypul yawl can hurt. This izza farce promoted by
> special interest groups lahk thuh Jewish Anti-Defamation League (ADL),
> who attempt tuh propagandize police awficers thet way are uh public
> menace, an should tharefore bay dealt with as common criminals.<<
> >>The intended response on thuh part uh the cops iz to treat our
> concerts, rallies, an meetings as gang-related evunts thet require
> police presence an intervention. The lawgic bein' that hif they can
> successfully harass our peaceful, democratic gatherings, attendees
> will become frustrated an decide not tuh attend in thuh future. If
> anything, thus "special treatment" monly case-hardens our new
> supporters, an convinces thuhm uh the wide-rangin' conspiracy against
> thuh survival, expansion, an advancement uh the White Race.<<
> >>Additionally, thus propaganda teyunds tuh make parents concerned bout
> thur teens comin' home with uh Bound For Glory CD, an I hav on more
> than wun occasion heard accounts uh young a-dults bein' kicked out of
> thur homes by parents who fear thet thay is gettin' involved in a
> 'gang" cuz thay is discoverin' their Racial roots an showin' a
> liddel White Pride.<<
> >>The truth izzat Skinheads do luv tuh fight, an you'll almost nevur
> say uh Skinhead back down tuh a challenge wheyun confronted. However, huge
> segments uh our young paypul luv tuh release youthful teyunsion by
> scrapping, an to try an single out Skins as major marketers of
> physical aggression iz just plain unfair.<<
> Television iz saturated with violence, an our young paypul spend
> endless days playin' video games lahk Mortal Kombat, whar thuh player
> chocks up thuh maximum number uh points by murderin' the most opponents.
> Hard Metal, Gangsta Rep, "anti-Racist" hayudcore lahk Rage Against The
> Machine, an several
> other genres uh music, is laden with violent images an concepts ...
> but thay is afforded artistic license tuh speak thur minds an rise
> up thuh Billboard charts with vurchully naw opposition.<<
Etc. etc.
Jonsa
"Aidan Kelly" <ake...@pcpostal.com> wrote in message
news:c83d0173.0108...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > Myth 1 - I agree they are not all stupid, just ignorant.
>
> Just how, in your mind, does acknowledging the
> realities of race make one "ignorant"?
Main Entry: ig·no·rant
Pronunciation: 'ig-n(&-)r&nt
Function: adjective
Date: 14th century
1 a : destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also :
lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant
of modern mathematics> b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or
intelligence <ignorant errors>
2 : UNAWARE, UNINFORMED
- ig·no·rant·ly adverb
- ig·no·rant·ness noun
synonyms IGNORANT, ILLITERATE, UNLETTERED, UNTUTORED, UNLEARNED mean not
having knowledge. IGNORANT may imply a general condition or it may apply to
lack of knowledge or awareness of a particular thing <an ignorant fool>
<ignorant of nuclear physics>. ILLITERATE applies to either an absolute or a
relative inability to read and write <much of the population is still
illiterate>. UNLETTERED implies ignorance of the knowledge gained by reading
<an allusion meaningless to the unlettered>. UNTUTORED may imply lack of
schooling in the arts and ways of civilization <strange monuments built by
an untutored people>. UNLEARNED suggests ignorance of advanced subjects
<poetry not for academics but for the unlearned masses>.
Now you know what ignorant means. You and your kind are described in some
detail.
> > Myth 3 - Racialist are not all violent, but then again not all Nazi's
were
> > in the SS either. You got plenty of violent people to do your bidding
now
> > don't you. doesn't Rahowa mean - racial holy war?
>
> Yes it does. First, we must win the propaganda war.
then you can safely wipe out whomever you choose? How can you deny violence
on the one hand and promote it on the other. See answer to myth 2.
> > Myth 4 - I can just imagine your daughter bringing home a "black" as you
put
> > it. How long would it take before he was swinging?
>
> A spiritually and mentally healthy person will never
> have to worry about succumbing to such deviant and
> destructive behavior.
Agreed, but we are talking about you. Your spirituality precludes that of
others. Exclusion to provide definition indicates a weak, unexamined spirit.
This is common amongst those who a) cannot think for themselves b) lack the
moral and ethical framework and the courage to question c) are victims of
severe inbreeding.
> > Myth 5 - Play the semantic game all you want, the bottom line is that
you
> > hate and that hatred is manifest and apparent in all the disgusting
white
> > power websites, publications, demonstrations, etc. What, were you just
> > fooling?
>
> Hatred is natural. It appears to be just as pronounced, if
> not more, on the "anti-racist" side of the equation. Whether
> or not one is "hateful" has nothing to do with intelligence.
Ture. But you were the one claiming that its not about hate,its about love
of one's race. Read your original post again and if your contradiction and
hypocracy don't slap you in the face then refer to myth 1 response.
> > Myth 6 - One on one, I bet you can beat up a lot of people, but
attaining
> > real political power (demographics)? You must smoke really good drugs.
>
> We've already attained significant power and influence in
> France (Front National) and Austria (Freedom Party), to
> name just two examples. Both of those parties are of a
> decidedly racialist bent. In the United States, dozens of
> racialists (such as members of the CofCC and NCF) serve
> in state legislatures, various offices, etc. We are far
> from having full power at this point, but it is clear that
> such an eventual victory is not out of the question.
Keep smokin'. Can you point to the 50 odd million people it would take to
elect a president? You must of course be familiar with the simple
definition of insanity - repeating the same thing over and over again whilst
expecting a different result. Manifestion through desire just doesn't happen
in the real world.
> > Myth 7 - Lots of opinions, lots of dreams but all rooted in a desire to
be
> > better than someone else. Like the color of their skin or the object of
> > their faith makes them less than you. I believe it is clinically called
an
> > inferiority complex.
>
> Not at all. Racialism is grounded in the recognition of
> evolutionary realities. Race has little to do with skin
> color.
Say what? Irony must be a fundamental tenet of your "spirituality".
> > To anyone with a modicum of intelligence, these kinds of efforts on your
> > part, are completely transparent.
>
> Anyone with a modicum of intelligence realizes that
> the media portrayal of "racists" is profoundly dishonest,
> though it may be loaded with propaganda value.
Sticks and stones. Or put it in more understandable terms "don't take a
knife to a gun fight". You guys established the rules about profound
dishonesty being an acceptable tactic.
Harry Lime
The WhiteTrashowa should be men and stop the use of police protection. This is
very hypocritical of them because they say that government representives (like
the police) are the "Zionist Occupation Government" here in the USA. Ever notice
that the police protecting them are often Black or other minorities? Those
protesting their meetings often outnumber them on an average of 3 or 4 to one.
But, they're just a big band of cowardly morons who know they'd get at the very
least be assaulted or worse without the cops coming to protect them.
You'll also notice that I got no response to my note about Tom Metzger's
offering a Black person a membership in the KKK by mistake, and the losing of
the court case here in Portland, Oregon. These band of losers encourage younger
members of their group to do the violent acts so they can keep their cracker
asses out of prison. The Metzger's have turned Hate into an industry which
supports their family.
I've interviewed Tom and found him to be quite a dim bulb. He does look scarier
now since he lost his cheap toupee, but like most I find him to be
inconsequential like the rest of these racist colostomy bag-for-brains losers.
Regards,
Harry Lime
http://www.harrylimetv.com
kmsp...@sympatico.ca
<rgp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>Susan Cohen wrote:
>
>> kmsp...@sympatico.ca wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 20 Aug 2001 23:08:53 GMT, "Richard G. Phillips"
>> > <rgp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >Are you aware that the number of studies of white vs black IQ are believed
>> > >to run into the hundreds and, to the best or present knowledge, all say
>> > >pretty much the same thing: 15 pt difference.
>> >
>> > Yes. And compared to Asians and Ashkenazi Jews, "Whites" are dummies.
>
>===================================================
>Phillips
>
>It was not my object to show that whites are the brightest people in the world -
>only that they are brighter than black people by 15 IQ points.
>
>Now, regarding your 'Whites are dummies' statement: do I detect a centain note of
>relish in the way you made the statement and is it possible there might be a
>connection between this relish and the name Cohen?
>
>=========================================================
Not likely, since KM Spencer wrote it.
[nip]
kmsp...@sympatico.ca
<rgp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
I think he's either a very practiced liar or he's one of those folks
who doesn't realise he's an antisemite.
>> Anyone who doesn't live under a rock knows that he testified
>> on behalf of David Irving. He also referred to Deborah Lipstadt
>> as being an "ethnic activist," and not a legitimate historian.
Is there something wrong with being an "ethnic activist"? Isn't that
what you think you are? And I would hardly regard MacDonald as
someone qualified to comment on Lipstadt's abilities as an historian.
He's a crummy evolutionary psychologist.
>================================================
>Phillips
>
>I agree with both those positions. I'm not sure what you are trying to prove.
>
>=========================================
What positions?
>> >>(2) Have you read 'Race and Reason' by Carleton Putnam? Does he strike you
>> >>that way.
>> >Yes, and yes.
>
>===============================================
>Phillips
>
>Oh? You have read his book and you regard him as a dimwit. I should like to know
>why you think so. And please to remember: the mere fact that he says things that
>outrage you does not count.
Because it is a thinly disguised polemic dressed up in a veneer of
"science" to give it credence.
>=========================================
>
>> But do you think he would have openly declared himself
>> >to be a racist?
>
>===================================
>Phillips
>
>Whether he has openly declared himself to be a racist is not of the slightest
>importance. His position is an uncompromising one of the Negro's intellectual asd
>cultural inferiority. If that doen't make a man a racist then Julius Streicher
>was a multiculturalist.
>
>================================
I agree with you. And that means that his writings about African
Americans are no more credible than Streicher's vitriolic diatribes
about Jews.
>> Putnam noted frequently that Jews are behind the "anti-racist"
>> movement. See Jonathon Marks, "Human Biodiversity: Genes, Race,
>> and History", p.57.
Yes, Marks points out that Putnam saw the Civil Rights Movement as an
evil Jewish conspiracy. You aren't pretending that Marks said that
the Civil Rights Movement was an evil Jewish conspiracy, are you?
>> >>(3) Have you read 'The Bell Curve' by Murray and Herrnstein? Do they strike
>> >>you that way?
>> >
>> >Yes, but they denied being racists.
>>
>> True enough, but Jared Taylor, William Shockley, Peter
>> Brimelow and many other scientists, past and present, have
>> eloquently defended the racialist cause.
Eloquently?
kmsp...@sympatico.ca
wrote:
>"Richard G. Phillips" <rgp...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
><3B81DAEA...@earthlink.net> :
>>
>>
>>Aidan Kelly wrote:
>>
>>> kmsp...@sympatico.ca wrote in article
>>> <qJ2BO4BsAB7NFO...@4ax.com> :
>>> >On Mon, 20 Aug 2001 23:08:53 GMT, "Richard G. Phillips"
>
>>> >
>>> >I don't think Kevin MacDonald regards himself as "Pro-White". Or do
>>> >you know something about his politics that most people don't?
>>
>>=================================
>>Phillips
>
>I think MacDonald DOES regard
>>himself as pro-white.
>>
>>=====================================
>
>Agreed.
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>> Anyone who doesn't live under a rock knows that he testified
>>> on behalf of David Irving. He also referred to Deborah Lipstadt
>>> as being an "ethnic activist," and not a legitimate historian.
>>
>>================================================
>>Phillips
>>
>>I agree with both those positions. I'm not sure what you are trying to prove.
>>
>>=========================================
>
>Just demonstrating that MacDonald does NOT mind being
>regarded as a "racist."
Really? He sure got his knickers in a twist when he was accused of
antisemitism.
Darren McHugh
"Rahowa!" wrote:
>
>
> But in reality, the average White racialist is far smarter and more
> idea-oriented than the rest of the population. I have met dozens of
> people with University degrees, genius-level IQs, and exceptional
> mental aptitude in the White racialist community. Racists are, on
> average, smart people who see through the equality lie, and desire a
> return to a safer, cleaner, more upwardly mobile society.
OK, so where are these "geniuses"? Would they like to enter into public
debate?
I've never even heard any of these geniuses define their terms. What the
hell is the "white race", anyway? Do you count Italians? Turks? Poles?
How east in eastern Europe can you go before the people aren't "white"
anymore? If somebody is 90% "white" (whatever that means) and 10%
"black", (whatever that means), are they "white" or are they "black"?
Race is an arbitrary social construct. It doesn't exist. Get over it.
There is no such thing as the "white race" or the "black race". There is
only the human race (humans all have the same genome, with 46
chromosomes).
> Just pop in
> that videotape of John Metzger or Bob Heick waxing poetic with their
> sardonic wit and relentlessly brilliant sneers, and remember that all
> men are not created equal.
Whoopie. Two KKK members have sardonic wit and relentlessly brilliant
sneers. Maybe *they* can tell me what "white" means.
> Myth Two: We think all White people are groovy.
>
> This is just a huge, flabby, ugly, stinking lie that must be harpooned
> with extreme prejudice. Feces comes in all hues, and there is more
> White dung out there today than ever before in recorded history.
> Throngs numbering in the millions of scummy, decadent, degenerate
> Whites permeate all classes of White society. They come in many forms.
> From the over-educated,
It's OK to be sardonic and brilliant, but being "over-educated" is out.
> liberal media prostitutes that grovel before
> their Ashkenazi masters
Who?
> with offerings of anti-White propaganda; to
> the soulless materialist men and women that would rather make a buck
> on the death of the White Race than fight it;
What's the "White Race"?
> right down to the
> semi-retarded rural and urban dwelling dirt, there are undoubtedly
> legions of clamoring fools and character-deficient lowlifes that
> masquerade as Whites due to their pale pigmentation.
Ahhh, I see that not even pale pigmentation qualifies one for the lofty
status of white, or should I say, "White". So what makes a White person
White?
> (snip)
> The truth is that Skinheads do love to fight, and you'll almost never
> see a Skinhead back down to a challenge when confronted.
LOL, yeah, if ten skinheads are "challenged" by a little old East Indian
lady who weighs 80 pounds, they'll stomp that little old lady!
I don't see too many skinheads showing their colours down in Compton,
though. I wonder why not?
>
> Myth Four: We think all Black people are bad.
>
> Black comedian Chris Rock said it best in a recent HBO broadcast when
> he quipped, "Blade people are more racist then White people, because
> we hate niggers too! ... I hate niggers so much, I wanna join me the
> Ku Klux Klan!"
> The point is that there are two distinct groups of Africans living in
> America: Blacks and niggers. Blacks are the group that pay their
> bills, work for a living instead of mugging people, and are generally
> acculturated to White society. They are smart enough to know how to
> take advantage of the ample opportunities presented to them, through
> affirmative action and demands for more positive black role models.
> They are decent enough people, and it is pretty hard to hate them.
Mighty generous of you. You seem to think America would be better off
without them all the same, though.
> However, in many ways, these are the most dangerous threats to White
> survival, because they have a greater chance of intermarrying with a
> White girl, who doesn't want to bring a crack-smoking, ghetto-nigger
> home to mom and dad if she has "Jungle fever." No, she would rather
> bring a "nice, respectable" black guy home, who at least stands a
> snowball's chance in Hades of being accepted by the family.
Wait a minute, if the black guy "isn't so bad", then what's wrong with a
little of his blood in the white gene pool? Better him than the trash
skinhead sister humping pale excuse for a white man you were talking about
above, right???
LOL! You're stupid. You think you're pretty smart because you can
actually speak English, but you couldn't reason your way out of a paper
bag if you were confronted with an "over-educated liberal" like me. You
say that not all white racists are stupid, but you aren't doing much to
change my mind.
> But just how many blacks are the useless, state-dependent types so
> commonly seen loitering aimlessly in malls and on street corners
> across the U.S.? What percentage of this messed-up Race is bad? Well,
> let's look at U.S. FBI crime statistics, to find out whether or not
> the real numbers support the argument that blacks are more violent
> than Whites. Here are the results:
snip crime stats,
Crime is strongly correlated to poverty.
Blacks are poorer than whites, therefore commit more crimes.
Poverty is strongly correlated to having a poor family and having shitty
education.
Having a shitty education is strongly correlated to being poor.
It's called "the vicious circle". How does a society break it? By making
education available to as many people as possible. America is JUST
STARTING to do that. Fifty years from now, the social disparities between
"whites" and "blacks" will have disappeared, as will have you and your
ideas.
>
> Myth Five: White racialists are motivated by hate.
No, not you... you don't hate anybody.....
> This is entirely untrue, but I won't try and present a ridiculous
> argument like "we don't hate people," because that would be a lie. But
> the often-repeated pile of horse manure that we are "motivated by
> Racial hatred" is a friggin' fraud. It is a big steaming pile of
> anti-White propaganda.
If this post isn't "racial hatred", I don't know what is.
> In reality, we are motivated by the love of our Race, the most
> precious thing to us in the entire world.
Even if you don't know what it is.
Idiot.
> "Loving the White Race" does
> not mean loving all Whites though, it just means that you are
> culturally aligned with the European experience; you understand and
> appreciate the sacrifice of our great White ancestors,
What sacrifice? History is mostly about whites taking, not giving.
> who conquered
> the world for their future progeny; and you want to see our Race
> uplifted in the years to come to what it is capable of becoming.
What is our "race" capable of becoming? A bunch of hate-filled retards
like you? No, I'll stick to my mongrel, bastardized white race, thanks.
> For
> any White racialist that has any lasting endurance in the movement,
> their motivation comes not from hating people, rather from admiring
> and having faith in an ideal that they are prepared to fight for.
What is that "ideal", exactly?
> That all having been said, and that myth having been debunked, let me
> finish this point by adding that there is nothing wrong with hatred.
> Much like love, hating too much will destroy you, but when kept in
> check with your other natural, normal emotions, it is simply a defense
> mechanism that clicks in when you or something you love is threatened.
> It is both healthy and right to hate your enemies. Everyone does,
> except for fools that deserve to be purged like a scourge. If a rapist
> attacks your daughter, do you not hate the assailant with near insane
> hatred and a burning desire to kill? Only a fool does not. But in such
> a situation, would you be attacking the rapist out of "hatred" for
> him, or out of love for the daughter that he attacked? The point is
> plainly clear. We hate our enemies because we love the White Race.
What is the "White Race?" What is it that you love? You say yourself
that you don't like lots of white people, you think that some blacks
aren't too bad, so what is it that you are fighting for?
I hate my enemies too. Ignornance, stupidity, irrationality are my
enemies, so it looks like you and I are on opposite sides.
> Myth Six: We Can't Win.
>
> Like hell it has! The greatest Race to ever walk the earth will not
> die without fighting a furious fight, and will most certainly respond
> with unprecedented outrage when the system's treachery becomes
> commonly known.
Care to expand on "the system's treachery" a bit? Oh wait, don't tell
me.... it's those damned Jews, isn't it??
Yawn. You're a ranting retard, and too cowardly to give your real name to
boot. Your arguments are nothing but stale farts, which disappear as soon
as they are exposed to a bit of fresh air. In thirty years, fifty tops,
you and your movement will just be a distant memory. Goodbye.
Darren
Kenneth McVay, OBC
Darren McHugh <usene...@thanks.com> wrote:
>"Rahowa!" wrote:
>> But in reality, the average White racialist is far smarter and more
>> idea-oriented than the rest of the population. I have met dozens of
>> people with University degrees, genius-level IQs, and exceptional
>> mental aptitude in the White racialist community. Racists are, on
>> average, smart people who see through the equality lie, and desire a
>> return to a safer, cleaner, more upwardly mobile society.
>OK, so where are these "geniuses"? Would they like to enter into public
>debate?
Most of them ran away when they discovered they couldn't post their
drivel on the Usenet without being humiliated.
>I've never even heard any of these geniuses define their terms. What the
>hell is the "white race", anyway? Do you count Italians? Turks? Poles?
>How east in eastern Europe can you go before the people aren't "white"
>anymore? If somebody is 90% "white" (whatever that means) and 10%
>"black", (whatever that means), are they "white" or are they "black"?
That's the hilarious part.... most of the, er, "racialists" (that's
their "respectable" term for "racist asshole.") using the net in the
past 11 years have insisted that White folks could, ah, "become"
Jewish by virtue of simply disagreeing with them. Others among these
dim bulbs have suggested that one could distinguish "white" from "not
white" by examination of their earwax.
Half the fun of confronting these maroons comes from asking them to
define "white." For obvious reasons, they are very reluctant to do so
- in fact, they won't. It always boils down to "Palefaced people who
agree with us who aren't Joosh."
--
"The antisemite has chosen hate because hate is a faith;
at the outset he has chosen to devaluate words and reasons."
(Sarte. Antisemite and Jew, p. 19)
The Nizkor Project: http://www.nizkor.org
Darren McHugh
"Richard G. Phillips" wrote:
>
> ======================================
> Phillips
>
> I'm glad you brought this up because it gives me an opportunity to talk about the
> Tanser Experiment which took place around 1930.
>
> Before and during the Civil War a number of escaped slaves settled in a town in
> Ontario Canada. THere was little if any intermarriage with their white neighbors,
> but they enjoyed an atmosphere completely free of what we call 'racism.' If your
> theories are to be believed, one would expect that in the year 1930 (three
> generations free of any racism) their intellectual capacities ought to have
> measured about the same as those of the surrounding whites.
Well, if they had approximately the same socioeconomic standing, AND their schools
were the same as the white schools AND they did the same kinds of things to make a
living as the white guys did, AND they had the same number of visitors/outside
visitors to their town as the white towns did......
> Nope. 15 pt difference. I say, frightfully sorry about that, old girl.
> ================================
Let's say that were true, and these differences are INNATE.
So what? Rather than shipping out all the black people, shouldn't we just give an IQ
test and ship out all the stupid people?
Darren
kmsp...@sympatico.ca
<usene...@thanks.com> wrote:
>
>
>"Rahowa!" wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> But in reality, the average White racialist is far smarter and more
>> idea-oriented than the rest of the population. I have met dozens of
>> people with University degrees, genius-level IQs, and exceptional
>> mental aptitude in the White racialist community. Racists are, on
>> average, smart people who see through the equality lie, and desire a
>> return to a safer, cleaner, more upwardly mobile society.
>
>OK, so where are these "geniuses"? Would they like to enter into public
>debate?
But Darren - there are *dozens* of people with university degrees in
the Witless Cretins Obfuscating Truth and Clarity. Of thought.
Dozens, you see!!
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>Racial equality is a religion, no less than Christianity.
Claiming that racial equality is a religion is a religion.
>Challenging this irrational faith
It's not irrational for anyone to require that you prove your
assertions.
> does not make me ignorant
But your ignorance does.
--
Al - Unnumbered Atheist #infinity
rukbat at optonline dot net
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>"Jonsa" <jons...@home.com> wrote in message news:<RBgg7.60961$281.10...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com>...
>> Myth 4 - I can just imagine your daughter bringing home a "black" as you put
>> it. How long would it take before he was swinging?
>A spiritually and mentally healthy person will never
>have to worry about succumbing to such deviant and
>destructive behavior.
And a deviant person will never have to worry about actually answering
questions, neh?
>> Myth 5 - Play the semantic game all you want, the bottom line is that you
>> hate and that hatred is manifest and apparent in all the disgusting white
>> power websites, publications, demonstrations, etc. What, were you just
>> fooling?
>Hatred is natural.
Actually it's not - for human beings.
> It appears to be just as pronounced, if
>not more, on the "anti-racist" side of the equation.
Thinking that a person is ignorant isn't the same as hating that
person.
> Whether or not one is "hateful" has nothing to do with intelligence.
Your claim. Actually it does, and in direct proportion, if the hatred
is unwarranted, as it is in "racial" hatred.
>> Myth 6 - One on one, I bet you can beat up a lot of people, but attaining
>> real political power (demographics)? You must smoke really good drugs.
>We've already attained significant power and influence in
>France (Front National) and Austria (Freedom Party), to
>name just two examples.
Two nations with very little overall political power. The biggest
fish in the small pond is just a snack in the ocean.
>In the United States, dozens of
>racialists (such as members of the CofCC and NCF) serve
>in state legislatures, various offices, etc. We are far
>from having full power at this point
Or any wieldable power at all.
> but it is clear that such an eventual victory is not out of the question.
Evidently not to the ignorant.
>> Myth 7 - Lots of opinions, lots of dreams but all rooted in a desire to be
>> better than someone else. Like the color of their skin or the object of
>> their faith makes them less than you. I believe it is clinically called an
>> inferiority complex.
>Not at all. Racialism is grounded in the recognition of
>evolutionary realities. Race has little to do with skin
>color.
It has to do with inferiority complexes - yours. After all, if there
were no inherent significant differences between races, who would you
be better than?
>> To anyone with a modicum of intelligence, these kinds of efforts on your
>> part, are completely transparent.
>Anyone with a modicum of intelligence realizes that
>the media portrayal of "racists" is profoundly dishonest,
>though it may be loaded with propaganda value.
Who cares about what the media portray? We're talking about what we
know without recourse to the media - that only the ignorant are
"racialists".
>"Christianity was invented by the Jews as a
>tool with which to destroy the white race."
>-- Ben Klassen
See? Ignorance. Saul was a Mithraist. Jews have a prohibition
against drinking blood, not a fixation with it.
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>>>(1) Have you read 'Culture of Critique' by Kevin McDonald? Does he strike
>>>you as having a negative IQ (????)
>>I don't think Kevin MacDonald regards himself as "Pro-White". Or do
>>you know something about his politics that most people don't?
>Anyone who doesn't live under a rock knows that he testified
>on behalf of David Irving. He also referred to Deborah Lipstadt
>as being an "ethnic activist," and not a legitimate historian.
And we know the opinion of the majority of intelligent people
regarding that little dust-up, don't we?
>Putnam noted frequently that Jews are behind the "anti-racist"
>movement.
Since the "racialist" movement is anti-Semitic, you could hardly
expect anything else, could you?
Or maybe YOU could, being as obviously challenged as you are.
>>>(3) Have you read 'The Bell Curve' by Murray and Herrnstein? Do they strike
>>>you that way?
>>Yes, but they denied being racists.
>True enough, but Jared Taylor, William Shockley, Peter
>Brimelow and many other scientists, past and present, have
>eloquently defended the racialist cause.
And _The Bell Curve_ has been thoroughly denounced by most legitimate
scientists in the field.
david_michael
"Darren McHugh" <usene...@thanks.com> wrote in message
news:3B82E7BF...@thanks.com...
>
>
> "Rahowa!" wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > But in reality, the average White racialist is far smarter and more
> > idea-oriented than the rest of the population. I have met dozens of
> > people with University degrees, genius-level IQs, and exceptional
> > mental aptitude in the White racialist community. Racists are, on
> > average, smart people who see through the equality lie, and desire a
> > return to a safer, cleaner, more upwardly mobile society.
>
> OK, so where are these "geniuses"?
Here.
Would they like to enter into public
> debate?
OK, if I must.
> I've never even heard any of these geniuses define their terms. What the
> hell is the "white race", anyway?
A rather vague category of people, rather like 'gypsies' or 'Albanians' or
'Jews'.
> Do you count Italians? Turks? Poles?
Probably most of them.
> How east in eastern Europe can you go before the people aren't "white"
> anymore?
Pretty much everyone in Eastern Europe.
> If somebody is 90% "white" (whatever that means) and 10%
> "black", (whatever that means), are they "white" or are they "black"?
