CLINTON and GORE DECLARE WAR ON WHITE AMERICANS
Chuck Ferree
Ian McKinney wrote:
> Al Gore Calls For Radical Crackdown on Whites
CF:>>>>>No he doesn't! Gore is against discrimination because of race, and
we all should be. This is not 1930 in America, this is 1998, and it's long
past due where a Black family can't buy a home, where ever they can afford
to buy a home, because of racist assholes saying NIMBY. It's also way past
the time, for God's sake, when any American, especially Black Americans, in
this country for 20-30 generations, are not permitted even by our financial
institutions, to purchase a home, or rent an apartment, in any neighborhood
they can afford. We have three Black families on our street, nice or nicer
than some of the *other white neighbors in terms of keeping their place
looking good. Friendly, one young Black man, about 17 years old does yard
work for me, and helped me paint my fence just last week. He is a star High
School football player, and no doubt will earn a scholarship to a good
college. Both parents work full time, and the kids are well behaved and
play with all other neighborhood kids. We wouldn't have it any other way.
This is America, where everybody is created *equal, and entitled to the
*pursuit of happiness.
Chuck Ferree
racists and bigots are the most dangerous people in the world.
racist garbage deleted
>
>
Cheo Malanga
statement by Ian,that`s the problem in today`s America,the ignorant(the
MAYORITY) eats of the communist prop.that the Executive and the Press forces
down on the public AND I KNOW WHAT I`M SAYING,BECAUSE I`VE SEEN THRU IT,THE
GOVERMENT IS USING THE RACES AGAINST EACH OTHER,TO
DOMINATE ALL,WAKE UP FROM YOU SLUMBER BEFORE IS TOO LATE.
Chuck Ferree wrote in message <35E57C9D...@rio.com>...
>
>
>Ian McKinney wrote:
>
>> Al Gore Calls For Radical Crackdown on Whites
>
>CF:>>>>>No he doesn't! Gore is against discrimination because of race, and
>we all should be. This is not 1930 in America, this is 1998, and it's long
>drivel snipped-
Biff
People who loathe racism amongst one group while ignoring or
rationalizing the racist workings of another group are far more
destructive than up-front racists - they are the liberal majority that
gave us what we have now. "Blacks deserve this because <blank>".
"Illegal mexicans shouldn't be rounded up because that would be
racist, and the inculcated racism of those mexicans toward white (and
black) americans doesn't matter, we deserve it". "I'm an anti-racist!"
It's a lot of ignorant crap, and just goes prove the proposition that
the racism of one group is only successfuly met by good ol' racism
from their targets. All peoples are essentially "racist". It's a
survival mechanism, and it motivates. Anyone who doesn't understand
that need only look at what happens to modern white societies that
implement "anti-racist" philosophies. Or at those black and brown
tribes that opened themselves in an unracist way to white explorers.
It's been done with guns, or more politely with law, or gradually with
migration and racial demographic change, but it always finds a way if
a path is open. My people win, your people lose. So where does that
put the white anti-racist who believes he is doing his people a moral
service? Wise up please.
I realize that many anti-racists are young and romantic about
perfecting society. These individuals would take ten big steps forward
in developing some wisdom by knowing what their real goal is in this.
A racism-free society is only that one without competing races.
On Thu, 27 Aug 1998 15:34:55 +0000, Chuck Ferree <chu...@rio.com>
wrote:
>
>
>Ian McKinney wrote:
>
>> Al Gore Calls For Radical Crackdown on Whites
>
>CF:>>>>>No he doesn't! Gore is against discrimination because of race, and
>we all should be. This is not 1930 in America, this is 1998, and it's long
Thomas Mohr
< snip >
>What these radical liberals want to do is to spread the problems of
>crime, drugs and interracial mixing throughout the White suburbs. It is
>also of interest to note that Judge Buchmeyer has also ordered that
>public transportation be provided for these new tenants!
>
>TRUTH AT LAST
>
>=================
McKinney, what these - as you call them - *liberals* want to do is to
repair what racists like you ruined. Problems caused by racism are
problems caused by racists and that is YOU. All this legislation would
not exist if the US weren't a racist country. And it is a racist
country because racists (i.o. words YOU) exist. F.i. letting an
apartment. Normal owners look at the references, the financial
situation, the character of the person. You look at the race: black -
no, white - yes. Because of this point of view, blacks have severe
disadvantages and that is not okay.
Real Name:
"
All this legislation would not exist
if the US weren't a racist country
"
If all you White People would
cooperate in your genocide, we wouldn't
need the Sheriffs' guns to exterminate
you .