I don't understand the question.
> Race is an arbitrary social construct.
This is where you supposedly 'clever' people fall flat on your face because
you use an argument that sounds good without thinking it through. How do you
know that *everything* isn't an arbitrary social construct, or, more
compelling, an arbitrary personal construct? Why should it be wrong for us
to use the arbitrary construct 'white race' but right to use arbitrary
constructs such as 'Jewish' or 'socialist' or 'Satanist' or whatever? If a
group of people wish to identify themselves in a particular way, what's
wrong with that?
> It doesn't exist. Get over it.
> There is no such thing as the "white race" or the "black race".
So there's no such things as Jews or socialists or Arabs or Albanians?
> There is
> only the human race (humans all have the same genome, with 46
> chromosomes).
Again, you're using an argument without thinking it through. Why 'only' the
human race? We have upward of 98% of genetic material in common with
chimpanzees (except for members of the British Labour Party, who are
rumoured to be 99.99998% chimpanzee). So why is 'human race' an less of an
arbitrary construct than 'white race'? Eh?
> > Just pop in
> > that videotape of John Metzger or Bob Heick waxing poetic with their
> > sardonic wit and relentlessly brilliant sneers, and remember that all
> > men are not created equal.
>
> Whoopie. Two KKK members have sardonic wit and relentlessly brilliant
> sneers. Maybe *they* can tell me what "white" means.
Probably not, but I just have.
> > Myth Two: We think all White people are groovy.
> >
> > This is just a huge, flabby, ugly, stinking lie that must be harpooned
> > with extreme prejudice. Feces comes in all hues, and there is more
> > White dung out there today than ever before in recorded history.
> > Throngs numbering in the millions of scummy, decadent, degenerate
> > Whites permeate all classes of White society. They come in many forms.
> > From the over-educated,
>
> It's OK to be sardonic and brilliant, but being "over-educated" is out.
Depends on the sort of education.
> > liberal media prostitutes that grovel before
> > their Ashkenazi masters
>
> Who?
Lewinsky?
> > with offerings of anti-White propaganda; to
> > the soulless materialist men and women that would rather make a buck
> > on the death of the White Race than fight it;
>
> What's the "White Race"?
See above.
> > right down to the
> > semi-retarded rural and urban dwelling dirt, there are undoubtedly
> > legions of clamoring fools and character-deficient lowlifes that
> > masquerade as Whites due to their pale pigmentation.
>
> Ahhh, I see that not even pale pigmentation qualifies one for the lofty
> status of white, or should I say, "White". So what makes a White person
> White?
I'd say it's partly racial and partly cultural. The 'cultural' bit precludes
the 'lowlifes' referred to by our friend.
<snip>
> LOL! You're stupid. You think you're pretty smart because you can
> actually speak English, but you couldn't reason your way out of a paper
> bag if you were confronted with an "over-educated liberal" like me. You
> say that not all white racists are stupid, but you aren't doing much to
> change my mind.
You're not that smart, sonny. You can parrot a few arguments that you've
evidently learned from popular liberal culture but you don't seem to
actually think about what you write. But few people in these particular
Usenet newsgroups do.
> > "Loving the White Race" does
> > not mean loving all Whites though, it just means that you are
> > culturally aligned with the European experience; you understand and
> > appreciate the sacrifice of our great White ancestors,
>
> What sacrifice? History is mostly about whites taking, not giving.
You jest. Who gave South Africa its hospitals, its economic infrastructure,
its mines, its schools, its universities? I'll tell you who -- the white
Afrikaner and British people. And what did they do with it then? They gave
it to the blacks.
What did Britain and Portugal and France and Belgium do with their colonies?
They gave them to the blacks.
And what are the blacks doing to Africa now that we've given it to them?
They're buggering it up.
<snip>
> Yawn. You're a ranting retard,
Funny how these liberal 'intellectuals' always seem to end up with the old
name calling routine.
> and too cowardly to give your real name to
> boot.
Well given the amount of intimidation that those who post anti-Establishment
views under their own names receive that in itself would be a sign of
wisdom. I do post under my own name and have received viruses, mailbombs,
lawsuits (which I saw off) and would have received a good deal worse had I
not taken reasonable security precautions.
>Your arguments are nothing but stale farts, which disappear as soon
> as they are exposed to a bit of fresh air. In thirty years, fifty tops,
> you and your movement will just be a distant memory. Goodbye.
>
> Darren
How profound.
David
david_michael
Yup.
Stupidity wouldn't be an argument for shipping a particular racial group
out.
It might be an argument for NOT shipping that particular group in
David.
david_michael
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
news:8ea5ots8lnr3o54lu...@4ax.com...
> On 20 Aug 2001 19:53:18 -0700, ake...@pcpostal.com (Aidan Kelly)
> posted in alt.atheism:
>
> >Racial equality is a religion, no less than Christianity.
>
> Claiming that racial equality is a religion is a religion.
Claiming that racial equality is a religion is a religion is a religion.
> >Challenging this irrational faith
>
> It's not irrational for anyone to require that you prove your
> assertions.
All assertions are ultimately irrational.
Having spent several years debating World War II history with assorted
members of the politically correct fraternity I am quite convinced that
there are courses out there in 'how to debate with evil fascist bourgeoise
oppressors' (i.e. normal people who happen to question politically correct
orthodoxy). One of the favourite tactics is to demand proof for every
assertion, however blindingly obvious, this tending, of course, to make
sensible debate impossible. Thus:
RACIST: Good morning.
ANTI-RACIST: Prove it's good.
RACIST: Well, the sky is blue . . .
ANTI-RACIST: And your evidence for this is?
RACIST: Well I can see it's blue!
ANTI-RACIST: That's YOUR claim -- why should I believe it, scumbag?
RACIST: Well look at the weather reports for my area . . .
ANTI-RACIST: Ah, now you want me to do your research for you. You're too
lazy to produce any actual EVIDENCE. You are stupid. You are a moron. You
are an idiot. You are . . . etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam.
Some time ago a chap posting under the nym Charlie Chester started playing
this game with me in alt.revisionism. I neatly turned the tables on him by
demanding proof for HIS every assertion. He fled and, as far as I am aware,
has not been seen since!
David
Aidan Kelly
I already knew. Let me ask the pertinent question again:
Just how, in your mind, does acknowledging the realities
of race make one "ignorant"? Can you answer this? Simply
copying and then pasting a definition does not cut it.
How could anyone regard men like Thomas Jefferson as
"illiterate"? He was the man who wrote that "the two
races, equally free, cannot live in the same government."
How could any intelligent person see William Shockley
as "untutored"? He was co-inventor of the transistor,
and also a vocal exponent of both eugenics and white
racialism.
Are you starting to fathom why I asked that question?
You and your kind are described in some
> detail.
>
> > > Myth 3 - Racialist are not all violent, but then again not all Nazi's
> were
> > > in the SS either. You got plenty of violent people to do your bidding
> now
> > > don't you. doesn't Rahowa mean - racial holy war?
> >
> > Yes it does. First, we must win the propaganda war.
>
> then you can safely wipe out whomever you choose?
We will do whatever it takes to secure the survival,
advancement and expansion of the White race.
>
> > > Myth 4 - I can just imagine your daughter bringing home a "black" as you
> put
> > > it. How long would it take before he was swinging?
> >
> > A spiritually and mentally healthy person will never
> > have to worry about succumbing to such deviant and
> > destructive behavior.
>
> Agreed,
Really? I was referring to miscegnation. Do you also
denounce that affliction?
> c) are victims of
> severe inbreeding.
In fact, the ethnic group which is fondest of
inbreeding would be the Jews.
Georgette Kollmorgen on Wayne State University
notes that various diseases, such as Tay-Sachs,
are almost exclusively found among Jews. Kollmorgen
lists "inbreeding" as a primary cause of such diseases.
Indeed, geneticist P.F. Talbot notes that Jews are
100 times more likely to get Tay Sachs disease than
any other population cluster.
White racialists only want to breed within their
own race. Jews often breed with their own cousins,
and sometimes (astounding as this may sound) even
their siblings. Thus Jews practice the very level of
'inbreeding' that they so often accuse White racialists
of. Professor Kevin MacDonald of California State University
(Long Beach) writes that "consanguinity [inbreeding] and
endogamy [marrying kin]" are important "in facilitating
group solidarity and altruism among Jews."
>
> > > Myth 5 - Play the semantic game all you want, the bottom line is that
> you
> > > hate and that hatred is manifest and apparent in all the disgusting
> white
> > > power websites, publications, demonstrations, etc. What, were you just
> > > fooling?
> >
> > Hatred is natural. It appears to be just as pronounced, if
> > not more, on the "anti-racist" side of the equation. Whether
> > or not one is "hateful" has nothing to do with intelligence.
>
> Ture. But you were the one claiming that its not about hate,its about love
> of one's race.
We hate our racial enemies precisely because we love
our own race.
Read your original post again and if your contradiction and
> hypocracy don't slap you in the face then refer to myth 1 response.
>
> > > Myth 6 - One on one, I bet you can beat up a lot of people, but
> attaining
> > > real political power (demographics)? You must smoke really good drugs.
> >
> > We've already attained significant power and influence in
> > France (Front National) and Austria (Freedom Party), to
> > name just two examples. Both of those parties are of a
> > decidedly racialist bent. In the United States, dozens of
> > racialists (such as members of the CofCC and NCF) serve
> > in state legislatures, various offices, etc. We are far
> > from having full power at this point, but it is clear that
> > such an eventual victory is not out of the question.
>
> Keep smokin'. Can you point to the 50 odd million people it would take to
> elect a president? You must of course be familiar with the simple
> definition of insanity - repeating the same thing over and over again whilst
> expecting a different result. Manifestion through desire just doesn't happen
> in the real world.
I listed above some racialists who are in power *right
now*, and you appeared to simply ignore this. One wonders
why.
>
> > > Myth 7 - Lots of opinions, lots of dreams but all rooted in a desire to
> be
> > > better than someone else. Like the color of their skin or the object of
> > > their faith makes them less than you. I believe it is clinically called
> an
> > > inferiority complex.
> >
> > Not at all. Racialism is grounded in the recognition of
> > evolutionary realities. Race has little to do with skin
> > color.
>
> Say what? Irony must be a fundamental tenet of your "spirituality".
What don't you understand?
>
> > > To anyone with a modicum of intelligence, these kinds of efforts on your
> > > part, are completely transparent.
> >
> > Anyone with a modicum of intelligence realizes that
> > the media portrayal of "racists" is profoundly dishonest,
> > though it may be loaded with propaganda value.
>
> Sticks and stones. Or put it in more understandable terms "don't take a
> knife to a gun fight". You guys established the rules about profound
> dishonesty being an acceptable tactic.
How so?
a.k.
RAHOWA!
DELENDA EST JUDAICA!
"Christianity was invented by the Jews as a
micron5
> How could anyone regard men like Thomas Jefferson as
> "illiterate"? He was the man who wrote that "the two
> races, equally free, cannot live in the same government."
Jefferson was Ok, but still had a lot to learn. Here
is a hint - was Julius Caesar done in by those from
another race. Check out the dictionary definitions
of race too. It's just the same alpha ape dynamics
no matter what the racial 'spread'.
dp
Susan Cohen
kmsp...@sympatico.ca wrote:
Showing once again the intellectual prowess of the average bigot.
Susan
Susan Cohen
Darren McHugh wrote:
> Let's say that were true, and these differences are INNATE.
>
> So what? Rather than shipping out all the black people, shouldn't we just give an IQ
> test and ship out all the stupid people?
>
> Darren
Hey, let's just save the bother & ship out everyone
that "The Bell Curve" say aren't as smart as others.
Now, what would that leave, Jews or Asians?
Or maybe just Asian Jews? Think Richard would
go for that, Darren?
Susan
Susan Cohen
david_michael wrote:
> "Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
> news:8ea5ots8lnr3o54lu...@4ax.com...
> > On 20 Aug 2001 19:53:18 -0700, ake...@pcpostal.com (Aidan Kelly)
> > posted in alt.atheism:
> >
> > >Racial equality is a religion, no less than Christianity.
> >
> > Claiming that racial equality is a religion is a religion.
>
> Claiming that racial equality is a religion is a religion is a religion.
>
> > >Challenging this irrational faith
> >
> > It's not irrational for anyone to require that you prove your
> > assertions.
>
> All assertions are ultimately irrational.
>
> Having spent several years debating World War II history
(translation: denying the Holocaust)
> with assorted
> members of the politically correct fraternity
(translation: people who know that the Holocaust actually happened)
> I am quite convinced that
> there are courses out there in 'how to debate with evil fascist bourgeoise
> oppressors' (i.e. normal people who happen to question politically correct
> orthodoxy)
(translation: Holocaust deniers, who are actually the ones who study
how to argue without producing any facts)
> . One of the favourite tactics is to demand proof for every
> assertion,
And it works, too.
> however blindingly obvious,
(translation: Holocaust deniers want it to be true)
> this tending, of course, to make
> sensible debate impossible.
(translation: Holocaust deniers lose every time)
> Thus:
>
> RACIST: Good morning.
> ANTI-RACIST: Prove it's good.
> RACIST: Well, the sky is blue . . .
> ANTI-RACIST: And your evidence for this is?
> RACIST: Well I can see it's blue!
> ANTI-RACIST: That's YOUR claim -- why should I believe it, scumbag?
> RACIST: Well look at the weather reports for my area . . .
> ANTI-RACIST: Ah, now you want me to do your research for you. You're too
> lazy to produce any actual EVIDENCE. You are stupid. You are a moron. You
> are an idiot. You are . . . etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam.
You could switch the speakers & it could still be the same.
Except for one thing: no anti-racist would ever insist that
their mere opinion - such as whether it's a good morning or
not - is true. That's a racist's trick.
Susan
david_michael
"Susan Cohen" <fla...@his.com> wrote in message
news:3B833EA9...@his.com...
>
>
> david_michael wrote:
>
> > "Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
> > news:8ea5ots8lnr3o54lu...@4ax.com...
> > > On 20 Aug 2001 19:53:18 -0700, ake...@pcpostal.com (Aidan Kelly)
> > > posted in alt.atheism:
> > >
> > > >Racial equality is a religion, no less than Christianity.
> > >
> > > Claiming that racial equality is a religion is a religion.
> >
> > Claiming that racial equality is a religion is a religion is a religion.
> >
> > > >Challenging this irrational faith
> > >
> > > It's not irrational for anyone to require that you prove your
> > > assertions.
> >
> > All assertions are ultimately irrational.
> >
> > Having spent several years debating World War II history
>
> (translation: denying the Holocaust)
An outright lie.
> > with assorted
> > members of the politically correct fraternity
>
> (translation: people who know that the Holocaust actually happened)
Nah, mostly people who would be utterly horrified if it hadn't happened and
are probably secretly grateful to Hitler for making whatever did happen
happen!
> > I am quite convinced that
> > there are courses out there in 'how to debate with evil fascist
bourgeoise
> > oppressors' (i.e. normal people who happen to question politically
correct
> > orthodoxy)
>
> (translation: Holocaust deniers, who are actually the ones who study
> how to argue without producing any facts)
Part of the problem is how to establish 'facts'. There are serious
disagreements about that. The obvious next stage of 'the debate' is to
progress to that very issue, but nobody seems to want to take that step.
Consequently the entire newsgroup (alt.revisionism) just goes around in
circles year after year.
> > . One of the favourite tactics is to demand proof for every
> > assertion,
>
> And it works, too.
Well it certainly seems to bring discussion to a grinding halt! Presumably
that's your objective however . . .
> > however blindingly obvious,
>
> (translation: Holocaust deniers want it to be true)
>
> > this tending, of course, to make
> > sensible debate impossible.
>
> (translation: Holocaust deniers lose every time)
> > Thus:
> >
> > RACIST: Good morning.
> > ANTI-RACIST: Prove it's good.
> > RACIST: Well, the sky is blue . . .
> > ANTI-RACIST: And your evidence for this is?
> > RACIST: Well I can see it's blue!
> > ANTI-RACIST: That's YOUR claim -- why should I believe it, scumbag?
> > RACIST: Well look at the weather reports for my area . . .
> > ANTI-RACIST: Ah, now you want me to do your research for you. You're too
> > lazy to produce any actual EVIDENCE. You are stupid. You are a moron.
You
> > are an idiot. You are . . . etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam.
>
> You could switch the speakers & it could still be the same.
> Except for one thing: no anti-racist would ever insist that
> their mere opinion - such as whether it's a good morning or
> not - is true. That's a racist's trick.
I must introduce you to a chap called Joe Bruno . ..
I think that the call for proof is valuable when something is genuinely in
dispute and the presence of proof can settle the dispute. However, there are
those who spend all their time calling for proof of things that are not
seriously in dispute merely to prevent the arguments from progressing.
> Susan
David
Fury
> Dear Fury:
>
> The WhiteTrashowa should be men and stop the use of police protection. This
is
Indeed; but since his full name is CravenHypocephalicCoward...I doubt he's got
the stones to do so.
> very hypocritical of them because they say that government representives
(like
> the police) are the "Zionist Occupation Government" here in the USA. Ever
notice
> that the police protecting them are often Black or other minorities? Those
*nod* I've seen a few Klan rallies like that...pathetic when only three of
them show up, when the opposition is 200+ strong :)
> protesting their meetings often outnumber them on an average of 3 or 4 to
one.
> But, they're just a big band of cowardly morons who know they'd get at the
very
> least be assaulted or worse without the cops coming to protect them.
Yep. Can't get the law on their side, anymore...
>
> You'll also notice that I got no response to my note about Tom Metzger's
> offering a Black person a membership in the KKK by mistake, and the losing
of
> the court case here in Portland, Oregon. These band of losers encourage
younger
Of course not--they can't reply, just chop up posts and re-work people's
names.
> members of their group to do the violent acts so they can keep their cracker
> asses out of prison. The Metzger's have turned Hate into an industry which
> supports their family.
Guy's gotta eat...too bad no one in his family invented a useful home
appliance, maybe they could live off the royalties of that :)
>
> I've interviewed Tom and found him to be quite a dim bulb. He does look
scarier
> now since he lost his cheap toupee, but like most I find him to be
> inconsequential like the rest of these racist colostomy bag-for-brains
losers.
Indeed. I followed a link to some Metzger-oriented site...found it incredibly
stupid...surfed right on by.
In the mean time...fight the good fight :)
Charlie Chester
> "Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
> news:8ea5ots8lnr3o54lu...@4ax.com...
> > On 20 Aug 2001 19:53:18 -0700, ake...@pcpostal.com (Aidan Kelly)
> > posted in alt.atheism:
> >
> > >Racial equality is a religion, no less than Christianity.
> >
> > Claiming that racial equality is a religion is a religion.
>
> Claiming that racial equality is a religion is a religion is a religion.
>
> > >Challenging this irrational faith
> >
> > It's not irrational for anyone to require that you prove your
> > assertions.
>
> All assertions are ultimately irrational.
And how would you go about making them more rational Dave? Perhaps by
pointing people towards objective verifiable evidence that would
support the assertion. This of course is too much effort for poor
Dave.
> Having spent several years debating World War II history with assorted
> members of the politically correct fraternity I am quite convinced that
> there are courses out there in 'how to debate with evil fascist bourgeoise
> oppressors' (i.e. normal people who happen to question politically correct
> orthodoxy). One of the favourite tactics is to demand proof for every
> assertion, however blindingly obvious, this tending, of course, to make
> sensible debate impossible.
Providing evidence in support of a position is what makes debate
meaningful Dave. Otherwise it's just a pantomime routine of "Oh yes it
is. Oh no it isn't. etc etc". It's not the "blindingly obvious" which
you're asked to support but your silly assertions, such as your one
about white women in "mixed race" relationships being "filthy slags"
who you think should be encouraged to commit suicide.
>Thus:
snip Dave's parody
A more accurate representation of the sort of thing Dave's talking
about would be this
RACIST: The Holocaust was a hoax perpetrated by the international
Jewish conspiracy.
ANTI-RACIST: But what about all this evidence (includes appropriate
links)that indicates the Holocaust did occur in the way mainstream
historians say?
RACIST: It's all forged by the anti-white Jew bolshevists.
ANTI-RACIST: What's your reason for thinking the evidence is forged?
RACIST: Because it says the Holocaust happened & I know that it
didn't.
ANTI-RACIST: Can't you give me any evidence to support your view?
RACIST: What's the point. You're just a faggot pawn of the evil
zionist yadda yadda yadda...
>
> Some time ago a chap posting under the nym Charlie Chester started playing
> this game with me in alt.revisionism.
I asked Dave to back up his assertions that white women in "mixed
race" relationships were "filthy slags" who should be encouraged to
committ suicide. He claimed it was because they were supporting the
aims of some shadowy conspiracy that was trying to impose an evil
one-world tyranny on us all. Needless to say, he didn't have anything
to back up his ravings.
> I neatly turned the tables on him
Dave descended to solipsistic squawking.
> by
> demanding proof for HIS every assertion.
Which was odd, since I never asked Davie boy to "prove" anything. Just
to furnish some evidence that might support his position. For some
unknown reason, Dave gets very upset when asked for evidence.
> He fled and, as far as I am aware,
> has not been seen since!
>
Still reading the news groups Dave. I see your "revisionism" extends
beyond the Holocaust to ah..."revising" the history of your own past
usenet encounters.
pip pip
Charlie Chester
Manchester England
david_michael
"Charlie Chester" <g.ch...@csu.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:cf6d3ea0.01082...@posting.google.com...
> "david_michael" <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:<3b83...@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>...
> > "Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
> > news:8ea5ots8lnr3o54lu...@4ax.com...
> > > On 20 Aug 2001 19:53:18 -0700, ake...@pcpostal.com (Aidan Kelly)
> > > posted in alt.atheism:
> > >
> > > >Racial equality is a religion, no less than Christianity.
> > >
> > > Claiming that racial equality is a religion is a religion.
> >
> > Claiming that racial equality is a religion is a religion is a religion.
> >
> > > >Challenging this irrational faith
> > >
> > > It's not irrational for anyone to require that you prove your
> > > assertions.
> >
> > All assertions are ultimately irrational.
>
> And how would you go about making them more rational Dave?
Produce evidence that I would wish to go about making them more rational,
Charlie.
> Perhaps by
> pointing people towards objective verifiable evidence that would
> support the assertion.
What evidence do you have to support that assertion?
This of course is too much effort for poor
> Dave.
Prove it.
> > Having spent several years debating World War II history with assorted
> > members of the politically correct fraternity I am quite convinced that
> > there are courses out there in 'how to debate with evil fascist
bourgeoise
> > oppressors' (i.e. normal people who happen to question politically
correct
> > orthodoxy). One of the favourite tactics is to demand proof for every
> > assertion, however blindingly obvious, this tending, of course, to make
> > sensible debate impossible.
>
> Providing evidence in support of a position is what makes debate
> meaningful Dave.
What does 'meaningful' mean, Charlie?
> Otherwise it's just a pantomime routine of "Oh yes it
> is. Oh no it isn't. etc etc".
Why should that be, Charlie?
> It's not the "blindingly obvious" which
> you're asked to support but your silly assertions, such as your one
> about white women in "mixed race" relationships being "filthy slags"
> who you think should be encouraged to commit suicide.
Prove it.
Prove that there is no such conspiracy.
> > I neatly turned the tables on him
>
> Dave descended to solipsistic squawking.
Means?
> > by
> > demanding proof for HIS every assertion.
>
> Which was odd, since I never asked Davie boy to "prove" anything. Just
> to furnish some evidence that might support his position. For some
> unknown reason, Dave gets very upset when asked for evidence.
Prove it.
> > He fled and, as far as I am aware,
> > has not been seen since!
> >
> Still reading the news groups Dave. I see your "revisionism" extends
> beyond the Holocaust to ah..."revising" the history of your own past
> usenet encounters.
And as usual you have not provided a scrap of evidence for any of your
assertions.
But that's anti-revisionism for you. ;-)
> pip pip
> Charlie Chester
> Manchester England
David
kmsp...@sympatico.ca
Like I said, much of the social sciences is unlearnable without
knowing some math.
Master4nogod
>Harry Lime <timjo...@home.com> wrote in message
>> So why did Metzger lose his case here in Portland, Oregon? Do you think
>> that people don't remember that he advocated violence that got an Ethopian
>> student killed?
>
>For that matter, if "white racialists" aren't violent, why is WhiteTrashawa
>using that nickname? What else are we to conclude from RAcial HOly WAr?
Probably because if you say it fast and mumble, it sounds like Racial Holy
Whore, which is what he really wants. A nice, massive,
made-for-Jerry-Springer, black woman to give him the sex he needs. And maybe
change him to the sex he wants to be. Oh, wait; I withdraw that last
statement. It's an insult to transgenders.
--
(c) 2001 4nogod 4no...@ziplip.com, all rights reserved.
Sex and drugs and sex then drugs and sex then sleep and sex then eat and sex
then listen.
Darren McHugh
david_michael wrote:
Huh?? No it isn't!! We should turn away a Black guy with a university degree,
speaks fluent English, etc, because he's Black, and "everyone knows Blacks are
dumb"?
Darren
SW
<kmsp...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:oqmDO4ysOhRPUB...@4ax.com...
Consider the possibility that mr. michael is burnt out from unsuccessfully
soliciting contributions
from racist bigots to establish his 'homeland'. Or maybe he just took too
many blows to the head whilst trying to enlist members for the BNP.
sw
david_michael
"SW" <ad...@hell.com> wrote in message
news:5PXg7.628551$K5.67...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
Note how Leftist posters respond to sensible points not by addressing the
issues raised but rather by descending into inane personal remarks,
presumably with the objective of preventing the issues from being discussed.
kmsp...@sympatico.ca
And note how you avoided the obvious question by feigning an inability
to understand what was being asked. Or perhaps despite your PhD in
pscyhology you really do not understand the concept of percentages.
david_michael
<kmsp...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:EViEOxpi2Pi8bA...@4ax.com...
The question is quite incomprehensible. How can one express 'whiteness' in
terms of a percentage? Why should one wish to do such a thing?
For me, 'whiteness' is a category, rather like Jewishness or Albanian-ness,
that has both biological and cultural elements. You can argue that it's a
bit vague around the edges, but surely it is no more so than some (but not
necessary all) conceptions of Jewishness or Albanian-ness. I do not
understand why it should be OK for a group of people to get together and
define themselves as 'Jews' or 'blacks' or 'socialists' or whatever, but not
OK for a group of people to get together and define themselves as 'whites'.
Isn't it just a matter of fashion? Please enlighten me!
David
david_michael
Not at all, although if we have an excess of people with university degrees
looking for employment in our country then the wisdom of importing more is
perhaps a little hard to fathom.
The IQ argument has its origins in the debates that took place ages ago
about whether or not mass black immigration was a good thing or a bad thing
for the nation. One of the many arguments advanced against it was that
because blacks are on average less intelligent than whites (i.e. because
they tended to do significantly worse than whites on average in IQ tests)
then mass black immigration would tend to lower the overall IQ, to
contaminate the gene pool. Now you could indeed get around this by saying
'let in only the smart ones' -- although nobody actually argued for that as
far as I'm aware. It would not completely solve the problem because just
because the chap you let in is a smart black fellow that doesn't preclude
the possibility that his smartness results from environmental factors (e.g.
a particularly good education) and that the genes you're letting in are
still dodgy.
As I've said before, the IQ argument isn't the best argument by far for
restricting black immigration. However, it isn't quite as daft as some
people make it out to be.
The strong argument against mass black immigration is this. We are in a
world where globalization is proceeding rapidly. Vast concentrations of
power are being constructed in supra-national institutions that are often
poorly accountable. This poses a danger of leading to, at best, a very
unfair world and, at worst, a one-world superstate that could develop into
an inescapable one-world dictatorship. Multiculturalism is being used,
intentionally or otherwise, to break down national identities and to prepare
the way for the destruction of the nation state to facilitate the
development of supra-national institutions. Those of us who would rather see
a world based on powerful, free nations living together in peace therefore
have an imporant interest in opposing multiculturalism and the immigration
trends that feed it.
David
Darren McHugh
discuss racism with me.
david_michael wrote:
> > I've never even heard any of these geniuses define their terms. What the
> > hell is the "white race", anyway?
>
> A rather vague category of people, rather like 'gypsies' or 'Albanians' or
> 'Jews'.
Yes, "white" is rather vague, isn't it? In daily conversation, people don't
worry too much about exact definitions for the words they use. How white does a
person have to be before he is "white"? How black does a person's skin have to
be before he is "black"? The terms "white" and "black" are pretty vague, and
nobody much cares.
But wait a minute, what about these "racists"? What do they say? Let's see:
"Racists are .... people who see through the equality lie, and desire a return
to a safer, cleaner, more upwardly mobile society." - Rahowa
Now, Rahowa didn't have the balls to come right out and say what he meant by
that (even under a pen name), but since Rahowa apparently stands for RAcial HOly
WAr, I think I can guess. Rahowa (and I presume, you) desire to round up all
the "Blacks" (and perhaps the Jews too) and ship them back to Africa/Israel (or
worse). Am I right?
NOW the vagueness of "white" and "black" becomes a problem.... a big problem.
Which "black" people are "black" enough to get shipped out? Which "white"
people are "white" enough to stay? What test will you administer to determine
who is "white" enough, and who is "too black"?
> > Do you count Italians? Turks? Poles?
>
> Probably most of them.
Really? How generous of you. Which ones? What criteria will you use to decide
which Italians are "white" and which ones aren't?
> > How east in eastern Europe can you go before the people aren't "white"
> > anymore?
>
> Pretty much everyone in Eastern Europe.
What do you mean? Everyone in Eastern Europe *is* White? Or isn't White?
Could you please provide me with a full colour map of Europe with a bright red
line running through it? Please label the line as follows "Everyone on the left
side of this line is a nice, cultured White person. Everyone on the right side
of this line is a dumb Pollack, not fit for any decent society."
> > If somebody is 90% "white" (whatever that means) and 10%
> > "black", (whatever that means), are they "white" or are they "black"?
>
> I don't understand the question.
I'll bet you don't. The question doesn't make any sense, and wasn't supposed
to. The reason my question didn't make any sense is that the term "white"
doesn't make any sense unless it is used colloquially. It is absurd to speak of
"Whites", "Blacks", the "White Race"... etc etc etc, in the context of any kind
of concrete social policy where you are actually going to screen people in or
out based on their "race".
So, if you have somebody with a "Black" mother and a "White" father, is that
child "White" or "Black"? How about if you have 50 "White" ancestors and one
"Black" one? What colour are you then? Are you allowed to stay, or it is back
to Africa?
> > Race is an arbitrary social construct.
>
> This is where you supposedly 'clever' people fall flat on your face because
> you use an argument that sounds good without thinking it through.
This ought to be good....
> How do you
> know that *everything* isn't an arbitrary social construct, or, more
> compelling, an arbitrary personal construct? Why should it be wrong for us
> to use the arbitrary construct 'white race' but right to use arbitrary
> constructs such as 'Jewish' or 'socialist' or 'Satanist' or whatever?
There are nothing wrong with arbitrary distinctions like "socialist", "Jew",
"white", etc. (Although some of them are self-assigned obviously... you can
choose to be a "socialist" but you can't really choose to be "white")..... as
long as you don't try to use those distinctions as the foundation of social
policy.
> If a
> group of people wish to identify themselves in a particular way, what's
> wrong with that?
First of all, thank you for admitting that the construct "white race" is purely
arbitrary.
If you wish to identify yourself in certain ways, and take pride in arbitrary
features of your make-up (ie: "I am a member of the 'White Race', and proud of
it") then fine. I think you must be laughably insecure and stupid to do so, but
I really don't care about your personal foibles. I myself, happen to be a
member of the 'White Race', but I wouldn't say that I'm "proud" of it, any more
than I am "proud" of having brown hair. It's not a matter for shame or pride.
I consider the colour of my skin to be irrelevant (and so does Rahowa, if his
confused ramblings about white trailer trash and blacks who "aren't too bad" can
be believed). But if you don't agree with me, so what? No big deal. We just
agree to disagree.
But White Racialism (or whatever the hell you call your movement) seems to be
about a lot more than quietly being "proud to be White". It seems like you
people can't go very far before you say something like: "We hate our enemies
because we love the White Race.", as Rahowa did in his post.
And I think there is a lot wrong with that. It seems to me to be self evidently
WRONG to divide people into arbitrary categories (i.e. races) and decide that
you "hate" some of them. It seems to me to be self evidently WRONG to hate
people just because they disagree with you.
If you think those things are OK, well, I guess we don't have much to say to
each other about morality. You don't accept my moral axioms and I don't accept
yours.
> > It doesn't exist. Get over it.
> > There is no such thing as the "white race" or the "black race".
>
> So there's no such things as Jews or socialists or Arabs or Albanians?
What I'm saying is: "races" don't exist except as vague, arbitrary categories
that are far, far, far too ambiguous and vague to base any social policy on.
(BTW, I happen to oppose Affirmative Action type programs as well.)
> > There is
> > only the human race (humans all have the same genome, with 46
> > chromosomes).
>
> Again, you're using an argument without thinking it through. Why 'only' the
> human race? We have upward of 98% of genetic material in common with
> chimpanzees (except for members of the British Labour Party, who are
> rumoured to be 99.99998% chimpanzee). So why is 'human race' an less of an
> arbitrary construct than 'white race'? Eh?
I suggest you try to get some basic biology into that little shaved head of
yours.
Humans and chimps are different species. They could not mate and produce
viable, fertile offspring, even with a test tube. The distinction between a
chimp and human is not arbitrary. It is real.
The distinctions between the different human "races", however, are completely
arbitrary. Humans of every "race" have, can, and do freely mate with each other
and produce viable, even outstanding offspring (which makes perfect genetic
sense... cross breeding promotes vigour, while inbreeding preserves recessive
abnormalities).
Nobody even knows how many "races" there are! Read the literature. Some say
there are three major races. Some say there are four major races. Some say
there are dozens. What does that confusion about "which race is which" tell
you? It should tell you, IF you have a full set of frontal lobes, that THE
DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE RACES ARE PURELY ARBITRARY. And that makes any social
policy based on race, whether it be "liberal" or "Nazi", arbitrary, and
therefore wrong and unfair, as well. Period.
> > > Just pop in
> > > that videotape of John Metzger or Bob Heick waxing poetic with their
> > > sardonic wit and relentlessly brilliant sneers, and remember that all
> > > men are not created equal.
> >
> > Whoopie. Two KKK members have sardonic wit and relentlessly brilliant
> > sneers. Maybe *they* can tell me what "white" means.
>
> Probably not, but I just have.
No you didn't, genius, you just described "white" as "a rather vague category of
people, like gypsies or Albanians". That doesn't tell me shit.
> > > Myth Two: We think all White people are groovy.
> > >
> > > This is just a huge, flabby, ugly, stinking lie that must be harpooned
> > > with extreme prejudice. Feces comes in all hues, and there is more
> > > White dung out there today than ever before in recorded history.
> > > Throngs numbering in the millions of scummy, decadent, degenerate
> > > Whites permeate all classes of White society. They come in many forms.
> > > From the over-educated,
> >
> > It's OK to be sardonic and brilliant, but being "over-educated" is out.
>
> Depends on the sort of education.
"Education that causes people to disagree with us is scummy, degenerate, and
decadent. Other education is OK."
> > > with offerings of anti-White propaganda; to
> > > the soulless materialist men and women that would rather make a buck
> > > on the death of the White Race than fight it;
> >
> > What's the "White Race"?
>
> See above.
See above? "Whites are a rather vague group of people...." That's your
definition? Whoop-de-fucking-do.
> > > right down to the
> > > semi-retarded rural and urban dwelling dirt, there are undoubtedly
> > > legions of clamoring fools and character-deficient lowlifes that
> > > masquerade as Whites due to their pale pigmentation.
> >
> > Ahhh, I see that not even pale pigmentation qualifies one for the lofty
> > status of white, or should I say, "White". So what makes a White person
> > White?
>
> I'd say it's partly racial and partly cultural. The 'cultural' bit precludes
> the 'lowlifes' referred to by our friend.
I have pale skin, a university degree, and an IQ of approximately 140. I like
Beethoven. I also think that Rahowa is a lower life form than the worms in my
back yard. So am I "white" or not?
Again, if you merely want to say "I only like people of similar cultural and
'racial' background to myself", that's your right, it makes you nothing more
than a harmless asshole. You have every right to be a harmless asshole.
If, however, you "hate the enemies of the White Race", like Rahowa does, and
would like to do something about it, as Rahowa does, then you aren't just a
harmless asshole anymore. You are now a harmful and dangerous asshole....
dangerous to a whole bunch of people who have done nothing wrong except to
disregard your pathetic and arbitrary means of self-identification.
> <snip>
>
> > LOL! You're stupid. You think you're pretty smart because you can
> > actually speak English, but you couldn't reason your way out of a paper
> > bag if you were confronted with an "over-educated liberal" like me. You
> > say that not all white racists are stupid, but you aren't doing much to
> > change my mind.
>
> You're not that smart, sonny.
I suppose I had better tear up my Mensa membership, then.
> You can parrot a few arguments that you've
> evidently learned from popular liberal culture but you don't seem to
> actually think about what you write. But few people in these particular
> Usenet newsgroups do.
Well, I will leave it to you to respond to what I have written.
> > > "Loving the White Race" does
> > > not mean loving all Whites though, it just means that you are
> > > culturally aligned with the European experience; you understand and
> > > appreciate the sacrifice of our great White ancestors,
> >
> > What sacrifice? History is mostly about whites taking, not giving.
>
> You jest. Who gave South Africa its hospitals, its economic infrastructure,
> its mines, its schools, its universities? I'll tell you who -- the white
> Afrikaner and British people. And what did they do with it then? They gave
> it to the blacks.
I am unfamiliar with the history of South Africa. The history of North America
however, can be encapsulated as follows:
- Whites show up (unknowingly carrying smallpox)
- 80-90% of Native Americans die of smallpox.
- Whites take all the gold and land, and work it with Black slaves.
-Whites build a few "schools" for Natives. Natives were forced to attend,
beaten if they spoke their native language, and frequently sexually abused.
Natives today live on "reserves" on welfare, where there are few opportunities
to do anything other than drink and be poor. Or they head into the cities and
try to make a go of it by "assimilating".
> What did Britain and Portugal and France and Belgium do with their colonies?
> They gave them to the blacks.
"Gave them to the blacks"? Hmmmm... didn't those lands belong to the Blacks in
the first place?
> And what are the blacks doing to Africa now that we've given it to them?
>
> They're buggering it up.
Yep, largely because they are forced to live in nation states which are
patterned after completely arbitrary ex-colonies, rather than upon natural
ethnic or geographical lines. Read "Ends of the Earth" by Robert Kaplan... he
tours Africa extensively. All the tribal violence happening in Africa now is
the same thing that has been happening in Europe for the last 2000 years. Or
don't you think tribal violence happens in Europe? (hint: Northern Ireland).
What's eventually going to happen in Africa is that the tribal violence is going
to burn itself out and the national boundaries are going to be redrawn upon
tribal, ethnic, and geographical lines instead of colonial lines. It's going to
be slow, violent, and bloody, just like it was for all those glorious, cultured
Whites of Europe.
When stable nation-states exist in Africa, then the rule of law will exist, and
development will succeed.
> > Yawn. You're a ranting retard,
>
> Funny how these liberal 'intellectuals' always seem to end up with the old
> name calling routine.
I also supplied plently of reasoned criticisms of his arguments, so that wasn't
an ad hominem (an attack on character as a substitute for an reasoned attack on
the argument), that was just an insult. Here's another: I think both you and
Rahowa are pathetic assholes.
Darren
Darren McHugh
david_michael wrote:
>
> > >> > >
> > >> > >> If somebody is 90% "white" (whatever that means) and 10%
> > >> > >> "black", (whatever that means), are they "white" or are they
> "black"?
> > >> > >
> > >> > >I don't understand the question.
> > >> >
>
>
> The question is quite incomprehensible. How can one express 'whiteness' in
> terms of a percentage? Why should one wish to do such a thing?
Why would one wish to do such a thing? I don't know. Why would someone write
"we hate our enemies because we love the White Race?" as Rahowa did? Surely,
somebody who writes such a thing must have some idea what they are referring to
when they speak of the White Race, right? It's a group of people who are
"White", right? And since you love this group so very, very much, you know who
is "in" and who is "out", right?
> For me, 'whiteness' is a category, rather like Jewishness or Albanian-ness,
> that has both biological and cultural elements. You can argue that it's a
> bit vague around the edges, but surely it is no more so than some (but not
> necessary all) conceptions of Jewishness or Albanian-ness. I do not
> understand why it should be OK for a group of people to get together and
> define themselves as 'Jews' or 'blacks' or 'socialists' or whatever, but not
> OK for a group of people to get together and define themselves as 'whites'.
> Isn't it just a matter of fashion? Please enlighten me!
If White Racialism (or whatever you call your position) were just a matter of
getting together and saying "we're proud to be white", I would agree that White
Racialism is harmless. Sad, insecure, and pathetic, maybe, but harmless. (A
bit like saying "I'm proud of having brown hair.")
But anybody who writes "The greatest Race to ever walk the earth will not
die without fighting a furious fight, and will most certainly respond
with unprecedented outrage when the system's treachery becomes
commonly known." sounds like he wants to do more than just have a few beers with
his White buddies and talk about how great it is to be White. Sounds like a bit
more than just a "matter of fashion", don't you think?
Darren
Darren McHugh
david_michael wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Stupidity wouldn't be an argument for shipping a particular racial group
> > > out.
> > >
> > > It might be an argument for NOT shipping that particular group in
> >
> > Huh?? No it isn't!! We should turn away a Black guy with a university
> degree,
> > speaks fluent English, etc, because he's Black, and "everyone knows Blacks
> are
> > dumb"?
> >
> > Darren
>
> Not at all, although if we have an excess of people with university degrees
> looking for employment in our country then the wisdom of importing more is
> perhaps a little hard to fathom.
Depends what the degree is in. There are world wide shortages of many
professions (nursing for one) and my country could use quite a few people in
various fields.
> The IQ argument has its origins in the debates that took place ages ago
> about whether or not mass black immigration was a good thing or a bad thing
> for the nation. One of the many arguments advanced against it was that
> because blacks are on average less intelligent than whites (i.e. because
> they tended to do significantly worse than whites on average in IQ tests)
There's a whole question you are sidestepping there about whether is even a
single property called "intelligence" (innate or not) that is reliably measured
by an "IQ test".... but anyway....
> then mass black immigration would tend to lower the overall IQ, to
> contaminate the gene pool.
"Contaminate the gene pool". Sounds like your mind is made up already. You
already know which genes are the "pure" ones and which ones are the
"contaminants".
> Now you could indeed get around this by saying
> 'let in only the smart ones' -- although nobody actually argued for that as
> far as I'm aware.
Actually, quite a few countries (mine included) run immigration on a merit
system. You get points for a degree, more points if it's something we need,
points for speaking English, etc. If you have enough points, you're in.
> It would not completely solve the problem because just
> because the chap you let in is a smart black fellow that doesn't preclude
> the possibility that his smartness results from environmental factors (e.g.
> a particularly good education) and that the genes you're letting in are
> still dodgy.
You're assuming your conclusion. Maybe his genes are kick-ass, A1, super genes
and his environment sucked. Anyway, you are begging the question all the
way.... there is NO REASON to assume that a given set of "black genes" are any
dodgier than a given set of "white genes".
> As I've said before, the IQ argument isn't the best argument by far for
> restricting black immigration. However, it isn't quite as daft as some
> people make it out to be.
>
> The strong argument against mass black immigration is this.
This ought to be good......
> We are in a
> world where globalization is proceeding rapidly. Vast concentrations of
> power are being constructed in supra-national institutions that are often
> poorly accountable. This poses a danger of leading to, at best, a very
> unfair world
More unfair than the one we have been living in for the last 6,000 years of
recorded history?
> and, at worst, a one-world superstate that could develop into
> an inescapable one-world dictatorship. Multiculturalism is being used,
> intentionally or otherwise, to break down national identities and to prepare
> the way for the destruction of the nation state to facilitate the
> development of supra-national institutions.
Or, it could be argued that multi-culturalism isn't being "used" for anything.
It's just happening all by itself for the same reasons that globalization is...
the world is getting smaller, communcation and transport are getting cheaper,
people are finding out more about each other, people are becoming more educated,
less tribal and stupid. Looks like a good thing to me.
> Those of us who would rather see
> a world based on powerful, free nations living together in peace therefore
> have an imporant interest in opposing multiculturalism and the immigration
> trends that feed it.
"Powerful, free nations living together in peace?" Sounds so lovely, I might
start to cry! LOL!! Could you do me a favour, get out your history book, and
tell me when THAT has ever happened? How long does the "peace" part of that
ever last when a bunch of "powerful and free nations" are around?
Darren
Darren McHugh
> We will do whatever it takes to secure the survival,
> advancement and expansion of the White race.
Who or what is "the white race"? You already mentioned that pale pigmentation alone is not enough to get
you into the club, so what is?
> > >
> > > Not at all. Racialism is grounded in the recognition of
> > > evolutionary realities. Race has little to do with skin
> > > color.
So what does it have to do with, then? If Race has little to do with skin colour, why are you so proud of
"the WHITE Race"?
Awaiting your reply with amusement,
Darren
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <3b83...@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> in alt.revisionism, on Wed, 22
Aug 2001 02:36:30 +0100, "david_michael"
<david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> "Darren McHugh" <usene...@thanks.com> wrote in message
> news:3B82E7BF...@thanks.com...
[snip]
> > OK, so where are these "geniuses"?
> Here.
<*snicker*>
[snip]
> > If somebody is 90% "white" (whatever that means) and 10%
> > "black", (whatever that means), are they "white" or are they
> > "black"?
>
> I don't understand the question.
<*laff*>
[snip]
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBO4R+kZQgvG272fn9EQJFagCfUlNTdUCYvsHul2M2vg+nJ6zCyfoAniyq
RizeYZN6ecoUt6S+2I4uI6mm
=efCW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Darren McHugh
david_michael wrote:
> "Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
> news:8ea5ots8lnr3o54lu...@4ax.com...
> > On 20 Aug 2001 19:53:18 -0700, ake...@pcpostal.com (Aidan Kelly)
> > posted in alt.atheism:
> >
> > >Racial equality is a religion, no less than Christianity.
> >
> > Claiming that racial equality is a religion is a religion.
>
> Claiming that racial equality is a religion is a religion is a religion.
Hold it. Blacks and whites are demonstrably part of the same species, homo
sapiens. That means they have the same DNA, suffer the same diseases, etc etc.
There is no reason to assume, a priori, anything whatsoever about differences
between one "racial group" and another.
The burden of proof is squarely on the shoulders of the person who claims such
a difference exists.
Once there is some supposed "evidence" (ie IQ tests) we can start discussing
whether those IQ tests (which are KNOWN to be correlated quite strongly to
educational level and poverty) are really showing any INNATE difference at all,
or whether they are simply showing the effects of poverty, etc. Again, the
burden of proof is ALL on the person who wishes to show that the difference
exists.
> > >Challenging this irrational faith
> >
> > It's not irrational for anyone to require that you prove your
> > assertions.
>
> All assertions are ultimately irrational.
If that were true then rational communication would be impossible.
> Having spent several years debating World War II history with assorted
> members of the politically correct fraternity I am quite convinced that
> there are courses out there in 'how to debate with evil fascist bourgeoise
> oppressors'
snip... I suggest you contemplate the notion of "burden of proof".... it's
always on the person making the claim. If someone claims the Holocaust
happened, the burden of proof is on them to prove it (I would argue that burden
has been met). If someone wished to claim blacks are innately inferior to
whites, the burden of proof is on them.
Darren
Darren McHugh
david_michael wrote:
>
> >
> > I asked Dave to back up his assertions that white women in "mixed
> > race" relationships were "filthy slags" who should be encouraged to
> > committ suicide. He claimed it was because they were supporting the
> > aims of some shadowy conspiracy that was trying to impose an evil
> > one-world tyranny on us all. Needless to say, he didn't have anything
> > to back up his ravings.
>
> Prove that there is no such conspiracy.
He doesn't have to, you fucking idiot. The burden of proof is on YOU, not him.
You are drawing near to my killfile.....
Darren
Darren McHugh
> For me, 'whiteness' is a category, rather like Jewishness or Albanian-ness,
> that has both biological and cultural elements.
And another thing, would you care to enumerate some of those "biological" and
"cultural" elements for us? Inquiring minds want to know (because we need a
good laugh).
> You can argue that it's a
> bit vague around the edges,
Seems more than a "bit" vague... it sounds mighty fucking vague the way you
describe it.
Darren
david_michael
>
>
> david_michael wrote:
>
> > "Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
> > news:8ea5ots8lnr3o54lu...@4ax.com...
> > > On 20 Aug 2001 19:53:18 -0700, ake...@pcpostal.com (Aidan Kelly)
> > > posted in alt.atheism:
> > >
> > > >Racial equality is a religion, no less than Christianity.
> > >
> > > Claiming that racial equality is a religion is a religion.
> >
> > Claiming that racial equality is a religion is a religion is a religion.
>
> Hold it. Blacks and whites are demonstrably part of the same species,
homo
> sapiens.
Agreed.
> That means they have the same DNA,
Disagree.
> suffer the same diseases, etc etc.
Not always.
> There is no reason to assume, a priori, anything whatsoever about
differences
> between one "racial group" and another.
Similarly, there is no reason to assume, a priori, anything whatsoever about
similarities. That is a matter for empirical investigation.
> The burden of proof is squarely on the shoulders of the person who claims
such
> a difference exists.
Because you say so? I think that rather than assuming that two groups are
similar or dissimilar and making wild generalizations about the 'burden of
proof' it would be more productive simply to subject the claims to empirical
investigation.
However, the similarity and dissimilarity argument is also a bit of a red
herring.
> Once there is some supposed "evidence" (ie IQ tests)
Well that's been well documented for years. The question then becomes
whether the tests are fair.
>we can start discussing
> whether those IQ tests (which are KNOWN to be correlated quite strongly to
> educational level and poverty) are really showing any INNATE difference at
all,
Ooof. I think most psychologists agree these days that performance would be
a mixture of nature and nurture. It would be quite difficult to tease out
the exact role of nature versus nurture.
> or whether they are simply showing the effects of poverty, etc.
Well we do know that some very intelligent people had very poor backgrounds.
And, as the British royal family illustrates, you can have an excellent
family background and still be as thick as . . .
> Again, the
> burden of proof is ALL on the person who wishes to show that the
difference
> exists.
Why?
> > > >Challenging this irrational faith
> > >
> > > It's not irrational for anyone to require that you prove your
> > > assertions.
> >
> > All assertions are ultimately irrational.
>
> If that were true then rational communication would be impossible.
Fully rational communication is impossible. Every assertion is based upon
non-rational assumptions. Communication apparently becomes possible when
non-rational assumptions are shared.
> > Having spent several years debating World War II history with assorted
> > members of the politically correct fraternity I am quite convinced that
> > there are courses out there in 'how to debate with evil fascist
bourgeoise
> > oppressors'
>
> snip... I suggest you contemplate the notion of "burden of proof"....
it's
> always on the person making the claim.
False. Perhaps legal scenarios, because of their formal nature, illustrate
this fallacy most clearly. In the British legal system, if you libel me
(i.e. make a defamatory claim about me in writing) I can sue for damages.
You are making a claim about me and unless you can prove it to be true I
will win. So far this fits in with your assertion about the burden of proof.
BUT, in the American system the burden of proof goes the other way. I have
to prove that your claim about me is incorrect.
Similarly, in other areas of empirical investigation the notion of burden of
proof often cannot sensibly apply. Let us suppose that you make the claim
that X is the case and I make the claim that X is not the case. It would be
ludicrous to suppose that we should assume that I am correct until you
produce evidence to the contrary simply because it's you who made your claim
first! A far more productive course would be to keep an open mind on the
issue and conduct empirical investigations to settle the matter.
There are numerous other examples.
> If someone claims the Holocaust
> happened, the burden of proof is on them to prove it
Are you seriously arguing that if they were unable to do so then we would
have to 'assume' that it hadn't happened? You see, I'd say that if someone
makes that claim then, rather than arguing that we should regard it as false
until proven otherwise, we should keep an open mind and conduct empirical
investigation.
> (I would argue that burden
> has been met).
I would respectfully disagree. Having been hanging around alt.revisionism
for several years now I've seen the very best arguments that have been
advanced for this thesis. They are staggeringly bad. That many Jews died
and, indeed, were murdered is not something I'd dispute. But once we get to
issues like whether specific pieces of evidence prove what they're touted as
proving then we get into murkier waters. Similarly, issues such as whether
Hitler approved or knew fully of what was going on, whether it was a master
plan or a cockup, etc. remain tantalizingly open.
> If someone wished to claim blacks are innately inferior to
> whites, the burden of proof is on them.
And if someone wishes to claim that blacks are NOT innately inferior to
whites? :-)
> Darren
David
david_michael
See my other post for a demolition of your fantasies about burden of proof.
> You are drawing near to my killfile.....
If you are incapable of debating without hurling that kind of abuse and
reaching for the killfile then I put it to you that perhaps you should take
up some other passtime.
> Darren
David
david_michael
> david_michael wrote:
>
> > For me, 'whiteness' is a category, rather like Jewishness or
Albanian-ness,
> > that has both biological and cultural elements.
>
> And another thing, would you care to enumerate some of those "biological"
and
> "cultural" elements for us? Inquiring minds want to know (because we need
a
> good laugh).
The biological elements are self-evident, primarily skin colour and physical
appearance.
The cultural elements are perhaps best illustrated by contrasting with
'black culture'. Just as we might say that reggae music and dreadlocks are
elements of 'black culture', so we might say that they are not part of
mainstream white culture.
> > You can argue that it's a
> > bit vague around the edges,
>
> Seems more than a "bit" vague... it sounds mighty fucking vague the way
you
> describe it.
Well no more so than any other cultural group. How do you define an
Albanian? Someone who is a citizen of Albania? Certainly, but then what
about the Albanians who live in Kosova and are actually citizens of
Yugoslavia? Someone who speaks Shqip? I know of an English person who speaks
it fluently but is certainly not an Albanian. How do you define a Jew?
Someone who subscribes to the doctrine of Judaism? Hmm, but then what about
all these non-religious Jews? Someone who has at least one Jewish parent?