If the government were not a bunch
of foreign mercenaries, the idiocy of
Aryan genocide wouldn't need exposure,
and prevention .
Ken.
------------Reply Separator----------------
On 8/28/98 12:27AM, in message
<35e6680b...@news.univie.ac.at>, Thomas Mohr
Richard G. Philllips
>
> On Thu, 27 Aug 1998 17:03:34 GMT, i...@usaor.com (Ian McKinney) wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
> >What these radical liberals want to do is to spread the problems of
> >crime, drugs and interracial mixing throughout the White suburbs. It is
> >also of interest to note that Judge Buchmeyer has also ordered that
> >public transportation be provided for these new tenants!
> >
> >TRUTH AT LAST
> >
> >=================
>
> McKinney, what these - as you call them - *liberals* want to do is to
> repair what racists like you ruined.
PHillips
Just what was it that the "racists" ruined?
===============================================
Problems caused by racism are
> problems caused by racists and that is YOU.
===================================
Phillips
What are the problems caused by racists?
==========================================
All this legislation would
> not exist if the US weren't a racist country. And it is a racist
> country because racists (i.o. words YOU) exist.
=============================================
PHillips
Are you calling into question my right to (a) choose my own friends, (b)
associate with whom I wish to associate, (c) live in a neighborhood of
people like myself, (d) have neighbors of a sort who are congenial to
me.
========================================
F.i. letting an
> apartment. Normal owners look at the references, the financial
> situation, the character of the person. You look at the race: black -
> no, white - yes. Because of this point of view, blacks have severe
> disadvantages and that is not okay.
=================================
PHillips
why isn't it OK?
======================
Whitey
>Hi,
>"
> All this legislation would not exist
>if the US weren't a racist country
>"
> If all you White People would
>cooperate in your genocide, we wouldn't
>need the Sheriffs' guns to exterminate
>you .
Genocide? Oh, yeah! I forgot - you define "genocide" to mean "Waaaaah!
The big bad higher mammals won't let me kill people I don't like!
Waaaaah!" Sheriff's guns? Son, in any county I've ever been in the
sheriff's guns are pointed at YOU and your troublemaking, unruly,
property-destroying, bullying drunk ass Bubba freinds just as much as
the black carjacker.
> If the government were not a bunch
>of foreign mercenaries, the idiocy of
>Aryan genocide wouldn't need exposure,
>and prevention .
Son, if it weren't for faulty logic and infantile reasoning like you
have just attempted to present as rational thought above it would not
be necessary to crack down on incest law violations. Get a grip on
reality, kiddo - only this time HOLD ON!
>Ken.
>------------Reply Separator----------------
>On 8/28/98 12:27AM, in message
><35e6680b...@news.univie.ac.at>, Thomas Mohr
><thomas.kei...@magnet.at> wrote:
>On Thu, 27 Aug 1998 17:03:34 GMT, i...@usaor.com (Ian
>McKinney) wrote:
>< snip >
>>What these radical liberals want to do is to spread
>the problems of
>>crime, drugs and interracial mixing throughout the
>White suburbs. It is
>>also of interest to note that Judge Buchmeyer has
>also ordered that
>>public transportation be provided for these new
>tenants!
>>
>>TRUTH AT LAST
>>
>>=================
>McKinney, what these - as you call them - *liberals*
>want to do is to
>repair what racists like you ruined. Problems caused
>by racism are
>problems caused by racists and that is YOU. All this
>legislation would
>not exist if the US weren't a racist country. And it
>is a racist
>country because racists (i.o. words YOU) exist. F.i.
>letting an
>apartment. Normal owners look at the references, the
>financial
>situation, the character of the person. You look at
>the race: black -
>no, white - yes. Because of this point of view,
>blacks have severe
>disadvantages and that is not okay.
Byte me.
GARRYOWEN!
Whitey
>Al Gore Calls For Radical Crackdown on Whites
>The M.L. King holiday meeting at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta
>had Al Gore as the main speaker. Seeking to lock-in his Negro support he
>made an uncharacteristic fire and brimstone M.L. King style speech. Gore
>called for a crackdown on Whites who do not want to rent or sell
>property to blacks declaring:
>"Congress has failed to recognize the taproot of racism of almost 400
>years and it must be crushed. We are launching a new civil rights
>initiative and asking the Congress for $35 million in additional funding
>for a 16% increase in the enforcement agencies of the Equal Opportunity
>Commission. We will prevent discrimination before it occurs and punish
>those severely who discriminate in employment and in housing to the
>limit of the law!"