But what about that Afrikaner girl I knew who had no Jewish parents but was
planning to convert to Judaism? Cultural groups are indeed vague around the
edges. That does not mean that we should abolish them and discard the years
of history, the sense of identity, and the limited protection against the
forces of globalization that they afford.
> Darren
David
david_michael
>
>
> david_michael wrote:
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > Stupidity wouldn't be an argument for shipping a particular racial
group
> > > > out.
> > > >
> > > > It might be an argument for NOT shipping that particular group in
> > >
> > > Huh?? No it isn't!! We should turn away a Black guy with a university
> > degree,
> > > speaks fluent English, etc, because he's Black, and "everyone knows
Blacks
> > are
> > > dumb"?
> > >
> > > Darren
> >
> > Not at all, although if we have an excess of people with university
degrees
> > looking for employment in our country then the wisdom of importing more
is
> > perhaps a little hard to fathom.
>
> Depends what the degree is in. There are world wide shortages of many
> professions (nursing for one) and my country could use quite a few people
in
> various fields.
Agreed. However, there is a case for training your own people rather than
importing outsiders. For example, we in Britain have long been importing
medical doctors from the Indian subcontinent. Three problems with this.
First, whereas some of them are very good, an unusually high proportion of
them appear to be even worse than their white counterparts (and British GPs
are not among the world's best). Second, there are all sorts of cultural
problems such as a tendency to authoritarianism and paternalism, which
actively interfere with treatment. Third, this importation is really just a
stopgap measure -- it can't go on for ever -- and it rather gives a false
sense of security. It's a bit like sticking your fingers in the holes of a
crumbling dam rather than building a new one.
> > The IQ argument has its origins in the debates that took place ages ago
> > about whether or not mass black immigration was a good thing or a bad
thing
> > for the nation. One of the many arguments advanced against it was that
> > because blacks are on average less intelligent than whites (i.e. because
> > they tended to do significantly worse than whites on average in IQ
tests)
>
> There's a whole question you are sidestepping there about whether is even
a
> single property called "intelligence" (innate or not) that is reliably
measured
> by an "IQ test".... but anyway....
Yup, I'm aware of that issue and I'm aware that I'm sidestepping it. :-)
> > then mass black immigration would tend to lower the overall IQ, to
> > contaminate the gene pool.
>
> "Contaminate the gene pool". Sounds like your mind is made up already.
You
> already know which genes are the "pure" ones and which ones are the
> "contaminants".
<sigh> no -- I'm just presenting the argument as I've seen it presented many
times over the years by others. I've actually said that it's not a strong
one, although it's not as daft as you'd have us believe.
> > Now you could indeed get around this by saying
> > 'let in only the smart ones' -- although nobody actually argued for that
as
> > far as I'm aware.
>
> Actually, quite a few countries (mine included) run immigration on a merit
> system. You get points for a degree, more points if it's something we
need,
> points for speaking English, etc. If you have enough points, you're in.
I was not aware that any country used IQ tests as an entry criterion. It's
news to me that some countries regard having any degree as an entry
criterion, although I can see the sense in favouring certain specific
degrees.
> > It would not completely solve the problem because just
> > because the chap you let in is a smart black fellow that doesn't
preclude
> > the possibility that his smartness results from environmental factors
(e.g.
> > a particularly good education) and that the genes you're letting in are
> > still dodgy.
>
> You're assuming your conclusion. Maybe his genes are kick-ass, A1, super
genes
> and his environment sucked. Anyway, you are begging the question all the
> way.... there is NO REASON to assume that a given set of "black genes" are
any
> dodgier than a given set of "white genes".
It's the difference in performance in IQ tests that raises this spectre,
although I agree with you that there are issues surrounding what the IQ
tests measure and how fair they are.
> > As I've said before, the IQ argument isn't the best argument by far for
> > restricting black immigration. However, it isn't quite as daft as some
> > people make it out to be.
> >
> > The strong argument against mass black immigration is this.
>
> This ought to be good......
>
> > We are in a
> > world where globalization is proceeding rapidly. Vast concentrations of
> > power are being constructed in supra-national institutions that are
often
> > poorly accountable. This poses a danger of leading to, at best, a very
> > unfair world
>
> More unfair than the one we have been living in for the last 6,000 years
of
> recorded history?
Yes. In a world of nations, there is always an 'outside' to escape to if
your government falls into the wrong hands and becomes a hideous tyranny.
The Jews in Nazi Germany escaped in their tens of thousands to the
'outside', for instance. It might be hard to reach that 'outside' but it
exists. There is always an outside to apply economic and political pressure
for change. Without this outside pressure, for example, would the Soviet
Union have collapsed so quickly? Would South Africa have changed so rapidly?
As Spengler documents in *The Decline of the West*, for the past 6,000 years
of recorded history, empires have risen and fallen. But with the age of
globalization, we are moving into a new era. It's an era where,
increasingly, there is less and less of an 'outside' to escape to. Western
ideology and institutions are quite literally taking over the world. We are
rushing headlong towards a de facto world government. It is a government
that favours the rich over the poor, the investor over the worker, the
capitalist over the anti-capitalist. And I put it to you, good sir, that
such a world has the potential to be very nasty indeed.
> > and, at worst, a one-world superstate that could develop into
> > an inescapable one-world dictatorship. Multiculturalism is being used,
> > intentionally or otherwise, to break down national identities and to
prepare
> > the way for the destruction of the nation state to facilitate the
> > development of supra-national institutions.
>
> Or, it could be argued that multi-culturalism isn't being "used" for
anything.
> It's just happening all by itself for the same reasons that globalization
is...
> the world is getting smaller, communcation and transport are getting
cheaper,
> people are finding out more about each other, people are becoming more
educated,
> less tribal and stupid. Looks like a good thing to me.
Good for whom? For the working people who lose their livelihoods because the
multi-nationals realize that they can make money by switching production to
some other country where they can use slave labour? For the once-proud and
independent nations that lose their ability to determine their own affairs
as decision making is transferred to ever more remote supra-national
institutions? That it is good for the rich mega-capitalists of the Western
world is something that I do not dispute. I do not see how it can be good
for anyone else.
As for the extent to which the movement towards globalization is spontaneous
versus planned, I think that there are some elements of it that are clearly
planned with quite explicit political objectives (such as the development of
supra-national bodies like the European Community and the United Nations)
and other elements that are more spontaneous (perhaps the most obvious
spontaneous one being the advent of the Internet).
> > Those of us who would rather see
> > a world based on powerful, free nations living together in peace
therefore
> > have an imporant interest in opposing multiculturalism and the
immigration
> > trends that feed it.
>
> "Powerful, free nations living together in peace?" Sounds so lovely, I
might
> start to cry! LOL!! Could you do me a favour, get out your history book,
and
> tell me when THAT has ever happened? How long does the "peace" part of
that
> ever last when a bunch of "powerful and free nations" are around?
Well it's lasted in Europe for 56 years. I'd put it to you that where
conflicts have arisen this has resulted from precisely the supra-national
tendencies that real nationalists would oppose. Look at the forces behind
the really big conflicts -- Communism, Nazism, Zionism, Christianity,
imperialism. These are all hegemonistic, internationalist doctrines (and I
regard Nazism with its 'tomorrow the world' vision as an internationalist
doctrine). Had there been more nationalism in the past and less
internationalism, then the world might well have been a far more peaceful
place.
> Darren
David
david_michael
> I must say, I'm rather delighted that one of "you people" is actually
willing to
> discuss racism with me.
>
> david_michael wrote:
>
> > > I've never even heard any of these geniuses define their terms. What
the
> > > hell is the "white race", anyway?
> >
> > A rather vague category of people, rather like 'gypsies' or 'Albanians'
or
> > 'Jews'.
>
> Yes, "white" is rather vague, isn't it? In daily conversation, people
don't
> worry too much about exact definitions for the words they use. How white
does a
> person have to be before he is "white"? How black does a person's skin
have to
> be before he is "black"? The terms "white" and "black" are pretty vague,
and
> nobody much cares.
Agreed. Just as the terms 'Jew' and 'Albanian' are pretty vague.
> But wait a minute, what about these "racists"? What do they say? Let's
see:
>
> "Racists are .... people who see through the equality lie, and desire a
return
> to a safer, cleaner, more upwardly mobile society." - Rahowa
>
> Now, Rahowa didn't have the balls to come right out and say what he meant
by
> that (even under a pen name), but since Rahowa apparently stands for
RAcial HOly
> WAr, I think I can guess. Rahowa (and I presume, you) desire to round up
all
> the "Blacks" (and perhaps the Jews too) and ship them back to
Africa/Israel (or
> worse). Am I right?
Well, I can't speak for Rahow but I don't support that policy. What I
support is (a) an immediate end to all non-essential immigration into
Britain and (b) the making available of facilities so that those foreigners
who wish to leave can do so with government support and finance.
> NOW the vagueness of "white" and "black" becomes a problem.... a big
problem.
> Which "black" people are "black" enough to get shipped out? Which "white"
> people are "white" enough to stay? What test will you administer to
determine
> who is "white" enough, and who is "too black"?
We ship out the ones who want to go. Simple as that. If they want to stay
then we cannot force them.
> > > Do you count Italians? Turks? Poles?
> > Probably most of them.
>
> Really? How generous of you. Which ones? What criteria will you use to
decide
> which Italians are "white" and which ones aren't?
I think I was including most Italians as 'white'. If a black Italian wants
to be shipped out of Britain, I don't have a problem with giving him
assistance to that end.
> > > How east in eastern Europe can you go before the people aren't "white"
> > > anymore?
> >
> > Pretty much everyone in Eastern Europe.
>
> What do you mean? Everyone in Eastern Europe *is* White? Or isn't White?
Most of them are white -- I gather that there are a few blacks, Chinese and
Asians in Eastern Europe but I've never seen any there and they are
certainly very rare.
> Could you please provide me with a full colour map of Europe with a bright
red
> line running through it? Please label the line as follows "Everyone on
the left
> side of this line is a nice, cultured White person. Everyone on the right
side
> of this line is a dumb Pollack, not fit for any decent society."
Why should you want me to do that?
> > > If somebody is 90% "white" (whatever that means) and 10%
> > > "black", (whatever that means), are they "white" or are they "black"?
> >
> > I don't understand the question.
>
> I'll bet you don't. The question doesn't make any sense, and wasn't
supposed
> to. The reason my question didn't make any sense is that the term "white"
> doesn't make any sense unless it is used colloquially.
You're confusing two points. There is a fair point that, as with any
cultural group, there are borderline cases where we can dispute whether a
particular individual is a white person. I accept this. The unfair point is
that because of the existence of these borderline cases then we have to
regard the entire category as useless. Borderline cases exist with many
cultural groups -- Jews, Albanians, socialists, gypsies, etc. etc. Are we to
abolish centuries of Judaism simply because disputes have arisen and
continue regularly to arise over precisely who might be regarded as
'Jewish'? No? Then why should the category 'white' be regarded as any more
problematical?
It is absurd to speak of
> "Whites", "Blacks", the "White Race"... etc etc etc, in the context of any
kind
> of concrete social policy where you are actually going to screen people in
or
> out based on their "race".
Why? The vagueness of the term 'Jew' doesn't prevent Israel from using it as
the basis for social policy. What it *does* mean is that you have to apply
an element of discretion when deciding individual cases. But this
application of discretion happens anyway -- certainly in immigration to
Britain and South Africa, and I imagine many other countries in the modern
Western world.
> So, if you have somebody with a "Black" mother and a "White" father, is
that
> child "White" or "Black"? How about if you have 50 "White" ancestors and
one
> "Black" one? What colour are you then? Are you allowed to stay, or it is
back
> to Africa?
Well I'd say that the primary consideration is whether the person wishes to
leave. If so, then that person would be a favourable candidate for receiving
assistance to relocate overseas.
> > > Race is an arbitrary social construct.
> >
> > This is where you supposedly 'clever' people fall flat on your face
because
> > you use an argument that sounds good without thinking it through.
>
> This ought to be good....
>
> > How do you
> > know that *everything* isn't an arbitrary social construct, or, more
> > compelling, an arbitrary personal construct? Why should it be wrong for
us
> > to use the arbitrary construct 'white race' but right to use arbitrary
> > constructs such as 'Jewish' or 'socialist' or 'Satanist' or whatever?
>
> There are nothing wrong with arbitrary distinctions like "socialist",
"Jew",
> "white", etc. (Although some of them are self-assigned obviously... you
can
> choose to be a "socialist" but you can't really choose to be "white").....
as
> long as you don't try to use those distinctions as the foundation of
social
> policy.
Happens all the time. Israel uses 'Jew' as the foundation of social policy.
Britain uses 'place of birth' as the foundation of social policy. All quite
arbitrary.
> > If a
> > group of people wish to identify themselves in a particular way, what's
> > wrong with that?
>
> First of all, thank you for admitting that the construct "white race" is
purely
> arbitrary.
Not 'purely' arbitrary. There is a biological component -- see one of my
other posts in this thread.
> If you wish to identify yourself in certain ways, and take pride in
arbitrary
> features of your make-up (ie: "I am a member of the 'White Race', and
proud of
> it") then fine. I think you must be laughably insecure and stupid to do
so,
So are Jews laughably insecure for wishing to identify themselves as such?
Are Arabs and black people so insecure? Why is it just the poor white man
who is mocked and insulted all the time for wanting an identity of his own?
but
> I really don't care about your personal foibles. I myself, happen to be a
> member of the 'White Race', but I wouldn't say that I'm "proud" of it, any
more
> than I am "proud" of having brown hair. It's not a matter for shame or
pride.
> I consider the colour of my skin to be irrelevant (and so does Rahowa, if
his
> confused ramblings about white trailer trash and blacks who "aren't too
bad" can
> be believed). But if you don't agree with me, so what? No big deal. We
just
> agree to disagree.
Yup.
> But White Racialism (or whatever the hell you call your movement) seems to
be
> about a lot more than quietly being "proud to be White". It seems like
you
> people can't go very far before you say something like: "We hate our
enemies
> because we love the White Race.", as Rahowa did in his post.
I prefer the old slogan of the Afrikaner Volksfront: 'gee elke volk sy eie
land' -- give each people its own land. As someone I once knew wrote: 'love
your people, be proud of your country, and respect the right of others to do
the same'.
> And I think there is a lot wrong with that. It seems to me to be self
evidently
> WRONG to divide people into arbitrary categories (i.e. races) and decide
that
> you "hate" some of them. It seems to me to be self evidently WRONG to
hate
> people just because they disagree with you.
I agree with you, but that's certainly not a monopoly of white nationalists.
Just look at some of the Leftist posters in alt.revisionism!
> If you think those things are OK, well, I guess we don't have much to say
to
> each other about morality. You don't accept my moral axioms and I don't
accept
> yours.
There are elements of common ground but important differences. I accept that
hatred is a 'bad thing', although I can see why it exists. If you oppress a
group of people and vilify them and demonize them, then resentment will
grow.
> > > It doesn't exist. Get over it.
> > > There is no such thing as the "white race" or the "black race".
> >
> > So there's no such things as Jews or socialists or Arabs or Albanians?
>
> What I'm saying is: "races" don't exist except as vague, arbitrary
categories
> that are far, far, far too ambiguous and vague to base any social policy
on.
I agree with you that they're vague but I don't see this as an obstacle to
social policy. There is a long and noble tradition of using discretion as a
means of ironing out vagueness. Indeed, this tradition dominates the British
legal system, where the *interpretation* of laws is all important.
> (BTW, I happen to oppose Affirmative Action type programs as well.)
I have an open mind on that one. For example, I'd like to see affirmative
action to recruit more BRITISH doctors to British hospitals, simply because
the foreign ones we've got at the moment are often so awful.
> > > There is
> > > only the human race (humans all have the same genome, with 46
> > > chromosomes).
> >
> > Again, you're using an argument without thinking it through. Why 'only'
the
> > human race? We have upward of 98% of genetic material in common with
> > chimpanzees (except for members of the British Labour Party, who are
> > rumoured to be 99.99998% chimpanzee). So why is 'human race' an less of
an
> > arbitrary construct than 'white race'? Eh?
>
> I suggest you try to get some basic biology into that little shaved head
of
> yours.
>
> Humans and chimps are different species. They could not mate and produce
> viable, fertile offspring, even with a test tube. The distinction between
a
> chimp and human is not arbitrary. It is real.
Some humans cannot mate. Does that mean that they're not human. When you
reach the age of, say, 90 and cease to be able to reproduce, does that mean
you're not human?
> The distinctions between the different human "races", however, are
completely
> arbitrary. Humans of every "race" have, can, and do freely mate with each
other
> and produce viable, even outstanding offspring (which makes perfect
genetic
> sense... cross breeding promotes vigour, while inbreeding preserves
recessive
> abnormalities).
Heh. Suppose we were to discover a group of black people who couldn't mate
with whites. Would you argue that, on that basis, they are a different
species and should be deprived of all 'human rights'?
> Nobody even knows how many "races" there are! Read the literature. Some
say
> there are three major races. Some say there are four major races. Some
say
> there are dozens. What does that confusion about "which race is which"
tell
> you? It should tell you, IF you have a full set of frontal lobes, that
THE
> DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE RACES ARE PURELY ARBITRARY.
No, they're partly biological and partly cultural. See my other post.
>And that makes any social
> policy based on race, whether it be "liberal" or "Nazi", arbitrary, and
> therefore wrong and unfair, as well. Period.
>
> > > > Just pop in
> > > > that videotape of John Metzger or Bob Heick waxing poetic with their
> > > > sardonic wit and relentlessly brilliant sneers, and remember that
all
> > > > men are not created equal.
> > >
> > > Whoopie. Two KKK members have sardonic wit and relentlessly brilliant
> > > sneers. Maybe *they* can tell me what "white" means.
> >
> > Probably not, but I just have.
>
> No you didn't, genius, you just described "white" as "a rather vague
category of
> people, like gypsies or Albanians". That doesn't tell me shit.
Well it does at least tell you that if you want a precise biological
definition then you're unlikely to find one because of the cultural element
in the definition.
> > > > Myth Two: We think all White people are groovy.
> > > >
> > > > This is just a huge, flabby, ugly, stinking lie that must be
harpooned
> > > > with extreme prejudice. Feces comes in all hues, and there is more
> > > > White dung out there today than ever before in recorded history.
> > > > Throngs numbering in the millions of scummy, decadent, degenerate
> > > > Whites permeate all classes of White society. They come in many
forms.
> > > > From the over-educated,
> > >
> > > It's OK to be sardonic and brilliant, but being "over-educated" is
out.
> >
> > Depends on the sort of education.
>
> "Education that causes people to disagree with us is scummy, degenerate,
and
> decadent. Other education is OK."
An education that fosters a critical mind is OK. However, you have only to
look at some of the alt.revisionism regulars to see that there are some very
closed minds with some very impressive degrees. There's also a tendency to
parrot certain liberal arguments, particularly on the race issue, without
really thinking about them. That suggests a failure in education.
> > > > with offerings of anti-White propaganda; to
> > > > the soulless materialist men and women that would rather make a buck
> > > > on the death of the White Race than fight it;
> > >
> > > What's the "White Race"?
> >
> > See above.
>
> See above? "Whites are a rather vague group of people...." That's your
> definition? Whoop-de-fucking-do.
I can no more define a white man than I can define a Jew or a socialist,
sir. But that no more argues for the redundancy of the term 'white' than it
does for the redundancy of the terms 'Jew' or 'socialist'.
> > > > right down to the
> > > > semi-retarded rural and urban dwelling dirt, there are undoubtedly
> > > > legions of clamoring fools and character-deficient lowlifes that
> > > > masquerade as Whites due to their pale pigmentation.
> > >
> > > Ahhh, I see that not even pale pigmentation qualifies one for the
lofty
> > > status of white, or should I say, "White". So what makes a White
person
> > > White?
> >
> > I'd say it's partly racial and partly cultural. The 'cultural' bit
precludes
> > the 'lowlifes' referred to by our friend.
>
> I have pale skin, a university degree, and an IQ of approximately 140. I
like
> Beethoven. I also think that Rahowa is a lower life form than the worms
in my
> back yard. So am I "white" or not?
Sounds like it.
> Again, if you merely want to say "I only like people of similar cultural
and
> 'racial' background to myself", that's your right, it makes you nothing
more
> than a harmless asshole. You have every right to be a harmless asshole.
>
> If, however, you "hate the enemies of the White Race", like Rahowa does,
and
> would like to do something about it, as Rahowa does, then you aren't just
a
> harmless asshole anymore. You are now a harmful and dangerous asshole....
> dangerous to a whole bunch of people who have done nothing wrong except to
> disregard your pathetic and arbitrary means of self-identification.
Hmmm. Well would you say it's wrong to 'hate the enemies of the black race'?
> > <snip>
> >
> > > LOL! You're stupid. You think you're pretty smart because you can
> > > actually speak English, but you couldn't reason your way out of a
paper
> > > bag if you were confronted with an "over-educated liberal" like me.
You
> > > say that not all white racists are stupid, but you aren't doing much
to
> > > change my mind.
> >
> > You're not that smart, sonny.
>
> I suppose I had better tear up my Mensa membership, then.
Looks like it!
Well I've never set foot on the American continent so I'll take your word
for all that.
> > What did Britain and Portugal and France and Belgium do with their
colonies?
> > They gave them to the blacks.
>
> "Gave them to the blacks"? Hmmmm... didn't those lands belong to the
Blacks in
> the first place?
I'd envisage a fairly accurate summary of the situation as this:
1. Piece of land exists.
2. Blacks migrate there.
3. Whites migrate there.
4. Whites, being more technologically sophisticated at this point, develop
the place.
5. Whites withdraw and leave it to the blacks.
> > And what are the blacks doing to Africa now that we've given it to them?
> >
> > They're buggering it up.
>
> Yep, largely because they are forced to live in nation states which are
> patterned after completely arbitrary ex-colonies, rather than upon natural
> ethnic or geographical lines. Read "Ends of the Earth" by Robert
Kaplan... he
> tours Africa extensively. All the tribal violence happening in Africa now
is
> the same thing that has been happening in Europe for the last 2000 years.
Or
> don't you think tribal violence happens in Europe? (hint: Northern
Ireland).
Aw cummon! Tribal violence has nothing to do with what's happening in
Zimbabwe. It's your typical tinpot African dictator.
> What's eventually going to happen in Africa is that the tribal violence
is going
> to burn itself out and the national boundaries are going to be redrawn
upon
> tribal, ethnic, and geographical lines instead of colonial lines. It's
going to
> be slow, violent, and bloody, just like it was for all those glorious,
cultured
> Whites of Europe.
Nup. Already moves are afoot to create a common African economic
institution. I reckon that this will develop rather along the lines of the
European Union, until you have essentially a supra-national government in
Africa, representing the interests of the multi-nationals and corrupt
capitalists. This will then increasingly join up with similar institutions
in Europe and America as part of the relentless drive to world government.
> When stable nation-states exist in Africa, then the rule of law will
exist, and
> development will succeed.
Well that's what *I* would like to see happen.
> > > Yawn. You're a ranting retard,
> >
> > Funny how these liberal 'intellectuals' always seem to end up with the
old
> > name calling routine.
>
> I also supplied plently of reasoned criticisms of his arguments, so that
wasn't
> an ad hominem (an attack on character as a substitute for an reasoned
attack on
> the argument), that was just an insult. Here's another: I think both you
and
> Rahowa are pathetic assholes.
It's so easy to abuse people from behind the safety of your computer
keyboard isn't it!
> Darren
David
Hilary Ostrov
<cf6d3ea0.01082...@posting.google.com>, g.ch...@csu.ac.uk
(Charlie Chester) wrote:
>"david_michael" <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message news:<3b83...@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>...
[...]
>> Some time ago a chap posting under the nym Charlie Chester started playing
>> this game with me in alt.revisionism.
>
>I asked Dave to back up his assertions that white women in "mixed
>race" relationships were "filthy slags" who should be encouraged to
>committ suicide. He claimed it was because they were supporting the
>aims of some shadowy conspiracy that was trying to impose an evil
>one-world tyranny on us all. Needless to say, he didn't have anything
>to back up his ravings.
>
>> I neatly turned the tables on him
>
>Dave descended to solipsistic squawking.
>
>> by
>> demanding proof for HIS every assertion.
>
>Which was odd, since I never asked Davie boy to "prove" anything. Just
>to furnish some evidence that might support his position. For some
>unknown reason, Dave gets very upset when asked for evidence.
>
>> He fled and, as far as I am aware,
>> has not been seen since!
Translation: Dr. David E<ven when I'm wrong, I'm right> Michael, as
is his wont when someone's gotten the best of him (not a difficult
task, I'll agree!), moved into <not-see mode>.
>Still reading the news groups Dave. I see your "revisionism" extends
>beyond the Holocaust to ah..."revising" the history of your own past
>usenet encounters.
Indeed. 'Twas always one of his favourite pastimes. Second only to
projecting his most unsavoury faults and foibles onto his debating
opponents.
Welcome back, Mr. Chester!
"Once I really am in power, my first and foremost task will be the
annihilation of the Jews. As soon as I have the power to do so, I will
have gallows built in rows - at the Marienplatz in Munich, for example
- as many as traffic allows. Then the Jews will be hanged
indiscriminately, and they will remain hanging until they stink; they
will hang there as long as the principles of hygiene permit. As soon
as they have been untied, the next batch will be strung up, and so on
down the line, until the last Jew in Munich has been exterminated.
Other cities will follow suit, precisely in this fashion, until all
Germany has been completely cleansed of Jews." Adolf Hitler, 1922
"the Nazis had an excellent record of dealing appropriately with
communists. They hanged them, shot them, strung them up from
lamp-posts. And in so doing they have my complete support." - Dr.
David E. Michael, September 11, 1998
"The Jews are undoubtedly a race, but not human. They cannot be human
in the sense of being an image of God, the Eternal. The Jews are an
image of the devil. Jewry means the racial tuberculosis of the
nations." - Adolf Hitler, 1923
"I must say that I am struck by how true-to-life the Nazi stereotype
of the Jews seems to be." - Dr. David E. Michael, September 11, 1998
[follow-ups set]
hro
=====================
Hilary Ostrov
E-mail: hos...@telus.net
WWW: http://www3.telus.net/myssiwyg/
The Nizkor Project http://www.nizkor.org/
david_michael
"Hilary Ostrov" <hos...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:2i89ots8h1c80uhqb...@4ax.com...
> On 22 Aug 2001 02:08:28 -0700, in
> <cf6d3ea0.01082...@posting.google.com>, g.ch...@csu.ac.uk
> (Charlie Chester) wrote:
>
> >"david_michael" <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:<3b83...@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>...
>
> [...]
>
<the usual lies and smears and out-of-context quotes from Comrade Ostrov
snipped>
>
> [follow-ups set]
<follow-ups restored>
> hro
> =====================
> Hilary Ostrov
> E-mail: hos...@telus.net
> WWW: http://www3.telus.net/myssiwyg/
> The Nizkor Project http://www.nizkor.org/
David
Darren McHugh
david_michael wrote:
> "Darren McHugh" <usene...@thanks.com> wrote in message
> news:3B848609...@thanks.com...
> > david_michael wrote:
> >
> > > For me, 'whiteness' is a category, rather like Jewishness or
> Albanian-ness,
> > > that has both biological and cultural elements.
> >
> > And another thing, would you care to enumerate some of those "biological"
> and
> > "cultural" elements for us? Inquiring minds want to know (because we need
> a
> > good laugh).
>
> The biological elements are self-evident, primarily skin colour and physical
> appearance.
>
> The cultural elements are perhaps best illustrated by contrasting with
> 'black culture'. Just as we might say that reggae music and dreadlocks are
> elements of 'black culture', so we might say that they are not part of
> mainstream white culture.
Sorry, not nearly good enough, on either the bio or cultural sides, to base any
kind of social policy on (which I assume you would like to do.)
The biological elements are not self evident at all. If I have a Black
grandmother, can I still be "white"? How much "non-white" blood am I allowed if
I still want to be "white"?
Your "cultural elements" are even funnier. So if I don't do "black" things,
like listen to reggae and have dreads, I'm White? How about Miles Davis? If I
listen to him, does that disqualify me from being "White"? Can you name any of
the other things I should do/like, oh arbiter of White Taste, in order to be
White?
> > > You can argue that it's a
> > > bit vague around the edges,
> >
> > Seems more than a "bit" vague... it sounds mighty fucking vague the way
> you
> > describe it.
>
> Well no more so than any other cultural group.
Yep, but again, cultural groups and races are not things that any nation should
base its social policy on.
> How do you define an
> Albanian? Someone who is a citizen of Albania? Certainly, but then what
> about the Albanians who live in Kosova and are actually citizens of
> Yugoslavia? Someone who speaks Shqip? I know of an English person who speaks
> it fluently but is certainly not an Albanian. How do you define a Jew?
> Someone who subscribes to the doctrine of Judaism? Hmm, but then what about
> all these non-religious Jews? Someone who has at least one Jewish parent?
> But what about that Afrikaner girl I knew who had no Jewish parents but was
> planning to convert to Judaism? Cultural groups are indeed vague around the
> edges. That does not mean that we should abolish them and discard the years
> of history, the sense of identity, and the limited protection against the
> forces of globalization that they afford.
I am not suggesting the abolishment of cultural groups. I live in a country
that officially embraces "multiculturalism" and none of the various cultural
groups appear to be in any danger of disappearing, as far as I can tell.
I think your link between globalization and multiculturalism is a bit weak.
Governments get sucked into supra-national bodies because their voters let them
get sucked in. I agree that that's not entirely a good thing, but I don't see
how/why multiculturalism has anything to do with it.
Darren
Aidan Kelly
> On 20 Aug 2001 20:31:05 -0700, ake...@pcpostal.com (Aidan Kelly)
> posted in alt.atheism:
>
>
> >>>(1) Have you read 'Culture of Critique' by Kevin McDonald? Does he strike
> >>>you as having a negative IQ (????)
>
> >>I don't think Kevin MacDonald regards himself as "Pro-White". Or do
> >>you know something about his politics that most people don't?
>
> >Anyone who doesn't live under a rock knows that he testified
> >on behalf of David Irving. He also referred to Deborah Lipstadt
> >as being an "ethnic activist," and not a legitimate historian.
>
> And we know the opinion of the majority of intelligent people
> regarding that little dust-up, don't we?
Prof. Kevin MacDonald is widely respected. He is Secretary/Archivist
and member of the Executive Board of the Human Behavior and Evolution
Society, the main academic organization dealing with the application
of evolutionary biology to the study of human affairs.
It is acknowledged among professional historians such as Gordon
Craig,
A.J.P. Taylor, and Hugh Trevor-Roper that David Irving is a brilliant
researcher and a compelling writer. His work is required reading for
serious students of the Third Reich and World War II.
>
> >Putnam noted frequently that Jews are behind the "anti-racist"
> >movement.
>
> Since the "racialist" movement is anti-Semitic, you could hardly
> expect anything else, could you?
That's a gross oversimplification. After all, the Jewish racialist
movement (cf. Zionism) is hardly anti-Semitic. The fact is that
Jews oppose only politically incorrect forms of racialism.
>
> Or maybe YOU could, being as obviously challenged as you are.
Actually, your heavy use of *ad hominem* reflects badly on you.
>
> >>>(3) Have you read 'The Bell Curve' by Murray and Herrnstein? Do they strike
> >>>you that way?
>
> >>Yes, but they denied being racists.
>
> >True enough, but Jared Taylor, William Shockley, Peter
> >Brimelow and many other scientists, past and present, have
> >eloquently defended the racialist cause.
>
> And _The Bell Curve_ has been thoroughly denounced by most legitimate
> scientists in the field.
Where is your evidence for this wild claim?
a.k.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Christianity was invented by the Jews as a tool with which to
destroy the white race." (Ben Klassen)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
World Church of the Creator
<http://www.creator.org/>
National Alliance
<http://www.natvan.com/>
Works of Revilo P. Oliver
<http://www.revilo-oliver.com/>
Rahowa Skinheads
<http://www.rahowa.com/>
Aidan Kelly
[. . .]
>
> >> Myth 5 - Play the semantic game all you want, the bottom line is that you
> >> hate and that hatred is manifest and apparent in all the disgusting white
> >> power websites, publications, demonstrations, etc. What, were you just
> >> fooling?
>
> >Hatred is natural.
>
> Actually it's not - for human beings.
Evidence?
>
> > It appears to be just as pronounced, if
> >not more, on the "anti-racist" side of the equation.
>
> Thinking that a person is ignorant isn't the same as hating that
> person.
You obviously haven't seen the despicable things that
"Anti-Racist Action" and its ilk are capable of.
>
> > Whether or not one is "hateful" has nothing to do with intelligence.
>
> Your claim. Actually it does, and in direct proportion, if the hatred
> is unwarranted, as it is in "racial" hatred.
All unsupported assertions, and dripping with condescending moralism.
I didn't think you were Christian, but all your preaching sure makes
you seem that way.
>
> >In the United States, dozens of
> >racialists (such as members of the CofCC and NCF) serve
> >in state legislatures, various offices, etc. We are far
> >from having full power at this point
>
> Or any wieldable power at all.
How can you say so when that power is being wielded even now?
For example, Council of Conservative Citizens is a racialist
organization, and has dozens of members in state legislatures,
courts and government.
>
> > but it is clear that such an eventual victory is not out of the question.
>
> Evidently not to the ignorant.
There's nothing ignorant about acknowledging reality. You
should try it sometime.
> >> Myth 7 - Lots of opinions, lots of dreams but all rooted in a desire to be
> >> better than someone else. Like the color of their skin or the object of
> >> their faith makes them less than you. I believe it is clinically called an
> >> inferiority complex.
>
> >Not at all. Racialism is grounded in the recognition of
> >evolutionary realities. Race has little to do with skin
> >color.
>
> It has to do with inferiority complexes - yours. After all, if there
> were no inherent significant differences between races, who would you
> be better than?
Non sequitur.
> >> To anyone with a modicum of intelligence, these kinds of efforts on your
> >> part, are completely transparent.
>
> >Anyone with a modicum of intelligence realizes that
> >the media portrayal of "racists" is profoundly dishonest,
> >though it may be loaded with propaganda value.
>
> Who cares about what the media portray? We're talking about what we
> know without recourse to the media - that only the ignorant are
> "racialists".
>
> >"Christianity was invented by the Jews as a
> >tool with which to destroy the white race."
>
> >-- Ben Klassen
>
> See? Ignorance. Saul was a Mithraist. Jews have a prohibition
> against drinking blood, not a fixation with it.
Jewishness is an ethnicity, not merely a religion. Saul maintained
a Jewish identity even after he 'converted' to Christianity. He
remained an ethnic Jew, just as Jewish atheists act as Jews and
see themselves as Jews. Christianity is a cult that is of Jewish
origin, and Jews from Karl Marx to Golda Meir have readily admitted
this.
Hilary Ostrov
<3b84...@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>, "david_michael"
<david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>"Hilary Ostrov" <hos...@telus.net> wrote in message
>news:2i89ots8h1c80uhqb...@4ax.com...
>> On 22 Aug 2001 02:08:28 -0700, in
>> <cf6d3ea0.01082...@posting.google.com>, g.ch...@csu.ac.uk
>> (Charlie Chester) wrote:
>>
>> >"david_michael" <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
>news:<3b83...@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>...
>>
>> [...]
>>
>
><the usual lies and smears and out-of-context quotes from Comrade Ostrov
>snipped>
Readers will note that Dr. David E<ven when I'm wrong, I'm right>
Michael has provided not one byte of substance to support his claim
that anything I wrote constitutes a "lie", a "smear", or an
"out-of-context" quote. He just snipped 'n ranted.
>> [follow-ups set]
>
><follow-ups restored>
[follow-ups reset]
"[My doctoral] thesis was the biggest load of bollocks I have ever
written in my entire life." - Dr. David E. Michael, June 16, 1999.
(In response to the assertion that "Human beings are not robots") "Yes
they are." - Dr. David E. Michael, July 3, 2000
"My wife summarized it perfectly last week when she told me 'you have
the brain of a guinea pig'." - Dr. David E. Michael, August 23, 2000.
Darren McHugh
david_michael wrote:
> (snip)
> Rahowa (and I presume, you) desire to round up
> all
> > the "Blacks" (and perhaps the Jews too) and ship them back to
> Africa/Israel (or
> > worse). Am I right?
>
> Well, I can't speak for Rahow but I don't support that policy. What I
> support is (a) an immediate end to all non-essential immigration into
> Britain and (b) the making available of facilities so that those foreigners
> who wish to leave can do so with government support and finance.
OK... that policy sounds completely colour blind as you have written it. Fine
by me. Britain is a rather crowded place.
> > NOW the vagueness of "white" and "black" becomes a problem.... a big
> problem.
> > Which "black" people are "black" enough to get shipped out? Which "white"
> > people are "white" enough to stay? What test will you administer to
> determine
> > who is "white" enough, and who is "too black"?
>
> We ship out the ones who want to go. Simple as that. If they want to stay
> then we cannot force them.
Completely colour blind, then? Great.
> > > > Do you count Italians? Turks? Poles?
>
> > > Probably most of them.
> >
> > Really? How generous of you. Which ones? What criteria will you use to
> decide
> > which Italians are "white" and which ones aren't?
>
> I think I was including most Italians as 'white'. If a black Italian wants
> to be shipped out of Britain, I don't have a problem with giving him
> assistance to that end.
What if a "white" Italian wants to leave?
> > Could you please provide me with a full colour map of Europe with a bright
> red
> > line running through it? Please label the line as follows "Everyone on
> the left
> > side of this line is a nice, cultured White person. Everyone on the right
> side
> > of this line is a dumb Pollack, not fit for any decent society."
>
> Why should you want me to do that?
Because it would make you look silly if you tried, that's why. You see, there
is so much racial diversity in the world that you'll have a hard time figuring
out who the "white" people are once you start rewriting the laws to suit your
own ends.
> > > > If somebody is 90% "white" (whatever that means) and 10%
> > > > "black", (whatever that means), are they "white" or are they "black"?
> > >
> > > I don't understand the question.
> >
> > I'll bet you don't. The question doesn't make any sense, and wasn't
> supposed
> > to. The reason my question didn't make any sense is that the term "white"
> > doesn't make any sense unless it is used colloquially.
>
> You're confusing two points. There is a fair point that, as with any
> cultural group, there are borderline cases where we can dispute whether a
> particular individual is a white person. I accept this.
Good.
> The unfair point is
> that because of the existence of these borderline cases then we have to
> regard the entire category as useless.
But if the category is too vague, it IS useless for any kind of social policy
based on "you're group X, you can stay, you aren't, you have to leave." It will
come down to some fat stupid border guard somewhere looking people up and down
and deciding whether or not they look like Niggers or not. I think that's
pretty nasty.
> Borderline cases exist with many
> cultural groups -- Jews, Albanians, socialists, gypsies, etc. etc. Are we to
> abolish centuries of Judaism simply because disputes have arisen and
> continue regularly to arise over precisely who might be regarded as
> 'Jewish'? No?
I did not suggest we abolish centuries of Judaism. I suggested that Judaism is
an inappropriate component of a country's laws. Israel thinks differently, but
I disagree with them.
> Then why should the category 'white' be regarded as any more
> problematical?
Because you appear to want to create laws which work differently depending on
whether or not the person is "white".
> It is absurd to speak of
> > "Whites", "Blacks", the "White Race"... etc etc etc, in the context of any
> kind
> > of concrete social policy where you are actually going to screen people in
> or
> > out based on their "race".
>
> Why? The vagueness of the term 'Jew' doesn't prevent Israel from using it as
> the basis for social policy.
And Israel is wrong to do so.
> What it *does* mean is that you have to apply
> an element of discretion when deciding individual cases.
Discretion = some fat, ignorant border guard looking you up and down and
deciding he doesn't like the looks of you. I think the government ought to be
of laws and not of men, myself.
> But this
> application of discretion happens anyway -- certainly in immigration to
> Britain and South Africa, and I imagine many other countries in the modern
> Western world.
>
> > So, if you have somebody with a "Black" mother and a "White" father, is
> that
> > child "White" or "Black"? How about if you have 50 "White" ancestors and
> one
> > "Black" one? What colour are you then? Are you allowed to stay, or it is
> back
> > to Africa?
>
> Well I'd say that the primary consideration is whether the person wishes to
> leave. If so, then that person would be a favourable candidate for receiving
> assistance to relocate overseas.
So your policies are completely colour blind then? Excellent!
> >
> > There are nothing wrong with arbitrary distinctions like "socialist",
> "Jew",
> > "white", etc. (Although some of them are self-assigned obviously... you
> can
> > choose to be a "socialist" but you can't really choose to be "white").....
> as
> > long as you don't try to use those distinctions as the foundation of
> social
> > policy.
>
> Happens all the time. Israel uses 'Jew' as the foundation of social policy.
> Britain uses 'place of birth' as the foundation of social policy. All quite
> arbitrary.
All quite wrong and immoral.
> > > If a
> > > group of people wish to identify themselves in a particular way, what's
> > > wrong with that?
> >
> > First of all, thank you for admitting that the construct "white race" is
> purely
> > arbitrary.
>
> Not 'purely' arbitrary. There is a biological component -- see one of my
> other posts in this thread.
Ha! Your "biological component" is PURELY arbitrary. "How pale is pale"? There
is no principle, no dividing line. At some point based on nothing but your own
whims, you just draw the line and say, "nope, that guy isn't "white"". It's the
very DEFINITION of arbitrary.
> > If you wish to identify yourself in certain ways, and take pride in
> arbitrary
> > features of your make-up (ie: "I am a member of the 'White Race', and
> proud of
> > it") then fine. I think you must be laughably insecure and stupid to do
> so,
>
> So are Jews laughably insecure for wishing to identify themselves as such?
> Are Arabs and black people so insecure? Why is it just the poor white man
> who is mocked and insulted all the time for wanting an identity of his own?
You're like the little kid who hears about "Mother's Day", and "Father's Day",
and says "when is it ever Children's day"? In most households, it's "children's
day" the other 363 days of the year.
I think the statement "I'm proud to be a black man", means something different
than "I'm proud to be a white man" and is therefore much more innocent and
forgivable.
Huh? What do I mean?
You have to put it in context. For most of the last 500 years, being black was
NOT something to be too happy about. Blacks are stupid. Blacks are only fit to
be slaves, ride the back of the bus. They can't vote. They can't run away.
They are bought and sold and abused by their white masters with impunity.
So to say "I'm proud to be black" means something like "I think there is nothing
wrong with being black, dammit."
But to say "I'm proud of being white"... what does that mean? It doesn't mean
"I think there's nothing wrong with being white, dammit", because nobody has
ever suggested there was anything wrong with being white. Whites have the guns,
they have the ships, they have the money, the sun always shines out of whitey's
ass, and everyone can see that. So to say "I'm proud to be a white man" means
"I think whites are BETTER than blacks, dammit".
> > But White Racialism (or whatever the hell you call your movement) seems to
> be
> > about a lot more than quietly being "proud to be White". It seems like
> you
> > people can't go very far before you say something like: "We hate our
> enemies
> > because we love the White Race.", as Rahowa did in his post.
>
> I prefer the old slogan of the Afrikaner Volksfront: 'gee elke volk sy eie
> land' -- give each people its own land. As someone I once knew wrote: 'love
> your people, be proud of your country, and respect the right of others to do
> the same'.
I do love my people, all 6 billion of them. I don't know why I should draw a
line and say "I only love these ones over here". I harbour something special
for my family, yes. But why should some stranger on the other side of town mean
more to me than a stranger on the other side of the world?
But anyway: "give each people it's own land". What if the niggahz want to stay
in "your land" (Britain)? You say you won't do anything to make them leave.....
sure you won't.
> > And I think there is a lot wrong with that. It seems to me to be self
> evidently
> > WRONG to divide people into arbitrary categories (i.e. races) and decide
> that
> > you "hate" some of them. It seems to me to be self evidently WRONG to
> hate
> > people just because they disagree with you.
>
> I agree with you, but that's certainly not a monopoly of white nationalists.
> Just look at some of the Leftist posters in alt.revisionism!
I'm posting from alt.atheism. I have little interest in Holocaust
history/deniers.
>
>
> > If you think those things are OK, well, I guess we don't have much to say
> to
> > each other about morality. You don't accept my moral axioms and I don't
> accept
> > yours.
>
> There are elements of common ground but important differences. I accept that
> hatred is a 'bad thing', although I can see why it exists. If you oppress a
> group of people and vilify them and demonize them, then resentment will
> grow.
Ah, poor, oppressed White Man. Watch him struggle at the hands of the Joo and
the Dirty Niggah! It makes me sad just watching this terrible spectacle.
> > > > It doesn't exist. Get over it.
> > > > There is no such thing as the "white race" or the "black race".
> > >
> > > So there's no such things as Jews or socialists or Arabs or Albanians?
> >
> > What I'm saying is: "races" don't exist except as vague, arbitrary
> categories
> > that are far, far, far too ambiguous and vague to base any social policy
> on.
>
> I agree with you that they're vague but I don't see this as an obstacle to
> social policy.
I'm sure you don't. You don't mind your laws a little vague. You'll just turn
it over to the fat customs guard to deal with. "I don't like Niggers, and you
look like Niggers to me. Beat it."
> There is a long and noble tradition of using discretion as a
> means of ironing out vagueness. Indeed, this tradition dominates the British
> legal system, where the *interpretation* of laws is all important.
There's a difference between "interpreting the law" and "interpreting which
people are entitled to the protection of the law."
> > > > There is
> > > > only the human race (humans all have the same genome, with 46
> > > > chromosomes).
> > >
> > > Again, you're using an argument without thinking it through. Why 'only'
> the
> > > human race? We have upward of 98% of genetic material in common with
> > > chimpanzees (except for members of the British Labour Party, who are
> > > rumoured to be 99.99998% chimpanzee). So why is 'human race' an less of
> an
> > > arbitrary construct than 'white race'? Eh?
> >
> > I suggest you try to get some basic biology into that little shaved head
> of
> > yours.
> >
> > Humans and chimps are different species. They could not mate and produce
> > viable, fertile offspring, even with a test tube. The distinction between
> a
> > chimp and human is not arbitrary. It is real.
>
> Some humans cannot mate. Does that mean that they're not human. When you
> reach the age of, say, 90 and cease to be able to reproduce, does that mean
> you're not human?
Oh, for Christ's sake. No. You can reproduce very easily at age 90 with the
help of your friendly neighborhood fertility clinic. And of course, all humans
WERE producing sex cells at one time in their lives, even if they don't at age
90. The criteria is "capable of producing human sex cells at some time during
life cycle." not "is producing sex cells right now". At no time in his life
cycle can ANY chimp mate with ANY human. The difference is not arbitrary, it's
real.
> > The distinctions between the different human "races", however, are
> completely
> > arbitrary. Humans of every "race" have, can, and do freely mate with each
> other
> > and produce viable, even outstanding offspring (which makes perfect
> genetic
> > sense... cross breeding promotes vigour, while inbreeding preserves
> recessive
> > abnormalities).
>
> Heh. Suppose we were to discover a group of black people who couldn't mate
> with whites. Would you argue that, on that basis, they are a different
> species and should be deprived of all 'human rights'?
Actually, I think a powerful case could be made for just that.
> > Nobody even knows how many "races" there are! Read the literature. Some
> say
> > there are three major races. Some say there are four major races. Some
> say
> > there are dozens. What does that confusion about "which race is which"
> tell
> > you? It should tell you, IF you have a full set of frontal lobes, that
> THE
> > DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE RACES ARE PURELY ARBITRARY.
>
> No, they're partly biological and partly cultural. See my other post.
LOL! They are partly arbitrary biological criteria, and partly arbitrary
cultural criteria. Doesn't make em less arbitrary. The only other post I saw
said "white guys don't listen to reggae or have dreadlocks". Wow, almost
everybody in the world is White, then.
>
> > > > > with offerings of anti-White propaganda; to
> > > > > the soulless materialist men and women that would rather make a buck
> > > > > on the death of the White Race than fight it;
> > > >
> > > > What's the "White Race"?
> > >
> > > See above.
> >
> > See above? "Whites are a rather vague group of people...." That's your
> > definition? Whoop-de-fucking-do.
>
> I can no more define a white man than I can define a Jew or a socialist,
> sir. But that no more argues for the redundancy of the term 'white' than it
> does for the redundancy of the terms 'Jew' or 'socialist'.
I never suggested the term "white" was redundant, I said it is was useless for
anything but colloquial applications.
>
> > Again, if you merely want to say "I only like people of similar cultural
> and
> > 'racial' background to myself", that's your right, it makes you nothing
> more
> > than a harmless asshole. You have every right to be a harmless asshole.
> >
> > If, however, you "hate the enemies of the White Race", like Rahowa does,
> and
> > would like to do something about it, as Rahowa does, then you aren't just
> a
> > harmless asshole anymore. You are now a harmful and dangerous asshole....
> > dangerous to a whole bunch of people who have done nothing wrong except to
> > disregard your pathetic and arbitrary means of self-identification.
>
> Hmmm. Well would you say it's wrong to 'hate the enemies of the black race'?
Well, depends what they did to become the "enemies".
The "enemies of the black race" often wear hoods and kill blacks, and are proud
of it. I find that reprehensible.
The "enemies of the white race" (as defined by retards like Rahowa).... well
it's pretty hard to tell what they do that's so terrible. They let their
daughters sleep with black men without hanging the black man afterwards. They
are White, but they eat curry and listen to Miles Davis..... hmmm, they seem
pretty harmless to me.
So you concede my point. It's impossible to hear the phrase "the sacrifice of
our great White ancestors" without vomiting your lunch all over the floor in
disgust and astonishment. Most of human history has the whites taking, not
giving. (Although many whites and even some white governments have - often
belatedly - done some relatively benevolent things.)
> > > What did Britain and Portugal and France and Belgium do with their
> colonies?
> > > They gave them to the blacks.
> >
> > "Gave them to the blacks"? Hmmmm... didn't those lands belong to the
> Blacks in
> > the first place?
>
> I'd envisage a fairly accurate summary of the situation as this:
>
> 1. Piece of land exists.
> 2. Blacks migrate there.
The first humans evolved there. I don't think there was any "migration".
> 3. Whites migrate there.
A few million years later.
> 4. Whites, being more technologically sophisticated at this point, develop
> the place.
> 5. Whites withdraw and leave it to the blacks.
How does this support your original point that Whites are Really Nice Guys?
> > > And what are the blacks doing to Africa now that we've given it to them?
> > >
> > > They're buggering it up.
> >
> > Yep, largely because they are forced to live in nation states which are
> > patterned after completely arbitrary ex-colonies, rather than upon natural
> > ethnic or geographical lines. Read "Ends of the Earth" by Robert
> Kaplan... he
> > tours Africa extensively. All the tribal violence happening in Africa now
> is
> > the same thing that has been happening in Europe for the last 2000 years.
> Or
> > don't you think tribal violence happens in Europe? (hint: Northern
> Ireland).
>
> Aw cummon! Tribal violence has nothing to do with what's happening in
> Zimbabwe. It's your typical tinpot African dictator.
Read "Ends of the Earth" by Robert Kaplan to find out what's behind the "typical
tinpot African dictator".
Darren
Darren McHugh
> (snip bit about allowing immigrants based on various qualifications)
>
> Agreed. However, there is a case for training your own people rather than
> importing outsiders. For example, we in Britain have long been importing
> medical doctors from the Indian subcontinent. Three problems with this.
> First, whereas some of them are very good, an unusually high proportion of
> them appear to be even worse than their white counterparts (and British GPs
> are not among the world's best). Second, there are all sorts of cultural
> problems such as a tendency to authoritarianism and paternalism, which
> actively interfere with treatment. Third, this importation is really just a
> stopgap measure -- it can't go on for ever -- and it rather gives a false
> sense of security. It's a bit like sticking your fingers in the holes of a
> crumbling dam rather than building a new one.
Fair enough. However, training doctors is expensive. If some other country
wants to train your doctors for you, you should think twice before turning that
down.
> > > The IQ argument has its origins in the debates that took place ages ago
> > > about whether or not mass black immigration was a good thing or a bad
> thing
> > > for the nation. One of the many arguments advanced against it was that
> > > because blacks are on average less intelligent than whites (i.e. because
> > > they tended to do significantly worse than whites on average in IQ
> tests)
> >
> > There's a whole question you are sidestepping there about whether is even
> a
> > single property called "intelligence" (innate or not) that is reliably
> measured
> > by an "IQ test".... but anyway....
>
> Yup, I'm aware of that issue and I'm aware that I'm sidestepping it. :-)
>
> > > then mass black immigration would tend to lower the overall IQ, to
> > > contaminate the gene pool.
> >
> > "Contaminate the gene pool". Sounds like your mind is made up already.
> You
> > already know which genes are the "pure" ones and which ones are the
> > "contaminants".
>
> <sigh> no -- I'm just presenting the argument as I've seen it presented many
> times over the years by others. I've actually said that it's not a strong
> one, although it's not as daft as you'd have us believe.
I think it's rather daft... but moving on...
> > > Now you could indeed get around this by saying
> > > 'let in only the smart ones' -- although nobody actually argued for that
> as
> > > far as I'm aware.
> >
> > Actually, quite a few countries (mine included) run immigration on a merit
> > system. You get points for a degree, more points if it's something we
> need,
> > points for speaking English, etc. If you have enough points, you're in.
>
> I was not aware that any country used IQ tests as an entry criterion.
That's not what I said.
> It's
> news to me that some countries regard having any degree as an entry
> criterion, although I can see the sense in favouring certain specific
> degrees.
>
> > > It would not completely solve the problem because just
> > > because the chap you let in is a smart black fellow that doesn't
> preclude
> > > the possibility that his smartness results from environmental factors
> (e.g.
> > > a particularly good education) and that the genes you're letting in are
> > > still dodgy.
> >
> > You're assuming your conclusion. Maybe his genes are kick-ass, A1, super
> genes
> > and his environment sucked. Anyway, you are begging the question all the
> > way.... there is NO REASON to assume that a given set of "black genes" are
> any
> > dodgier than a given set of "white genes".
>
> It's the difference in performance in IQ tests that raises this spectre,
I'm aware of them.
> although I agree with you that there are issues surrounding what the IQ
> tests measure and how fair they are.
Wow, you actually said something that sounded reasonable!
>
>
> > > As I've said before, the IQ argument isn't the best argument by far for
> > > restricting black immigration. However, it isn't quite as daft as some
> > > people make it out to be.
> > >
> > > The strong argument against mass black immigration is this.
> >
> > This ought to be good......
> >
> > > We are in a
> > > world where globalization is proceeding rapidly. Vast concentrations of
> > > power are being constructed in supra-national institutions that are
> often
> > > poorly accountable. This poses a danger of leading to, at best, a very
> > > unfair world
> >
> > More unfair than the one we have been living in for the last 6,000 years
> of
> > recorded history?
>
> Yes. (snip future dystopia scenario) And I put it to you, good sir, that
> such a world has the potential to be very nasty indeed.
Fine. Does "World Government" have anything whatsoever to do with "white
Racialism"?
> > > and, at worst, a one-world superstate that could develop into
> > > an inescapable one-world dictatorship. Multiculturalism is being used,
> > > intentionally or otherwise, to break down national identities and to
> prepare
> > > the way for the destruction of the nation state to facilitate the
> > > development of supra-national institutions.
> >
> > Or, it could be argued that multi-culturalism isn't being "used" for
> anything.
> > It's just happening all by itself for the same reasons that globalization
> is...
> > the world is getting smaller, communcation and transport are getting
> cheaper,
> > people are finding out more about each other, people are becoming more
> educated,
> > less tribal and stupid. Looks like a good thing to me.
>
> Good for whom? For the working people who lose their livelihoods because the
> multi-nationals realize that they can make money by switching production to
> some other country where they can use slave labour?
Whoa, whoa. You are switching "multiculturalism" and "globalization" back and
forth like they are the same thing. They aren't, as far as I can tell, although
they have some of the same causes.
> For the once-proud and
> independent nations that lose their ability to determine their own affairs
> as decision making is transferred to ever more remote supra-national
> institutions?
And this has something to do with "multiculturalism"?
> That it is good for the rich mega-capitalists of the Western
> world is something that I do not dispute. I do not see how it can be good
> for anyone else.
And this is a criticism of "multiculturalism?"
> As for the extent to which the movement towards globalization is spontaneous
> versus planned, I think that there are some elements of it that are clearly
> planned with quite explicit political objectives (such as the development of
> supra-national bodies like the European Community and the United Nations)
> and other elements that are more spontaneous (perhaps the most obvious
> spontaneous one being the advent of the Internet).
And this has something to do with "multiculturalism?" I do not entirely
disagree with your globalization worries but I fail to see what multiculturalism
has to do with any of it.
> > > Those of us who would rather see
> > > a world based on powerful, free nations living together in peace
> therefore
> > > have an imporant interest in opposing multiculturalism and the
> immigration
> > > trends that feed it.
> >
> > "Powerful, free nations living together in peace?" Sounds so lovely, I
> might
> > start to cry! LOL!! Could you do me a favour, get out your history book,
> and
> > tell me when THAT has ever happened? How long does the "peace" part of
> that
> > ever last when a bunch of "powerful and free nations" are around?
>
> Well it's lasted in Europe for 56 years.
Because two nations that could each eat Europe for breakfast by themselves (the
US and USSR) were interested in keeping it that way.
> I'd put it to you that where
> conflicts have arisen this has resulted from precisely the supra-national
> tendencies that real nationalists would oppose. Look at the forces behind
> the really big conflicts -- Communism, Nazism, Zionism, Christianity,
> imperialism. These are all hegemonistic, internationalist doctrines (and I
> regard Nazism with its 'tomorrow the world' vision as an internationalist
> doctrine). Had there been more nationalism in the past and less
> internationalism, then the world might well have been a far more peaceful
> place.
OK... and this has some relevance to multiculturalism?
Darren
Darren McHugh
david_michael wrote:
> (snip)
> > Hold it. Blacks and whites are demonstrably part of the same species,
> homo
> > sapiens.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > That means they have the same DNA,
>
> Disagree.
Huh? When I say same DNA, I mean, "can interbreed freely". Try mating a dog
with a horse. Different number of chromosomes, can't do it. Try mating a
"black" person with a "white" person. No problem. Obviously "black" people
have DNA which codes for a protein that makes melanin in some way, whereas
"white" people have DNA which codes for less melanin. Trivial difference.
> > There is no reason to assume, a priori, anything whatsoever about
> differences
> > between one "racial group" and another.
>
> Similarly, there is no reason to assume, a priori, anything whatsoever about
> similarities.
False. Black and white men have hearts, lungs, hands, nervous systems,
reproductive systems, etc, all of which work exactly the same. That is EVIDENCE
(although not terribly strong evidence) that their brains work the same as well.
It seems to me, in the absense of any additional mpirical investigation, that it
is reasonable to tentatively assume that conclusion.
> > The burden of proof is squarely on the shoulders of the person who claims
> such
> > a difference exists.
>
> Because you say so?
No, because everything else works the same in a "black" and a "white"... that
*is* evidence (not terribly strong evidence) in support of the equality
conclusion. You must come up with some evidence that is more conclusive in the
other direction.
> I think that rather than assuming that two groups are
> similar or dissimilar and making wild generalizations about the 'burden of
> proof' it would be more productive simply to subject the claims to empirical
> investigation.
OK. That has been done. The IQ test scores are there, now we can discuss what
these "scores" mean.
> However, the similarity and dissimilarity argument is also a bit of a red
> herring.
>
> > Once there is some supposed "evidence" (ie IQ tests)
>
> Well that's been well documented for years. The question then becomes
> whether the tests are fair.
True enough. So what do you think? Fair or not?
>
> >we can start discussing
> > whether those IQ tests (which are KNOWN to be correlated quite strongly to
> > educational level and poverty) are really showing any INNATE difference at
> all,
>
> Ooof. I think most psychologists agree these days that performance would be
> a mixture of nature and nurture. It would be quite difficult to tease out
> the exact role of nature versus nurture.
Fair enough. But if you wish to conclude "the IQ scores confirm that blacks are
INNATELY dumber than whites", you must ensure that you have eliminated any
possible "nurture" causes. When you have done so, you will have knocked racial
equality of the pedastal. Good luck.
> > Again, the
> > burden of proof is ALL on the person who wishes to show that the
> difference
> > exists.
>
> Why?
Because there is already evidence for the equality hypothesis.
>
> > > > >Challenging this irrational faith
> > > >
> > > > It's not irrational for anyone to require that you prove your
> > > > assertions.
> > >
> > > All assertions are ultimately irrational.
> >
> > If that were true then rational communication would be impossible.
>
> Fully rational communication is impossible. Every assertion is based upon
> non-rational assumptions. Communication apparently becomes possible when
> non-rational assumptions are shared.
Are you suggesting it is impossible to provide evidence for any assertion?
That's what started this part of the exchange.
> > > Having spent several years debating World War II history with assorted
> > > members of the politically correct fraternity I am quite convinced that
> > > there are courses out there in 'how to debate with evil fascist
> bourgeoise
> > > oppressors'
> >
> > snip... I suggest you contemplate the notion of "burden of proof"....
> it's
> > always on the person making the claim.
>
> False. Perhaps legal scenarios, because of their formal nature, illustrate
> this fallacy most clearly. In the British legal system, if you libel me
> (i.e. make a defamatory claim about me in writing) I can sue for damages.
> You are making a claim about me and unless you can prove it to be true I
> will win. So far this fits in with your assertion about the burden of proof.
> BUT, in the American system the burden of proof goes the other way. I have
> to prove that your claim about me is incorrect.
Fair enough. Let's discard the "burden of proof" in this discussion. I say
there is evidence in support of equality (ie physiological similarity). You say
there also evidence pointing towards inequality (IQ scores). We can argue if
those mean anything. maybe they do, maybe they don't.
And THEN we have to ask: so what? Blacks are irrefutably dumber that whites,
let's say. So what?
> Similarly, in other areas of empirical investigation the notion of burden of
> proof often cannot sensibly apply.
Fair enough.
> > If someone claims the Holocaust
> > happened, the burden of proof is on them to prove it
>
> Are you seriously arguing that if they were unable to do so then we would
> have to 'assume' that it hadn't happened?
More accurately, I should have said that the onus is on them to provide evidence
that it happened (not "prove it"). And yes, that's exactly what I'm
suggesting. If someone told me "50 years ago, Hitler deliberately murdered six
million Jews in gas ovens", and was unable to provide any supporting evidence
for that assertion, I would regard the assertion as probably false until such
time as evidence was provided.
(That being said, I think the Holocaust is well established, and I have no
interest in exploring the matter further).
> You see, I'd say that if someone
> makes that claim then, rather than arguing that we should regard it as false
> until proven otherwise, we should keep an open mind and conduct empirical
> investigation.
Ahh, but you see, the very nastiness of the claim does offer (weak) evidence
against it.
I claim the following: "I eat one complete human baby for breakfast every
morning".
Are you going to "keep an open mind and conduct an empirical investigation", or
would you going to assume that I'm just yanking your chain to make a rhetorical
point, and ignore my claim? the latter, I hope.
>
> > If someone wished to claim blacks are innately inferior to
> > whites, the burden of proof is on them.
>
> And if someone wishes to claim that blacks are NOT innately inferior to
> whites? :-)
He has the physiological similarities between blacks and whites on his side.
What do you have? The IQ scores. Are you sure you eliminated all the bias? If
so, then you might be on to something, but again, so what?
Darren
warren2
>
> "SW" <ad...@hell.com> wrote in message
> news:5PXg7.628551$K5.67...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
> >
> > <kmsp...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:oqmDO4ysOhRPUB...@4ax.com...
> > > <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >"Darren McHugh" <usene...@thanks.com> wrote in message
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> "Rahowa!" wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > But in reality, the average White racialist is far smarter and
more
> > > >> > idea-oriented than the rest of the population. I have met dozens
of
> > > >> > people with University degrees, genius-level IQs, and exceptional
> > > >> > mental aptitude in the White racialist community. Racists are, on
desire
> a
> > > >> > return to a safer, cleaner, more upwardly mobile society.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >Here.
> > > >
> > > >> debate?
> > > >
> > > >OK, if I must.
> > > >
What
> > the
> > > >> hell is the "white race", anyway?
> > > >
> > > >A rather vague category of people, rather like 'gypsies' or
'Albanians'
> > or
> > > >'Jews'.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Probably most of them.
> > > >
> "white"
> > > >> anymore?
> > > >
> > > >Pretty much everyone in Eastern Europe.
> > > >
> > > >> "black", (whatever that means), are they "white" or are they
"black"?
> > > >
> > > >I don't understand the question.
> > >
> > > knowing some math.
> >
> >
> > Consider the possibility that mr. michael is burnt out from
unsuccessfully
> > soliciting contributions
> > from racist bigots to establish his 'homeland'. Or maybe he just took
too
> > many blows to the head whilst trying to enlist members for the BNP.
> >
> > sw
>
>
> Note how Leftist posters respond to sensible points not by addressing the
> issues raised but rather by descending into inane personal remarks,
> presumably with the objective of preventing the issues from being
discussed.
You didn't make a sensible point worth discussing, mr. michael. Are you
still not practicing psychotherapy in Lincolnshire?
sw
>
>
david_michael
We're going around in circles here. I've actually already answered the point
stunningly clearly. I've conceded your point that the category 'white' is
vague around the edges but have countered that other groups such as
'Jewish', 'Albanian', and 'gypsy' are also vague around the edges. Vagueness
around the edges is a characteristic of attempts to classify people into
cultural groups. Does that mean that we should discard the concepts of
Jewry, Albanian-ness, gypsies and socialism, together with the history, the
sense of identity that they provide? Why must it be only the poor white man
who is not allowed to have his own group simply because he is incapable of
defining it with a precision that is not required of other peoples?
I have also countered your point that such vagueness around the edges is
problematic if these concepts are used as a basis for social policy. It
requires no radical innovation whatsoever -- one simply applies discretion.
That happens already. I'm married to a foreigner -- when I brought her into
the country, subjective decisions were made by embassy staff and by
immigration officers about such matters as, for example, whether the
marriage was 'likely' to endure. There are no hard and fast criteria --
merely guidelines.
> Your "cultural elements" are even funnier. So if I don't do "black"
things,
> like listen to reggae and have dreads, I'm White?
As long as you satisfy the biological requirements!
> How about Miles Davis? If I
> listen to him, does that disqualify me from being "White"?
Never heard of him. However, the answer to your question is certainly
'no' -- I listen to Rachmaninov but that doesn't make me a Russian. However,
if you wanted to claim that the music of Rachmaninov is part of British
culture THEN I'd have to disagree with you.
> Can you name any of
> the other things I should do/like, oh arbiter of White Taste, in order to
be
> White?
Marry a black woman. You'd be biologically white, but you'd be turning your
back on the white race.
> > > > You can argue that it's a
> > > > bit vague around the edges,
> > >
> > > Seems more than a "bit" vague... it sounds mighty fucking vague the
way
> > you
> > > describe it.
> >
> > Well no more so than any other cultural group.
>
> Yep, but again, cultural groups and races are not things that any nation
should
> base its social policy on.
Really? Well on that basis we'd have to abolish Israel for a start!
I'd argue, contra you, that cultural groups and races ARE a very good basis
for social policy precisely because they provide a sense of identity and
some limited protection against the forces of globalization.
> > How do you define an
> > Albanian? Someone who is a citizen of Albania? Certainly, but then what
> > about the Albanians who live in Kosova and are actually citizens of
> > Yugoslavia? Someone who speaks Shqip? I know of an English person who
speaks
> > it fluently but is certainly not an Albanian. How do you define a Jew?
> > Someone who subscribes to the doctrine of Judaism? Hmm, but then what
about
> > all these non-religious Jews? Someone who has at least one Jewish
parent?
> > But what about that Afrikaner girl I knew who had no Jewish parents but
was
> > planning to convert to Judaism? Cultural groups are indeed vague around
the
> > edges. That does not mean that we should abolish them and discard the
years
> > of history, the sense of identity, and the limited protection against
the
> > forces of globalization that they afford.
>
> I am not suggesting the abolishment of cultural groups. I live in a
country
> that officially embraces "multiculturalism" and none of the various
cultural
> groups appear to be in any danger of disappearing, as far as I can tell.
Tell that to the Afrikaner. Tell that to the Tasmanian Aborigines -- ooops,
sorry: you can't because they've already disappeared. However, you see the
problem with your objection that 'white' is an unacceptable category
*simply* because it's vague around the edges. It's no more vague around the
edges than Jewry, Albanian-ness, gypsyness, socialism, etc.
> I think your link between globalization and multiculturalism is a bit
weak.
> Governments get sucked into supra-national bodies because their voters let
them
> get sucked in. I agree that that's not entirely a good thing, but I don't
see
> how/why multiculturalism has anything to do with it.
The average voter lets them get sucked in because the average voter is lied
to. I remember well the referendum that took Britain into what was then the
'Common Market'. We were told that it was *simply* an economic club and that
it was most unlikely that it would be anything else. The BBC lectured us for
hours on the supposed evils of 'going it alone' and so 60% of the British
people voted to go in. We were never told that the 'Common Market' would
change into the European Union, that our laws would be subjugated to those
of the European Union, that we would no longer be able to sell our fruit and
vegetables using the old pounds and ounces, etc. etc. And none of the 'main
political parties' (to use the BBC's phrase) gave the voters the option of
coming out once we were in. Political parties that are not 'main' get no
media exposure and, given the first-past-the-post voting system, don't have
a cat's chance in Hell of winning parliamentary elections in this country.
Moreover, the average voter is not overly concerned with the EU, or NATO.
The average voter is, as our political leaders are always telling us,
concerned with health, education, the economy. The destruction of nationhood
is done by stealth -- the cloud that is sneaked through behind the silver
lining of attractive economic policy.
> Darren
David
Derek Bell
:> > then mass black immigration would tend to lower the overall IQ, to
:> > contaminate the gene pool.
:>
:> "Contaminate the gene pool". Sounds like your mind is made up already.
:> You already know which genes are the "pure" ones and which ones are the
:> "contaminants".
: <sigh> no -- I'm just presenting the argument as I've seen it presented many
: times over the years by others. I've actually said that it's not a strong
: one, although it's not as daft as you'd have us believe.
Never mind the fact that it's purely rhetorical...
:> More unfair than the one we have been living in for the last 6,000 years
:> of recorded history?
: Yes. In a world of nations, there is always an 'outside' to escape to if
: your government falls into the wrong hands and becomes a hideous tyranny.
: The Jews in Nazi Germany escaped in their tens of thousands to the
: 'outside', for instance. It might be hard to reach that 'outside' but it
: exists. There is always an outside to apply economic and political pressure
: for change. Without this outside pressure, for example, would the Soviet
: Union have collapsed so quickly? Would South Africa have changed so rapidly?
: As Spengler documents in *The Decline of the West*, for the past 6,000 years
: of recorded history, empires have risen and fallen. But with the age of
: globalization, we are moving into a new era. It's an era where,
: increasingly, there is less and less of an 'outside' to escape to.
I'm sure a fan of Spengler like you would have something
to say about this summary of him:
http://208.154.71.60/bcom/eb/article/1/0,5716,70861+1,00.html
:> > and, at worst, a one-world superstate that could develop into
:> > an inescapable one-world dictatorship. Multiculturalism is being used,
:> > intentionally or otherwise, to break down national identities and to
: prepare
:> > the way for the destruction of the nation state to facilitate the
:> > development of supra-national institutions.
:>
:> Or, it could be argued that multi-culturalism isn't being "used" for
: anything.
:> It's just happening all by itself for the same reasons that globalization
: is...
:> the world is getting smaller, communcation and transport are getting
: cheaper,
:> people are finding out more about each other, people are becoming more
: educated,
:> less tribal and stupid. Looks like a good thing to me.
: Good for whom? For the working people who lose their livelihoods because the
: multi-nationals realize that they can make money by switching production to
: some other country where they can use slave labour? For the once-proud and
: independent nations that lose their ability to determine their own affairs
: as decision making is transferred to ever more remote supra-national
: institutions? That it is good for the rich mega-capitalists of the Western
: world is something that I do not dispute. I do not see how it can be good
: for anyone else.
And your opinion of multi-culturalism?
: Well it's lasted in Europe for 56 years. I'd put it to you that where
: conflicts have arisen this has resulted from precisely the supra-national
: tendencies that real nationalists would oppose. Look at the forces behind
: the really big conflicts -- Communism, Nazism, Zionism, Christianity,
: imperialism. These are all hegemonistic, internationalist doctrines (and I
: regard Nazism with its 'tomorrow the world' vision as an internationalist
: doctrine). Had there been more nationalism in the past and less
: internationalism, then the world might well have been a far more peaceful
: place.
So the ultra-nationalists had *nothing* to do with
conflict in the Balkans??
Derek
--
Derek Bell db...@maths.tcd.ie |"Usenet is a strange place."
WWW: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dbell/index.html| - Dennis M Ritchie,
PGP: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dbell/key.asc | 29 July 1999.
|
david_michael
>
>
> david_michael wrote:
>
> > (snip)
>
> > Rahowa (and I presume, you) desire to round up
> > all
> > > the "Blacks" (and perhaps the Jews too) and ship them back to
> > Africa/Israel (or
> > > worse). Am I right?
> >
> > Well, I can't speak for Rahow but I don't support that policy. What I
> > support is (a) an immediate end to all non-essential immigration into
> > Britain and (b) the making available of facilities so that those
foreigners
> > who wish to leave can do so with government support and finance.
>
> OK... that policy sounds completely colour blind as you have written it.
Fine
> by me. Britain is a rather crowded place.
One takes a minimalist approach to get enough support to at least do
*something*.
> > > NOW the vagueness of "white" and "black" becomes a problem.... a big
> > problem.
> > > Which "black" people are "black" enough to get shipped out? Which
"white"
> > > people are "white" enough to stay? What test will you administer to
> > determine
> > > who is "white" enough, and who is "too black"?
> >
> > We ship out the ones who want to go. Simple as that. If they want to
stay
> > then we cannot force them.
>
> Completely colour blind, then? Great.
Not necessarily. Read on.
> > > > > Do you count Italians? Turks? Poles?
> >
> > > > Probably most of them.
> > >
> > > Really? How generous of you. Which ones? What criteria will you use
to
> > decide
> > > which Italians are "white" and which ones aren't?
> >
> > I think I was including most Italians as 'white'. If a black Italian
wants
> > to be shipped out of Britain, I don't have a problem with giving him
> > assistance to that end.
>
> What if a "white" Italian wants to leave?
If only one wants to go then personally I'd be inclined to suggest that this
is a matter for him and his family to finance rather than the British
taxpayer. If there's a sudden massive demand among white Italians for
expatriation then I suppose we'd have to look at it.
> > > Could you please provide me with a full colour map of Europe with a
bright
> > red
> > > line running through it? Please label the line as follows "Everyone
on
> > the left
> > > side of this line is a nice, cultured White person. Everyone on the
right
> > side
> > > of this line is a dumb Pollack, not fit for any decent society."
> >
> > Why should you want me to do that?
>
> Because it would make you look silly if you tried, that's why. You see,
there
> is so much racial diversity in the world that you'll have a hard time
figuring
> out who the "white" people are once you start rewriting the laws to suit
your
> own ends.
Oh, this is the point that I've answered about four times already. Yup, the
category 'white' is vague, but no vaguer than 'Jew', 'Albanian', 'gypsy'
etc. etc. And the vagueness does not act as a bar to the implementation of
social policy because the usual approach of granting discretion to
immigration officials etc. is taylor-made to deal with the sort of vagueness
we have around the edges.
You get that anyway. Suppose a Romanian woman wants to emigrate to England
to marry an English man. The first thing she does is apply to the British
Consul in Bucharest. He has to make the entirely subjective decision as to
whether she's genuine or not. If he doesn't like the look of her he can
neatly scupper the entire application. I'd rather have a system where such
decisions are taken by trained, qualified officials who can listen to
arguments and who can be appealed against, than some sort of mechanistic,
formulaic process.
> > Borderline cases exist with many
> > cultural groups -- Jews, Albanians, socialists, gypsies, etc. etc. Are
we to
> > abolish centuries of Judaism simply because disputes have arisen and
> > continue regularly to arise over precisely who might be regarded as
> > 'Jewish'? No?
>
> I did not suggest we abolish centuries of Judaism. I suggested that
Judaism is
> an inappropriate component of a country's laws. Israel thinks
differently, but
> I disagree with them.
I don't have a problem with them in that regard.
> > Then why should the category 'white' be regarded as any more
> > problematical?
>
> Because you appear to want to create laws which work differently depending
on
> whether or not the person is "white".
We already have laws that work differently depending upon where a person is
born. You can't help where you're born. It's your parents' fault. Why should
laws that depend on whether you're white be worse than laws that depend on
where you're born -- just think: we're keeping millions of starving Afghans
out of our country SIMPLY because of an accident of birth!! How terrible!!!
> > It is absurd to speak of
> > > "Whites", "Blacks", the "White Race"... etc etc etc, in the context of
any
> > kind
> > > of concrete social policy where you are actually going to screen
people in
> > or
> > > out based on their "race".
> >
> > Why? The vagueness of the term 'Jew' doesn't prevent Israel from using
it as
> > the basis for social policy.
>
> And Israel is wrong to do so.
I disagree.
> > What it *does* mean is that you have to apply
> > an element of discretion when deciding individual cases.
>
> Discretion = some fat, ignorant border guard looking you up and down and
> deciding he doesn't like the looks of you. I think the government ought
to be
> of laws and not of men, myself.
So on that basis you'll fire the entire judiciary? I mean what are judges
other than people who sit down and INTERPRET laws. This is how English law
works -- parliament makes the laws, and officials -- judges, immigration
officers, consuls, etc. APPLY them.
> > But this
> > application of discretion happens anyway -- certainly in immigration to
> > Britain and South Africa, and I imagine many other countries in the
modern
> > Western world.
> >
> > > So, if you have somebody with a "Black" mother and a "White" father,
is
> > that
> > > child "White" or "Black"? How about if you have 50 "White" ancestors
and
> > one
> > > "Black" one? What colour are you then? Are you allowed to stay, or
it is
> > back
> > > to Africa?
> >
> > Well I'd say that the primary consideration is whether the person wishes
to
> > leave. If so, then that person would be a favourable candidate for
receiving
> > assistance to relocate overseas.
>
> So your policies are completely colour blind then? Excellent!
Look, if we had a major problem in England with white Italians arriving here
in their millions and swamping us all, and if they were having difficulty
assimilating, then I would suggest that we'd have a good case for
encouraging them to leave. We don't have that problem. We ARE being swamped
by people from Africa and the Indian subcontinent. That is *precisely* why
it's a problem. If we had 200 coloured people in England then I wouldn't
have a problem with that. But we have millions and their presence here is
resulting in riots, viciously repressive laws, and the mutilation of a
valuable culture.
> > >
> > > There are nothing wrong with arbitrary distinctions like "socialist",
> > "Jew",
> > > "white", etc. (Although some of them are self-assigned obviously...
you
> > can
> > > choose to be a "socialist" but you can't really choose to be
"white").....
> > as
> > > long as you don't try to use those distinctions as the foundation of
> > social
> > > policy.
> >
> > Happens all the time. Israel uses 'Jew' as the foundation of social
policy.
> > Britain uses 'place of birth' as the foundation of social policy. All
quite
> > arbitrary.
>
> All quite wrong and immoral.
Well there are very few Western countries that *don't* use 'place of birth'
as at least part of their definition of citizenship. If you're claiming that
THIS is wrong and immoral then you're damning pretty much every civilized
nation on earth!
> > > > If a
> > > > group of people wish to identify themselves in a particular way,
what's
> > > > wrong with that?
> > >
> > > First of all, thank you for admitting that the construct "white race"
is
> > purely
> > > arbitrary.
> >
> > Not 'purely' arbitrary. There is a biological component -- see one of my
> > other posts in this thread.
>
> Ha! Your "biological component" is PURELY arbitrary. "How pale is pale"?
There
> is no principle, no dividing line. At some point based on nothing but
your own
> whims, you just draw the line and say, "nope, that guy isn't "white"".
It's the
> very DEFINITION of arbitrary.
Not so. The fact that there are borderline cases does not make the category
itself meaningless as the vast majority of cases are emphatically not
borderline. Just because a borderline state exists between 'cooked' and
'uncooked' potatoes, this does not mean that the concept of a 'cooked'
potato is so vague as to be unusable.
> > > If you wish to identify yourself in certain ways, and take pride in
> > arbitrary
> > > features of your make-up (ie: "I am a member of the 'White Race', and
> > proud of
> > > it") then fine. I think you must be laughably insecure and stupid to
do
> > so,
> >
> > So are Jews laughably insecure for wishing to identify themselves as
such?
> > Are Arabs and black people so insecure? Why is it just the poor white
man
> > who is mocked and insulted all the time for wanting an identity of his
own?
>
> You're like the little kid who hears about "Mother's Day", and "Father's
Day",
> and says "when is it ever Children's day"?
When all else fails reach for the insult list, eh?
Tell that to the farmers in Zimbabwe who, having built up the country for
over a century, are now being beaten and murdered by blacks with guns.
Tell that to the farmers in South Africa who are being murdered in their
thousands by blacks with guns.
Tell that to the millions of innocent black Africans who have had to endure
such vicious repression under the likes of Mengistu, Amin, Bokassa, Mobutu,
etc. etc. that they have looked back with regret at the passing of the
colonial age.
Tell that to the white people of Oldham, Burnley, Bradford who have to
witness Asians rioting in their streets.
Whatever may have been the case in the past -- and your analysis is
simplistic to say the least -- the truth is that today whites are very much
on the defensive. Times have changed. We are in many instances the victims,
not the oppressors.
> > > But White Racialism (or whatever the hell you call your movement)
seems to
> > be
> > > about a lot more than quietly being "proud to be White". It seems
like
> > you
> > > people can't go very far before you say something like: "We hate our
> > enemies
> > > because we love the White Race.", as Rahowa did in his post.
> >
> > I prefer the old slogan of the Afrikaner Volksfront: 'gee elke volk sy
eie
> > land' -- give each people its own land. As someone I once knew wrote:
'love
> > your people, be proud of your country, and respect the right of others
to do
> > the same'.
>
> I do love my people, all 6 billion of them. I don't know why I should
draw a
> line and say "I only love these ones over here". I harbour something
special
> for my family, yes. But why should some stranger on the other side of
town mean
> more to me than a stranger on the other side of the world?
It may indeed seem strange to one steeped in the philosophy and culture of
the globalized West. Consider the Palestinian suicide bomber who heroically
lays down his life for his fellow Palestinians. Consider the Russian
soldiers who fought to defend their homeland against the Germans, often
laying down their lives for their fellow nationals. It is indeed possible to
create a world where, instead of 'each man for himself', we inculcate into
the people a love for their fellow citizens -- a love so intense that they
are prepared to fight and if necessary die for their homeland and people.
> But anyway: "give each people it's own land". What if the niggahz want to
stay
> in "your land" (Britain)? You say you won't do anything to make them
leave.....
> sure you won't.
There is nothing that we can do.
Buy a farm in Zimbabwe. You'll get a much closer view from there.
> > > > > It doesn't exist. Get over it.
> > > > > There is no such thing as the "white race" or the "black race".
> > > >
> > > > So there's no such things as Jews or socialists or Arabs or
Albanians?
> > >
> > > What I'm saying is: "races" don't exist except as vague, arbitrary
> > categories
> > > that are far, far, far too ambiguous and vague to base any social
policy
> > on.
> >
> > I agree with you that they're vague but I don't see this as an obstacle
to
> > social policy.
>
> I'm sure you don't. You don't mind your laws a little vague.
Most laws are vague. They have to be INTERPRETED by officials -- judges,
immigration officers, policemen, etc. etc. That is how law works!
> You'll just turn
> it over to the fat customs guard to deal with. "I don't like Niggers, and
you
> look like Niggers to me. Beat it."
Happens anyway. See above.
> > There is a long and noble tradition of using discretion as a
> > means of ironing out vagueness. Indeed, this tradition dominates the
British
> > legal system, where the *interpretation* of laws is all important.
>
> There's a difference between "interpreting the law" and "interpreting
which
> people are entitled to the protection of the law."
Happens anyway. Immigration officers and British consuls take that decision
every day. If the consul in Bucharest doesn't like the woman who applies for
immigration, then she won't get in and will not be entitled to the
protection of British law. The point really has to be stressed that the
discretionary approach is at the heart of EXISTING immigration policy. It
has to be simply because people need to be able to argue their case and be
listened to and, if they don't like the outcome, they need to be able to
appeal and to be listened to again.
The alternative is a formulaic approach that, I submit, would be far less
humane.
Suppose technology were to be created that would enable the chimp to mate
productively with the human being. (After all, lions can mate with tigers .
. .) Would that make chimps and humans the same species? This might all
sound very silly and pedantic but there is a sensible point behind it:
there's a lot more to the difference between species than MERELY the ability
to interbreed!
> > > The distinctions between the different human "races", however, are
> > completely
> > > arbitrary. Humans of every "race" have, can, and do freely mate with
each
> > other
> > > and produce viable, even outstanding offspring (which makes perfect
> > genetic
> > > sense... cross breeding promotes vigour, while inbreeding preserves
> > recessive
> > > abnormalities).
> >
> > Heh. Suppose we were to discover a group of black people who couldn't
mate
> > with whites. Would you argue that, on that basis, they are a different
> > species and should be deprived of all 'human rights'?
>
> Actually, I think a powerful case could be made for just that.
So you'd lock them up in zoos and maybe cook a few of them for dinner MERELY
because they can't mate productively with whites?
> > > Nobody even knows how many "races" there are! Read the literature.
Some
> > say
> > > there are three major races. Some say there are four major races.
Some
> > say
> > > there are dozens. What does that confusion about "which race is
which"
> > tell
> > > you? It should tell you, IF you have a full set of frontal lobes,
that
> > THE
> > > DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE RACES ARE PURELY ARBITRARY.
> >
> > No, they're partly biological and partly cultural. See my other post.
>
> LOL! They are partly arbitrary biological criteria, and partly arbitrary
> cultural criteria. Doesn't make em less arbitrary.
Answered many times before. They're no less arbitrary than other social
categories such as 'Jew', 'gypsy' etc.
> The only other post I saw
> said "white guys don't listen to reggae or have dreadlocks".
I didn't actually write that despite your use of quotation marks.
> Wow, almost
> everybody in the world is White, then.
Means?
> >
> > > > > > with offerings of anti-White propaganda; to
> > > > > > the soulless materialist men and women that would rather make a
buck
> > > > > > on the death of the White Race than fight it;
> > > > >
> > > > > What's the "White Race"?
> > > >
> > > > See above.
> > >
> > > See above? "Whites are a rather vague group of people...." That's
your
> > > definition? Whoop-de-fucking-do.
> >
> > I can no more define a white man than I can define a Jew or a socialist,
> > sir. But that no more argues for the redundancy of the term 'white' than
it
> > does for the redundancy of the terms 'Jew' or 'socialist'.
>
> I never suggested the term "white" was redundant, I said it is was useless
for
> anything but colloquial applications.
And I've suggested that it is every bit as useful as terms such as 'Jew', or
'gypsy' or, indeed, 'black'.
> >
> > > Again, if you merely want to say "I only like people of similar
cultural
> > and
> > > 'racial' background to myself", that's your right, it makes you
nothing
> > more
> > > than a harmless asshole. You have every right to be a harmless
asshole.
> > >
> > > If, however, you "hate the enemies of the White Race", like Rahowa
does,
> > and
> > > would like to do something about it, as Rahowa does, then you aren't
just
> > a
> > > harmless asshole anymore. You are now a harmful and dangerous
asshole....
> > > dangerous to a whole bunch of people who have done nothing wrong
except to
> > > disregard your pathetic and arbitrary means of self-identification.
> >
> > Hmmm. Well would you say it's wrong to 'hate the enemies of the black
race'?
>
> Well, depends what they did to become the "enemies".
Fair enough. I think the same applies to the enemies of the white race.
> The "enemies of the black race" often wear hoods and kill blacks, and are
proud
> of it. I find that reprehensible.
And what about Mugabe's murderous thugs?
What about those who chant 'one settler one bullet' in South Africa?
What about those Asians who rioted in Oldham and Bradford and Leeds? Indeed,
what about the Kurds who rioted in Hull?
> The "enemies of the white race" (as defined by retards like Rahowa)....
well
> it's pretty hard to tell what they do that's so terrible. They let their
> daughters sleep with black men without hanging the black man afterwards.
They
> are White, but they eat curry and listen to Miles Davis..... hmmm, they
seem
> pretty harmless to me.
I don't think that such people are deserving of hatred. They should be
argued with -- perhaps vigorously -- but that's as far as it goes.
I'll tell you where I agree with you.
Yes, the category 'white' is vague. However, so are many other social
categories such as 'black', 'Jew', 'gypsy', 'socialist'.
Yes, race is arbitrary. However, so are many other systems of classification
such as 'place of birth'.
Yes, racial categories DO require discretion and interpretation when they
are applied as the basis for social policy. But so do other categories and
such discretion and interpretation is ALREADY exercised on a daily basis by
customs officers, consuls, policemen, judges, etc. etc.
> It's impossible to hear the phrase "the sacrifice of
> our great White ancestors" without vomiting your lunch all over the floor
in
> disgust and astonishment.
Keep that television turned off more. That way you might not be so disturbed
by those who do not share the goals of your lords and masters in the world
of international finance.
> Most of human history has the whites taking, not
> giving. (Although many whites and even some white governments have -
often
> belatedly - done some relatively benevolent things.)
I disagree passionately. Even during the colonial era, much was given to the
black peoples of the world by the whites. Our sacrifices and entrepreneurial
spirit gave them much of what they have today.
> > > > What did Britain and Portugal and France and Belgium do with their
> > colonies?
> > > > They gave them to the blacks.
> > >
> > > "Gave them to the blacks"? Hmmmm... didn't those lands belong to the
> > Blacks in
> > > the first place?
> >
> > I'd envisage a fairly accurate summary of the situation as this:
> >
> > 1. Piece of land exists.
> > 2. Blacks migrate there.
>
> The first humans evolved there. I don't think there was any "migration".
Depends where you're talking about I suppose. I won't claim to be an expert
on human evolution!
> > 3. Whites migrate there.
>
> A few million years later.
That is most unlikely as the human species has only been on earth for about
3 million years at most!
> > 4. Whites, being more technologically sophisticated at this point,
develop
> > the place.
> > 5. Whites withdraw and leave it to the blacks.
>
> How does this support your original point that Whites are Really Nice
Guys?
If we were really nasty, we'd have killed all the blacks, took all the land
for ourselves and kept it. We didn't.
> > > > And what are the blacks doing to Africa now that we've given it to
them?
> > > >
> > > > They're buggering it up.
> > >
> > > Yep, largely because they are forced to live in nation states which
are
> > > patterned after completely arbitrary ex-colonies, rather than upon
natural
> > > ethnic or geographical lines. Read "Ends of the Earth" by Robert
> > Kaplan... he
> > > tours Africa extensively. All the tribal violence happening in Africa
now
> > is
> > > the same thing that has been happening in Europe for the last 2000
years.
> > Or
> > > don't you think tribal violence happens in Europe? (hint: Northern
> > Ireland).
> >
> > Aw cummon! Tribal violence has nothing to do with what's happening in
> > Zimbabwe. It's your typical tinpot African dictator.
>
> Read "Ends of the Earth" by Robert Kaplan to find out what's behind the
"typical
> tinpot African dictator".
I'll tell you what's behind Mugable. South Africa. They could shut him down
overnight.
> Darren
David
david_michael
multiculturalism as being conducive to the forces of globalization in that
it weakens the sense of community and national identity. That means less
resistance to globalizing initiatives. It's all part of creating a new,
globalization-friendly conception of the nation state.
David
"Darren McHugh" <usene...@thanks.com> wrote in message
news:3B84C468...@thanks.com...
Derek Bell
:> Main Entry: ig·no·rant
:> Pronunciation: 'ig-n(&-)r&nt
:> Function: adjective
:> Date: 14th century
:> 1 a : destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also :
:> lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant
:> of modern mathematics> b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or
:> intelligence <ignorant errors>
:> 2 : UNAWARE, UNINFORMED
:> - ig·no·rant·ly adverb
:> - ig·no·rant·ness noun
:> synonyms IGNORANT, ILLITERATE, UNLETTERED, UNTUTORED, UNLEARNED mean not
:> having knowledge. IGNORANT may imply a general condition or it may apply to
:> lack of knowledge or awareness of a particular thing <an ignorant fool>
:> <ignorant of nuclear physics>. ILLITERATE applies to either an absolute or a
:> relative inability to read and write <much of the population is still
:> illiterate>. UNLETTERED implies ignorance of the knowledge gained by reading
:> <an allusion meaningless to the unlettered>. UNTUTORED may imply lack of
:> schooling in the arts and ways of civilization <strange monuments built by
:> an untutored people>. UNLEARNED suggests ignorance of advanced subjects
:> <poetry not for academics but for the unlearned masses>.
:>
:> Now you know what ignorant means.
: I already knew. Let me ask the pertinent question again:
: Just how, in your mind, does acknowledging the realities
: of race make one "ignorant"? Can you answer this? Simply
: copying and then pasting a definition does not cut it.
: How could anyone regard men like Thomas Jefferson as
: "illiterate"? He was the man who wrote that "the two
: races, equally free, cannot live in the same government."
: How could any intelligent person see William Shockley
: as "untutored"? He was co-inventor of the transistor,
: and also a vocal exponent of both eugenics and white
: racialism.
Ah, the appeal to irrelevant authority - just because
Shockley was a Nobel prize winner in physics doesn't make him
any more expert in fields unrelated to his work. He might
well be as ignorant of the facts relating to eugenics as
he was of, say, the life of the cod.
: Are you starting to fathom why I asked that question?
Because you are ignorant of logical argument?
: You and your kind are described in some
:> detail.
:>
:> > > Myth 3 - Racialist are not all violent, but then again not all Nazi's
:> > > were in the SS either. You got plenty of violent people to do your
:> > > bidding now don't you. doesn't Rahowa mean - racial holy war?
:> >
:> > Yes it does. First, we must win the propaganda war.
:>
:> then you can safely wipe out whomever you choose?
: We will do whatever it takes to secure the survival,
: advancement and expansion of the White race.
:>
:> > > Myth 4 - I can just imagine your daughter bringing home a "black" as you
:> > > put it. How long would it take before he was swinging?
:> >
:> > A spiritually and mentally healthy person will never
:> > have to worry about succumbing to such deviant and
:> > destructive behavior.
:>
:> Agreed,
: Really? I was referring to miscegnation. Do you also
: denounce that affliction?
Well, with all your weasel-words it was hard to see what you
meant.
:> > > Myth 5 - Play the semantic game all you want, the bottom line is that
:> > > you hate and that hatred is manifest and apparent in all the disgusting
:> > > white power websites, publications, demonstrations, etc. What, were
:> > > you just fooling?
:> >
:> > Hatred is natural. It appears to be just as pronounced, if
:> > not more, on the "anti-racist" side of the equation. Whether
:> > or not one is "hateful" has nothing to do with intelligence.
:>
:> Ture. But you were the one claiming that its not about hate,its about love
:> of one's race.
: We hate our racial enemies precisely because we love
: our own race.
You're *really* going to be embarrassed some years from now when
you think of those words!
: RAHOWA!
You should get that cold seen to!
david_michael
>
> I'm sure a fan of Spengler like you would have something
> to say about this summary of him:
> http://208.154.71.60/bcom/eb/article/1/0,5716,70861+1,00.html
Why should you suppose that I'm a fan of Spengler? If I quote Marx, does
that make me a Marxist?
A force that tends to make the nation more amenable to globalizing
initiatives by destroying the sense of national and cultural identity.
> : Well it's lasted in Europe for 56 years. I'd put it to you that where
> : conflicts have arisen this has resulted from precisely the
supra-national
> : tendencies that real nationalists would oppose. Look at the forces
behind
> : the really big conflicts -- Communism, Nazism, Zionism, Christianity,
> : imperialism. These are all hegemonistic, internationalist doctrines (and
I
> : regard Nazism with its 'tomorrow the world' vision as an
internationalist
> : doctrine). Had there been more nationalism in the past and less
> : internationalism, then the world might well have been a far more
peaceful
> : place.
>
> So the ultra-nationalists had *nothing* to do with
> conflict in the Balkans??
The conflict in the Balkans was caused by one Mr Slobodan Milosevic and his
supporters. Mr Milosevic was a socialist who wished to export his brand of
Serbian socialism to other peoples. He was certainly not a nationalist in
the sense that I'd advocate nationalism -- a nationalism that respects the
nationalisms of others.
David|
Darren McHugh
david_michael wrote:
Stop twisting my words. I never suggested that these concepts should be
discarded. I said that social policy should not be based on them.
> Why must it be only the poor white man
> who is not allowed to have his own group simply because he is incapable of
> defining it with a precision that is not required of other peoples?
See my other post regarding the difference in meaning and connotation between
"Proud to be a black man", and "proud to be a white man". "Proud to be a black
man" usually denotes "not ashamed to be black". That strikes me as a pretty
harmless sentiment.
Proud to be a white man" usually denotes "I think whites are BETTER than blacks,
dammit" (since nobody has ever suggested they were inferior, what else would it
mean?) That does not strike me as a harmless sentiment.
> I have also countered your point that such vagueness around the edges is
> problematic if these concepts are used as a basis for social policy. It
> requires no radical innovation whatsoever -- one simply applies discretion.
> That happens already. I'm married to a foreigner -- when I brought her into
> the country, subjective decisions were made by embassy staff and by
> immigration officers about such matters as, for example, whether the
> marriage was 'likely' to endure. There are no hard and fast criteria --
> merely guidelines.
Even if "discretion" is used, there still have to be "guidelines" for that
"discretion" to work with. OK, tell me what the "guidelines" will be for
distinguishing who is "white" and who isn't.
> > Your "cultural elements" are even funnier. So if I don't do "black"
> things,
> > like listen to reggae and have dreads, I'm White?
>
> As long as you satisfy the biological requirements!
What about the "cultural requirements"?
> > How about Miles Davis? If I
> > listen to him, does that disqualify me from being "White"?
>
> Never heard of him.
He's a jazz musician, one of the greatest, in fact. (You can take your upcoming
snide response about that being an oxymoron and shove it up your ass.)
> However, the answer to your question is certainly
> 'no' -- I listen to Rachmaninov but that doesn't make me a Russian. However,
> if you wanted to claim that the music of Rachmaninov is part of British
> culture THEN I'd have to disagree with you.
You are changing the question. I am not asking about "British culture". I'm
asking about "whiteness".
You said: "For me, 'whiteness' is a category, rather like Jewishness or
Albanian-ness, that has both biological and cultural elements."
I asked you: So what are these biological and cultural elements?
You said "Just as we might say that reggae music and dreadlocks are elements of
'black culture', so we might say that they are not part of mainstream white
culture."
Note: Jazz is often considered part of "black culture." Most of the musicians
are black.
I take that to mean "if I listen to reggae or have dreadlocks (or jazz), I'm not
White anymore". But now you say that I can listen to Miles Davis and still be
white. I don't get it.
I want you to enumerate these "cultural elements of whiteness" for me, even if
they are just "guidelines" for my friendly neighborhood Gestapo agent to use in
"deciding" whether or not I am allowed to stay.
> > Can you name any of
> > the other things I should do/like, oh arbiter of White Taste, in order to
> be
> > White?
>
> Marry a black woman.
(Black as determined using the "discretion" of my friendly neighborhood Gestapo
agent, of course. Based on what guidelines?)
> You'd be biologically white, but you'd be turning your
> back on the white race.
That's it? Any other "cultural elements of whiteness"? I can listen to
whatever music I want, dress however I want, eat soul food all day long?
Come on, you spineless wimp! Say what you mean! A David Michael led Britain
would have Gestapo agents....oops, I mean "Emigration Facilitators", who are
"using their discretion" based on the "guidelines of whiteness" to approach all
non-whites and politely suggest that they clear off. Right?
So what "guidelines of whiteness" will they be using?
> >
> > Yep, but again, cultural groups and races are not things that any nation
> should
> > base its social policy on.
>
> Really? Well on that basis we'd have to abolish Israel for a start!
It's not our job to "abolish other nations", even if they are in the wrong. It
is only our job to ensure that our own nations are run in a moral way. I don't
think that Israel really deserves any help from the rest of the world, but that
is ancilliary to my main point in this thread.....
> I'd argue, contra you, that cultural groups and races ARE a very good basis
> for social policy precisely because they provide a sense of identity and
> some limited protection against the forces of globalization.
How do social policies based on race fight globalization? How is a nation of
"nice, white Britons" any less likely to vote for the Common Market, etc, than
the Niggerized, Mongrelized, racially polluted, impure Britain that you have
today?
I understand Sweden is a VERY homogeneous place compared to Britain (certainly
compared to any place in North America). Yet Sweden voted for this common
market thing to, did they not? All that good pure Nordic blood didn't do them
much good, did it?
Japan is a VERY homogeneous place, and they appear to be jumping into the
globalization thing with both feet as well. How can that be happening with all
that pure Jap blood?
> (snip)
> >
> > I am not suggesting the abolishment of cultural groups. I live in a
> country
> > that officially embraces "multiculturalism" and none of the various
> cultural
> > groups appear to be in any danger of disappearing, as far as I can tell.
>
> Tell that to the Afrikaner. Tell that to the Tasmanian Aborigines -- ooops,
> sorry: you can't because they've already disappeared.
As if you give a shit.
If the Tasman Aboes are anything like North American natives, they probably got
obliterated by smallpox. Multiculturalism had nothing to do with it.
As far as the Afrikaner goes, he treats everyone in SA like shit for 100 years,
and then worries that things are a bit hot for him? Oh well, too bad.
> However, you see the
> problem with your objection that 'white' is an unacceptable category
> *simply* because it's vague around the edges. It's no more vague around the
> edges than Jewry, Albanian-ness, gypsyness, socialism, etc.
>
> > I think your link between globalization and multiculturalism is a bit
> weak.
> > Governments get sucked into supra-national bodies because their voters let
> them
> > get sucked in. I agree that that's not entirely a good thing, but I don't
> see
> > how/why multiculturalism has anything to do with it.
>
> The average voter lets them get sucked in because the average voter is lied
> to.
Maybe. But you haven't answered my question: What does that have to do with
multiculturalism?
> I remember well the referendum that took Britain into what was then the
> 'Common Market'. We were told that it was *simply* an economic club and that
> it was most unlikely that it would be anything else. The BBC lectured us for
> hours on the supposed evils of 'going it alone' and so 60% of the British
> people voted to go in. We were never told that the 'Common Market' would
> change into the European Union, that our laws would be subjugated to those
> of the European Union, that we would no longer be able to sell our fruit and
> vegetables using the old pounds and ounces, etc. etc. And none of the 'main
> political parties' (to use the BBC's phrase) gave the voters the option of
> coming out once we were in. Political parties that are not 'main' get no
> media exposure and, given the first-past-the-post voting system, don't have
> a cat's chance in Hell of winning parliamentary elections in this country.
Yep, I think you have a point there. But you haven't answered my question:
What does that have to do with multiculturalism?
> Moreover, the average voter is not overly concerned with the EU, or NATO.
> The average voter is, as our political leaders are always telling us,
> concerned with health, education, the economy. The destruction of nationhood
> is done by stealth -- the cloud that is sneaked through behind the silver
> lining of attractive economic policy.
Fair enough. But you haven't answered my question: What does that have to do
with multiculturalism?
Darren
david_michael
And I answered you by pointing out that there is no problem in using them as
a basis for social policy. The mere fact that our globalizing lords and
masters do not like these concepts because they stand in the way of their
nefarious little imperialistic plans is, I submit, not a particularly good
reason for us to cease using them -- even as a basis for social policy.
> > Why must it be only the poor white man
> > who is not allowed to have his own group simply because he is incapable
of
> > defining it with a precision that is not required of other peoples?
>
> See my other post regarding the difference in meaning and connotation
between
> "Proud to be a black man", and "proud to be a white man". "Proud to be a
black
> man" usually denotes "not ashamed to be black". That strikes me as a
pretty
> harmless sentiment.
Coming from the mouths of Robert Mugabe, Louis Farrakhan and that ilk I
suggest that it is far from harmless.
> Proud to be a white man" usually denotes "I think whites are BETTER than
blacks,
> dammit" (since nobody has ever suggested they were inferior, what else
would it
> mean?) That does not strike me as a harmless sentiment.
Better, worse, inferior, superior and equal are words that are only
meaningful if you specify in what respect two people or groups are better,
worse, inferior, superior and equal. I'd invite you to draw a comparison
between love for your homeland and people on the one hand and love for your
family on the other. To say 'I love my wife' does not necessarily mean that
you hold her to be more beautiful, or intelligent, or productive than other
women. It means that you value her more highly -- that you regard her as
something special in your life that is worth preserving and fighting for.
Same with love for your race and nation.
> > I have also countered your point that such vagueness around the edges is
> > problematic if these concepts are used as a basis for social policy. It
> > requires no radical innovation whatsoever -- one simply applies
discretion.
> > That happens already. I'm married to a foreigner -- when I brought her
into
> > the country, subjective decisions were made by embassy staff and by
> > immigration officers about such matters as, for example, whether the
> > marriage was 'likely' to endure. There are no hard and fast criteria --
> > merely guidelines.
>
> Even if "discretion" is used, there still have to be "guidelines" for that
> "discretion" to work with. OK, tell me what the "guidelines" will be for
> distinguishing who is "white" and who isn't.
That would be the job of lawyers and would need to be guided by a whole
array of pragmatic and political considerations. It is not the sort of thing
that one can dash off in a Usenet post. An important aspect would be the
right of appeal for those who feel dissatisfied.
> > > Your "cultural elements" are even funnier. So if I don't do "black"
> > things,
> > > like listen to reggae and have dreads, I'm White?
> >
> > As long as you satisfy the biological requirements!
>
> What about the "cultural requirements"?
As I said, it's a combination of both.
> > > How about Miles Davis? If I
> > > listen to him, does that disqualify me from being "White"?
> >
> > Never heard of him.
>
> He's a jazz musician, one of the greatest, in fact. (You can take your
upcoming
> snide response about that being an oxymoron and shove it up your ass.)
I tend not to listen to jazz. My own tastes tend to be from the Late
Romantic era. I do appreciate some of the popular music from the more
obscure corners of the Balkans, however, where the combination of 'socialist
realism', nationalism, and an absence of negro influence has produced some
damn good musicians, Vace Zela and Irma Libahova being stunningly good.
> > However, the answer to your question is certainly
> > 'no' -- I listen to Rachmaninov but that doesn't make me a Russian.
However,
> > if you wanted to claim that the music of Rachmaninov is part of British
> > culture THEN I'd have to disagree with you.
>
> You are changing the question. I am not asking about "British culture".
I'm
> asking about "whiteness".
<sigh> It's known as argument by analogy.
> You said: "For me, 'whiteness' is a category, rather like Jewishness or
> Albanian-ness, that has both biological and cultural elements."
>
> I asked you: So what are these biological and cultural elements?
>
> You said "Just as we might say that reggae music and dreadlocks are
elements of
> 'black culture', so we might say that they are not part of mainstream
white
> culture."
>
> Note: Jazz is often considered part of "black culture." Most of the
musicians
> are black.
>
> I take that to mean "if I listen to reggae or have dreadlocks (or jazz),
I'm not
> White anymore".
I didn't say that.
> But now you say that I can listen to Miles Davis and still be
> white. I don't get it.
Well if you're going to lie about what I actually said then I'm not
surprised that you don't get it!
> I want you to enumerate these "cultural elements of whiteness" for me,
even if
> they are just "guidelines" for my friendly neighborhood Gestapo agent to
use in
> "deciding" whether or not I am allowed to stay.
If a person appears to a duly appointed immigration official to be white,
and if that person does not have cultural baggage (such as marriage to a
non-white or a history of anti-white or degenerate activities) then I
wouldn't have a problem in classifying that person as 'white'. Decisions of
the immigration official would, of course, be subject to appeal either by
the person concerned or by the government.
> > > Can you name any of
> > > the other things I should do/like, oh arbiter of White Taste, in order
to
> > be
> > > White?
> >
> > Marry a black woman.
>
> (Black as determined using the "discretion" of my friendly neighborhood
Gestapo
> agent, of course. Based on what guidelines?)
See above.
> > You'd be biologically white, but you'd be turning your
> > back on the white race.
>
> That's it? Any other "cultural elements of whiteness"? I can listen to
> whatever music I want, dress however I want, eat soul food all day long?
Indeed.
> Come on, you spineless wimp! Say what you mean! A David Michael led
Britain
> would have Gestapo agents....oops, I mean "Emigration Facilitators", who
are
> "using their discretion" based on the "guidelines of whiteness" to
approach all
> non-whites and politely suggest that they clear off. Right?
The Second World War ended 56 years ago. Why are you still fighting it? Get
real. The real enemies today are not Gestapo agents. They are the
international financiers and their cronies who manipulate people like your
good self into supporting an approach to life that can only assist their
nefarious plans to create a globalized world.
> So what "guidelines of whiteness" will they be using?
As I said above, it would be a matter of discretion for immigration
officers. This could be appealed.
> > >
> > > Yep, but again, cultural groups and races are not things that any
nation
> > should
> > > base its social policy on.
> >
> > Really? Well on that basis we'd have to abolish Israel for a start!
>
> It's not our job to "abolish other nations", even if they are in the
wrong. It
> is only our job to ensure that our own nations are run in a moral way. I
don't
> think that Israel really deserves any help from the rest of the world, but
that
> is ancilliary to my main point in this thread.....
I disagree with your main point in this thread simply because race and
nation and culture can provide a strong basis for national identity and for
the resistance to globalism.
> > I'd argue, contra you, that cultural groups and races ARE a very good
basis
> > for social policy precisely because they provide a sense of identity and
> > some limited protection against the forces of globalization.
>
> How do social policies based on race fight globalization? How is a nation
of
> "nice, white Britons" any less likely to vote for the Common Market, etc,
than
> the Niggerized, Mongrelized, racially polluted, impure Britain that you
have
> today?
The multicultural society breaks down precisely those bonds of racial and
national loyalty that need to be enhanced if we are to create a nation
capable of resisting effectively the forces of globalization.
> I understand Sweden is a VERY homogeneous place compared to Britain
(certainly
> compared to any place in North America). Yet Sweden voted for this common
> market thing to, did they not? All that good pure Nordic blood didn't do
them
> much good, did it?
They have been subjected to globalizing propaganda for years. There has been
very little effective resistance there. It's just a colony of the United
States.
> Japan is a VERY homogeneous place, and they appear to be jumping into the
> globalization thing with both feet as well. How can that be happening
with all
> that pure Jap blood?
You surprise me because I always understood that Japan was widely criticized
precisely because of its isolationist and nationalistic approach to
economics.
> > (snip)
> > >
> > > I am not suggesting the abolishment of cultural groups. I live in a
> > country
> > > that officially embraces "multiculturalism" and none of the various
> > cultural
> > > groups appear to be in any danger of disappearing, as far as I can
tell.
> >
> > Tell that to the Afrikaner. Tell that to the Tasmanian Aborigines --
ooops,
> > sorry: you can't because they've already disappeared.
>
> As if you give a shit.
>
> If the Tasman Aboes are anything like North American natives, they
probably got
> obliterated by smallpox. Multiculturalism had nothing to do with it.
>
> As far as the Afrikaner goes, he treats everyone in SA like shit for 100
years,
> and then worries that things are a bit hot for him? Oh well, too bad.
As I read your words I am looking at some graphic photographs on the HNP
website (http://www.hnp.org.za/English/index.htm) of men women and children
slaughtered by blacks on South African farms. These were not people who
'treats everyone in SA like shit for 100 years'. One caption reads: 'Photo
above) This man and his family were attacked by a gang of eight
barbarians/terrorists. His wife and two children were hanged and he was
beaten to death with a hammer. A heavy object was thrown onto his body
afterwards.' Now what crime did those two children commit that they deserved
to be murdered in such a grisly way?
There's another photo with this caption: '(Photo above) This baby of six
months old was wrapped in newspaper and set alight. The baby's parents were
also murdered in one of the numerous farm attacks in South Africa during the
past few years.' Are you seriously maintaining that it's OK for these blacks
to slaughter babies like that?
You are advocating precisely the sort of collective punishment by murder
that the Nazi Streicher was hanged for advocating.
Look at those photographs, good sir. Look at them long and hard. Then
reflect on your words: 'Oh well, too bad.' I hope that you feel thoroughly
ashamed of yourself.
> > However, you see the
> > problem with your objection that 'white' is an unacceptable category
> > *simply* because it's vague around the edges. It's no more vague around
the
> > edges than Jewry, Albanian-ness, gypsyness, socialism, etc.
> >
> > > I think your link between globalization and multiculturalism is a bit
> > weak.
> > > Governments get sucked into supra-national bodies because their voters
let
> > them
> > > get sucked in. I agree that that's not entirely a good thing, but I
don't
> > see
> > > how/why multiculturalism has anything to do with it.
> >
> > The average voter lets them get sucked in because the average voter is
lied
> > to.
>
> Maybe. But you haven't answered my question: What does that have to do
with
> multiculturalism?
Multiculturalism breaks down the bonds of national and racial loyalty that
are necessary effectively to resist the globalizers.
> > I remember well the referendum that took Britain into what was then the
> > 'Common Market'. We were told that it was *simply* an economic club and
that
> > it was most unlikely that it would be anything else. The BBC lectured us
for
> > hours on the supposed evils of 'going it alone' and so 60% of the
British
> > people voted to go in. We were never told that the 'Common Market' would
> > change into the European Union, that our laws would be subjugated to
those
> > of the European Union, that we would no longer be able to sell our fruit
and
> > vegetables using the old pounds and ounces, etc. etc. And none of the
'main
> > political parties' (to use the BBC's phrase) gave the voters the option
of
> > coming out once we were in. Political parties that are not 'main' get no
> > media exposure and, given the first-past-the-post voting system, don't
have
> > a cat's chance in Hell of winning parliamentary elections in this
country.
>
> Yep, I think you have a point there. But you haven't answered my
question:
> What does that have to do with multiculturalism?
Answered now above.
> > Moreover, the average voter is not overly concerned with the EU, or
NATO.
> > The average voter is, as our political leaders are always telling us,
> > concerned with health, education, the economy. The destruction of
nationhood
> > is done by stealth -- the cloud that is sneaked through behind the
silver
> > lining of attractive economic policy.
>
> Fair enough. But you haven't answered my question: What does that have
to do
> with multiculturalism?
See above.
> Darren
David
kmsp...@sympatico.ca
Then you shouldn't have any problem, as an activist for the
establishment of a white nationalist state, in explaining exactly how
the category of "white" would be defined.
[nip remainder of prevaricating crap]
kmsp...@sympatico.ca
The question was what criteria would you use to distinguish "white"
from "black" Italians, not which ones you would gladly pay to get rid
of.
[nip]
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message news:<ssa5otgre912rvo41...@4ax.com>...
>> On 20 Aug 2001 20:31:05 -0700, ake...@pcpostal.com (Aidan Kelly)
>> posted in alt.atheism:
>> >>>(1) Have you read 'Culture of Critique' by Kevin McDonald? Does he strike
>> >>>you as having a negative IQ (????)
>> >>I don't think Kevin MacDonald regards himself as "Pro-White". Or do
>> >>you know something about his politics that most people don't?
>> >Anyone who doesn't live under a rock knows that he testified
>> >on behalf of David Irving. He also referred to Deborah Lipstadt
>> >as being an "ethnic activist," and not a legitimate historian.
>> And we know the opinion of the majority of intelligent people
>> regarding that little dust-up, don't we?
>Prof. Kevin MacDonald is widely respected. He is Secretary/Archivist
>and member of the Executive Board of the Human Behavior and Evolution
>Society, the main academic organization dealing with the application
>of evolutionary biology to the study of human affairs.
>It is acknowledged among professional historians such as Gordon
>Craig,
>A.J.P. Taylor, and Hugh Trevor-Roper that David Irving is a brilliant
>researcher and a compelling writer. His work is required reading for
>serious students of the Third Reich and World War II.
We STILL know the opinion of the majority of intelligent people
regarding it.
(You can't prove a lack of bias by quoting biased sources. And,
whether you or Irving like it or not, the holocaust DID happen.)
>> >Putnam noted frequently that Jews are behind the "anti-racist"
>> >movement.
>> Since the "racialist" movement is anti-Semitic, you could hardly
>> expect anything else, could you?
>That's a gross oversimplification. After all, the Jewish racialist
>movement (cf. Zionism) is hardly anti-Semitic.
And it's hardly any more "racialist" than is the Catholic "racialist"
movement to keep Italy a Catholic nation. Try Zimbabwe if you want
"racialism".
> The fact is that Jews oppose only politically incorrect forms of racialism.
The fact is that you consider any form of "racialism" incorrect if it
benefits Jews, since you're an anti-Semite.
Transparent people shouldn't try to hide things - it doesn't work.
>> Or maybe YOU could, being as obviously challenged as you are.
>Actually, your heavy use of *ad hominem* reflects badly on you.
Biased people are biased. That's a fact, not an attack.
>> >>>(3) Have you read 'The Bell Curve' by Murray and Herrnstein? Do they strike
>> >>>you that way?
>> >>Yes, but they denied being racists.
>> >True enough, but Jared Taylor, William Shockley, Peter
>> >Brimelow and many other scientists, past and present, have
>> >eloquently defended the racialist cause.
>> And _The Bell Curve_ has been thoroughly denounced by most legitimate
>> scientists in the field.
>Where is your evidence for this wild claim?
Nothing I have a link to, if that's what you mean. Just many reviews
at the time it was published. It was universally scorned by almost
everyone in the field who wrote about it. And not exactly praised by
the rest.
--
Al - Unnumbered Atheist #infinity
rukbat at optonline dot net
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message news:<1p95otse1vog12r54...@4ax.com>...
>[. . .]
>> >> Myth 5 - Play the semantic game all you want, the bottom line is that you
>> >> hate and that hatred is manifest and apparent in all the disgusting white
>> >> power websites, publications, demonstrations, etc. What, were you just
>> >> fooling?
>> >Hatred is natural.
>> Actually it's not - for human beings.
>Evidence?
You're making the positive claim, so it's your burden, not mine.
>> > It appears to be just as pronounced, if
>> >not more, on the "anti-racist" side of the equation.
>> Thinking that a person is ignorant isn't the same as hating that
>> person.
>You obviously haven't seen the despicable things that
>"Anti-Racist Action" and its ilk are capable of.
Refusing to judge people by their skin color has produced "despicable
things"? Evidence?
>> > Whether or not one is "hateful" has nothing to do with intelligence.
>> Your claim. Actually it does, and in direct proportion, if the hatred
>> is unwarranted, as it is in "racial" hatred.
>All unsupported assertions
Doing something stupid is an indication of stupidity.
>I didn't think you were Christian, but all your preaching sure makes
>you seem that way.
Only because you hate Christians. If you were anti-Shionto, you'd
think I seemed to be Shinto.
>> >In the United States, dozens of
>> >racialists (such as members of the CofCC and NCF) serve
>> >in state legislatures, various offices, etc. We are far
>> >from having full power at this point
>> Or any wieldable power at all.
>How can you say so when that power is being wielded even now?
>For example, Council of Conservative Citizens is a racialist
>organization, and has dozens of members in state legislatures,
>courts and government.
And has accomplished exactly what? What laws has it gotten passed
over the objections of the majority?
>> > but it is clear that such an eventual victory is not out of the question.
>> Evidently not to the ignorant.
>There's nothing ignorant about acknowledging reality. You
>should try it sometime.
The "white power structure" has accomplished exactly what so far?
Other than killing people.
>> >> Myth 7 - Lots of opinions, lots of dreams but all rooted in a desire to be
>> >> better than someone else. Like the color of their skin or the object of
>> >> their faith makes them less than you. I believe it is clinically called an
>> >> inferiority complex.
>> >Not at all. Racialism is grounded in the recognition of
>> >evolutionary realities. Race has little to do with skin
>> >color.
>> It has to do with inferiority complexes - yours. After all, if there
>> were no inherent significant differences between races, who would you
>> be better than?
>Non sequitur.
Not at all - you were discussing what "racialism" has to do with - it
has to do with the inferiority complexes of "racialists".
"Racialists" are so low on the food chain that they need someone to
feel superior to. Nothing non sequitur at all.
>> >"Christianity was invented by the Jews as a
>> >tool with which to destroy the white race."
>> >-- Ben Klassen
>> See? Ignorance. Saul was a Mithraist. Jews have a prohibition
>> against drinking blood, not a fixation with it.
>Jewishness is an ethnicity, not merely a religion.
And Jews, whether religious or not, don't drink anyone's blood - real
or imagined.
> Saul maintained a Jewish identity even after he 'converted' to Christianity.
He only took on a Jewish identity to convert Jews. Before that he
wasn't Jewish.
>He remained an ethnic Jew
Meaning what? He wasn't born to Jewish parents, he didn't officially
convert to Judaism, so where is this ethnicity supposed to have come
from?
>just as Jewish atheists act as Jews and
>see themselves as Jews. Christianity is a cult that is of Jewish
>origin
Of course it is - Jesus was a Jew. Only Christians argue with the
fact that Jesus was never Christian.
That has nothing to do with its being "a tool to destroy the white
race". The person who invented it WAS white. Unless you consider
everyone whose roots are in the Middle East to be non-white, in which
case you're about as "white" as any black. And that's ignoring the
fact that ALL of us had black ancestors.
Al Klein
<usene...@thanks.com> posted in alt.atheism:
>Once there is some supposed "evidence" (ie IQ tests)
Which were never designed to measure intelligence.
>> All assertions are ultimately irrational.
>If that were true then rational communication would be impossible.
And Dave's assertion that all assertions are ultimately irrational
would be irrational.
Al Klein
<david_...@onetel.net.uk> posted in alt.atheism:
>"Susan Cohen" <fla...@his.com> wrote in message
>news:3B833EA9...@his.com...
>> david_michael wrote:
>> > Having spent several years debating World War II history
>> (translation: denying the Holocaust)
>An outright lie.
So you maintain that the Holocaust happened?
>> > with assorted
>> > members of the politically correct fraternity
>> (translation: people who know that the Holocaust actually happened)
>Nah, mostly people who would be utterly horrified if it hadn't happened and
>are probably secretly grateful to Hitler for making whatever did happen
>happen!
People who managed to live through a death camp or two are "secretly
grateful to Hitler for making whatever did happen happen"? You'd be
funny if you weren't so despicable.
>Part of the problem is how to establish 'facts'.
The reason the Nazis has "showers" for prisoners that dispensed
Zyklon-B was that they were so stupid they thought a good dousing
would kill lice. Right?
The reason prisoners from camps widely scattered all over Europe all
told the same story the moment they were liberated is because Jews,
being Jews, had some still-undiscovered way of communicating between
the camps and forming a conspiracy. right?
> There are serious
>disagreements about that. The obvious next stage of 'the debate' is to
>progress to that very issue, but nobody seems to want to take that step.
The Holocaust happened. there's nothing to 'discuss' on that issue.
>Consequently the entire newsgroup (alt.revisionism) just goes around in
>circles year after year.
Currently the revisionists claim the Holocaust never happened, and the
normal people tell them how wrong they are.
>> > . One of the favourite tactics is to demand proof for every
>> > assertion,
>> And it works, too.
>Well it certainly seems to bring discussion to a grinding halt!
Only if the discussion is nothing but assertions that can't be backed
up.
>I think that the call for proof is valuable when something is genuinely in
>dispute and the presence of proof can settle the dispute. However, there are
>those who spend all their time calling for proof of things that are not
>seriously in dispute merely to prevent the arguments from progressing.
And there are those who claim things are in dispute when they aren't.
Al Klein
<david_...@onetel.net.uk> posted in alt.atheism:
>"Charlie Chester" <g.ch...@csu.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:cf6d3ea0.01082...@posting.google.com...
>> "david_michael" <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
>news:<3b83...@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>...
>> > All assertions are ultimately irrational.
>> And how would you go about making them more rational Dave?
>Produce evidence that I would wish to go about making them more rational,
>Charlie.
Are you saying that you prefer irrational assertion to rational
discussion?
Or are you just trolling?
Al Klein
<david_...@onetel.net.uk> posted in alt.atheism:
>"Darren McHugh" <usene...@thanks.com> wrote in message
>news:3B848142...@thanks.com...
>> The burden of proof is squarely on the shoulders of the person who claims such
>> a difference exists.
>Because you say so?
No, because the burden of proof is on the existentially positive
claimant. Always.
> I think that rather than assuming that two groups are
>similar or dissimilar and making wild generalizations about the 'burden of
>proof' it would be more productive simply to subject the claims to empirical
>investigation.
If there's no reason to believe that something exists there's no
reason to waste time investigating it.
>> Again, the
>> burden of proof is ALL on the person who wishes to show that the difference
>> exists.
>Why?
Because, generally, there's no evidence for an existentially negative
claim.
>> snip... I suggest you contemplate the notion of "burden of proof".... it's
>> always on the person making the claim.
>False. Perhaps legal scenarios
For logical ones too. And the internet is one of the latter. It's an
old internet axiom - cite or withdraw. It's been on the internet a
lot longer than you have.
>Similarly, in other areas of empirical investigation the notion of burden of
>proof often cannot sensibly apply. Let us suppose that you make the claim
>that X is the case and I make the claim that X is not the case. It would be
>ludicrous to suppose that we should assume that I am correct until you
>produce evidence to the contrary simply because it's you who made your claim
>first! A far more productive course would be to keep an open mind on the
>issue and conduct empirical investigations to settle the matter.
And if some action is required do we act on the positive or the
negative assumption?
>> (I would argue that burden
>> has been met).
>I would respectfully disagree. Having been hanging around alt.revisionism
>for several years now I've seen the very best arguments that have been
>advanced for this thesis. They are staggeringly bad.
Have you ever seen the argument "I was there"? How can that be
"staggeringly bad"?
> That many Jews died
>and, indeed, were murdered is not something I'd dispute. But once we get to
>issues like whether specific pieces of evidence prove what they're touted as
>proving then we get into murkier waters. Similarly, issues such as whether
>Hitler approved or knew fully of what was going on, whether it was a master
>plan or a cockup, etc. remain tantalizingly open.
The Solution to the Jewish Problem was approved by Hitler, so he can't
claim ignorance. Nor can anyone claim that Jews just happened to die.
>> If someone wished to claim blacks are innately inferior to
>> whites, the burden of proof is on them.
>And if someone wishes to claim that blacks are NOT innately inferior to
>whites? :-)
It's the existentially positive claim that bears the burden of proof.
Always.
david_michael
<kmsp...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:BpqFO8Zwg830vW...@4ax.com...
Do read the thread before attempting to contribute to it, old chap.
David
david_michael
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2001 07:49:39 +0100, "david_michael"
> <david_...@onetel.net.uk> posted in alt.atheism:
>
> >"Susan Cohen" <fla...@his.com> wrote in message
> >news:3B833EA9...@his.com...
> >> david_michael wrote:
>
> >> > Having spent several years debating World War II history
>
> >> (translation: denying the Holocaust)
>
> >An outright lie.
>
> So you maintain that the Holocaust happened?
Do read the thread before responding to it, old fruit.
> >> > with assorted
> >> > members of the politically correct fraternity
>
> >> (translation: people who know that the Holocaust actually happened)
>
> >Nah, mostly people who would be utterly horrified if it hadn't happened
and
> >are probably secretly grateful to Hitler for making whatever did happen
> >happen!
>
> People who managed to live through a death camp or two are "secretly
> grateful to Hitler for making whatever did happen happen"?
I never said that. Why are you trying to misrepresent me?
> You'd be
> funny if you weren't so despicable.
You're just plain dishonest.
> >Part of the problem is how to establish 'facts'.
>
> The reason the Nazis has "showers" for prisoners that dispensed
> Zyklon-B was that they were so stupid they thought a good dousing
> would kill lice. Right?
You rant, good sir.
> The reason prisoners from camps widely scattered all over Europe all
> told the same story the moment they were liberated is because Jews,
> being Jews, had some still-undiscovered way of communicating between
> the camps and forming a conspiracy. right?
I can almost see the foam forming around the sides of your mouth.
> > There are serious
> >disagreements about that. The obvious next stage of 'the debate' is to
> >progress to that very issue, but nobody seems to want to take that step.
>
> The Holocaust happened. there's nothing to 'discuss' on that issue.
OK, well pull out my fingernails and ship me off to Siberia then.
> >Consequently the entire newsgroup (alt.revisionism) just goes around in
> >circles year after year.
>
> Currently the revisionists claim the Holocaust never happened, and the
> normal people tell them how wrong they are.
More lies. You've evidently never actually read any serious revisionist
material.
> >> > . One of the favourite tactics is to demand proof for every
> >> > assertion,
>
> >> And it works, too.
>
> >Well it certainly seems to bring discussion to a grinding halt!
>
> Only if the discussion is nothing but assertions that can't be backed
> up.
It brings *any* discussion to a grinding halt.
> >I think that the call for proof is valuable when something is genuinely
in
> >dispute and the presence of proof can settle the dispute. However, there
are
> >those who spend all their time calling for proof of things that are not
> >seriously in dispute merely to prevent the arguments from progressing.
>
> And there are those who claim things are in dispute when they aren't.
The moment someone claims that something is in dispute, it is.
> Al - Unnumbered Atheist #infinity
> rukbat at optonline dot net
David
david_michael
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2001 12:01:24 +0100, "david_michael"
> <david_...@onetel.net.uk> posted in alt.atheism:
>
> >"Charlie Chester" <g.ch...@csu.ac.uk> wrote in message
> >news:cf6d3ea0.01082...@posting.google.com...
> >> "david_michael" <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
> >news:<3b83...@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>...
>
> >> > All assertions are ultimately irrational.
>
> >> And how would you go about making them more rational Dave?
>
> >Produce evidence that I would wish to go about making them more rational,
> >Charlie.
>
> Are you saying that you prefer irrational assertion to rational
> discussion?
No that's just you telling more lies again. You do rather seem to like that
particular activity.
> Or are you just trolling?
What other response is there when confronted with a troll?
> Al - Unnumbered Atheist #infinity
> rukbat at optonline dot net
David
david_michael
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2001 05:45:58 +0100, "david_michael"
> <david_...@onetel.net.uk> posted in alt.atheism:
>
> >"Darren McHugh" <usene...@thanks.com> wrote in message
> >news:3B848142...@thanks.com...
>
> >> The burden of proof is squarely on the shoulders of the person who
claims such
> >> a difference exists.
>
> >Because you say so?
>
> No, because the burden of proof is on the existentially positive
> claimant. Always.
False. If you'd actually read the thread you'd have seen me argue at length
against that proposition.
> > I think that rather than assuming that two groups are
> >similar or dissimilar and making wild generalizations about the 'burden
of
> >proof' it would be more productive simply to subject the claims to
empirical
> >investigation.
>
> If there's no reason to believe that something exists there's no
> reason to waste time investigating it.
On that basis the entire world would still be of the opinion that the
universe circles around the earth.
> >> Again, the
> >> burden of proof is ALL on the person who wishes to show that the
difference
> >> exists.
>
> >Why?
>
> Because, generally, there's no evidence for an existentially negative
> claim.
OK -- prove it then.
> >> snip... I suggest you contemplate the notion of "burden of proof"....
it's
> >> always on the person making the claim.
>
> >False. Perhaps legal scenarios
>
> For logical ones too. And the internet is one of the latter. It's an
> old internet axiom - cite or withdraw. It's been on the internet a
> lot longer than you have.
Do you believe everything you read on the Internet?
> >Similarly, in other areas of empirical investigation the notion of burden
of
> >proof often cannot sensibly apply. Let us suppose that you make the claim
> >that X is the case and I make the claim that X is not the case. It would
be
> >ludicrous to suppose that we should assume that I am correct until you
> >produce evidence to the contrary simply because it's you who made your
claim
> >first! A far more productive course would be to keep an open mind on the
> >issue and conduct empirical investigations to settle the matter.
>
> And if some action is required do we act on the positive or the
> negative assumption?
> >> (I would argue that burden
> >> has been met).
>
> >I would respectfully disagree. Having been hanging around alt.revisionism
> >for several years now I've seen the very best arguments that have been
> >advanced for this thesis. They are staggeringly bad.
>
> Have you ever seen the argument "I was there"? How can that be
> "staggeringly bad"?
I heard it from one Chuck Ferree, who when cross examined at length
subsequently confessed that a lot of what he posted on the Internet was
false.
> > That many Jews died
> >and, indeed, were murdered is not something I'd dispute. But once we get
to
> >issues like whether specific pieces of evidence prove what they're touted
as
> >proving then we get into murkier waters. Similarly, issues such as
whether
> >Hitler approved or knew fully of what was going on, whether it was a
master
> >plan or a cockup, etc. remain tantalizingly open.
>
> The Solution to the Jewish Problem was approved by Hitler, so he can't
> claim ignorance. Nor can anyone claim that Jews just happened to die.
Applying your crap about 'burden of proof' that entitles me to challenge you
to prove it!
> >> If someone wished to claim blacks are innately inferior to
> >> whites, the burden of proof is on them.
>
> >And if someone wishes to claim that blacks are NOT innately inferior to
> >whites? :-)
>
> It's the existentially positive claim that bears the burden of proof.
> Always.
OK, let's rephrase the same claim to make it positive. 'Blacks are the
equals of whites.' Right. Now go prove.
> Al - Unnumbered Atheist #infinity
> rukbat at optonline dot net
David
William Daffer
I suspect that he has. That's why he's asking the question.
*Again*.
whd
--
Morghus claimed in <73fedc95.01080...@posting.google.com>
'Hoess claims it was possible to dispose of 10,000 bodies right from
the beginning.'
William Daffer
> "Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
> news:u0fbotgoi7mvtnco7...@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 22 Aug 2001 07:49:39 +0100, "david_michael"
> > <david_...@onetel.net.uk> posted in alt.atheism:
> >
> > >"Susan Cohen" <fla...@his.com> wrote in message
> > >news:3B833EA9...@his.com...
> > >> david_michael wrote:
> >
> > >> > Having spent several years debating World War II history
> >
> > >> (translation: denying the Holocaust)
> >
> > >An outright lie.
> >
> > So you maintain that the Holocaust happened?
>
> Do read the thread before responding to it, old fruit.
>
> > >> > with assorted
> > >> > members of the politically correct fraternity
> >
> > >> (translation: people who know that the Holocaust actually happened)
> >
> > >Nah, mostly people who would be utterly horrified if it hadn't happened
> and
> > >are probably secretly grateful to Hitler for making whatever did happen
> > >happen!
> >
> > People who managed to live through a death camp or two are "secretly
> > grateful to Hitler for making whatever did happen happen"?
>
> I never said that. Why are you trying to misrepresent me?
>
You said that people were 'secretly grateful to Hilter for making
whatever did happen happen.'
One of the things that 'happened' was the death camps.
Are the people who lived through that happy that Hilter made that
thing happen?
whd
--
Ross, on the reason Hoess gave at Nuremberg for the 2.5 million deathtoll.
As I remember, it was "A jew US Army sargeant had six negro GI's hold
me down, stuck a broomstick up my ass and set fire to it....after that
I was ready to admit to anything".
For the complete exchange see:
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=20010802014157.12518.00002213%40ng-fq1.aol.com
William Daffer
Oh. So you're just trolling.
Okay.
whd
--
Right. We should stop using the term "anti-semites" on the grounds it
was invented by Jew haters so their opinions could look like an
ideology instead of a pathology.
-- Joseph Hertzlinger