>It should be noted that Gore lived in segregated neighborhoods in
>Tennnessee and sent his children to private White schools. Clinton also
>sent his daughter Chelsea to an exclusive private high school. They
>should practice what they preach before demanding draconian police
>powers to force race-mixing on the American people!
You are correct in pointing out the hypocricy inherent in their words,
but I am sure that you yourself would consider it a grievous offense
if you tried to rent an apartment in a better part of town only to
have some asshole refuse you on basis of your race. Gore is an idiot,
and like most white power folks he disparages he is also all foam and
no beer. But if there is a law against racist stupidity then by god
let it be enforced. And forced race mixing? C'mon! Get real! Nobody is
asking you to date someone you would prefer not to here! It just means
that before you hate your new neighbor you must first have to get to
know them just a tad first. If they piss on your hedges or hurl empty
40 oz. bottles on your lawn then you have reason to hate them. But at
first sight coming off of the U-Haul? Pu-lease! There are plenty of
perfectly good reasons to dislike people on an individual basis, why
are you resorting to irrational unthinking stupidity?
>Castro Type "Block Spies"
>Cuba's police maintain spies on every block to report on neighbors who
>oppose the Castro regime. With little publicity we read about "testers"
>the Justice Dept. sends out to hunt down those who might be unwilling to
>rent or sell to minorities. The word "tester" is tantamount to "spy."
>Anyone who would even accept such a job as a spy would have to be an
>abhorrent person.
Oh, and blowing up day care centers or firebombing churches are both
acceptable forms of social protest?
>Allen Park, Mich. is a pleasant, safe, and mostly White suburb of
>Detroit. The Justice Dept sent spies to the Park Woods Apartments. This
>is an 11 building complex with 252 units. It is run by John Dastl and
>his daughter Lisa. It is alleged that the White spies were accepted and
>the black spies told there were no units available. Thus, the Jewish
>U.S. Attorney, Saul A. Green, brought suit against the complex. The
>appointed "magistrate" granted a whopping judgement of $475,000 of which
>$100,000 will go to four blacks turned down for apartments and $75,000
>will go to the government.
So, they broke the law? They accepted white folk but told all black
folk that there were no units available? In other words they lied like
bad rugs. Fuck 'em.
>This is real Communism in Action! Today, we have Clinton's Chinese Red,
>Bill Lee, running this mis-named "Civil Rights Division." This means
>that police state terror against landlords will be stepped-up!
I don't suppose you have copies of Bill Lee's communist party
membership card, or are you asking us to swallow the premise that all
chinese people are communists. Gee, I wonder what the student
protestors from Tienamen Square would have to say about that premise?
>Clinton Plan to Move Public Housing into White Neighborhoods
>Dallas, Texas is the first city to suffer the massive constuction of
>Negro public housing projects in White suburbs. This program was first
>launched by clinton's deposed Housing Secy. Henry Cisneros who is now on
>trial for perjury. It was Clinton who appointed the radical Jew, Jerry
>Buchmeyer, as a federal judge. He has ordered that all new public
>housing in Dallas must be built in White areas.
Yes, that does sound racist, doesn't it. But ask yourself this - can
you really be down on folks who live in the ghetto if you don't let
them live anywhere else? And joblessness - how many large employers do
you suspect are located in or near ghetto areas? Just a suggestion.
>City council member, Donna Blumer, has fought the plan stating that hard
>working middle class people had labored all their lives to buy their
>homes and are now in danger of seeing their neighborhoods ruined. It
>should also be noted that the "housing voucher" program is to give
>blacks and other minorities vouchers worth hundreds of dollar' per month
>to rent apartments or homes in White areas. It is a violation of the
>housing law for a property owner to refuse to accept said vouchers.
So? And?
>What these radical liberals want to do is to spread the problems of
>crime, drugs and interracial mixing throughout the White suburbs. It is
>also of interest to note that Judge Buchmeyer has also ordered that
>public transportation be provided for these new tenants!
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps these people would much rather
leave behind the problems of gangs and drugs? Oh yeah, they enjoy the
hell out of it! Pu-lease!
>TRUTH AT LAST
Really? Where?
>=================
>Regards,
>Ian McKinney
>======================================================
>WESTERN IMPERATIVE NETWORK (WIN) - Fighting Anti-White
>Propaganda, Misinformation, and Attitudes in Cyberspace
>http://www.usaor.net/users/ipm/
>NON-WHITE CRIME AND DEPENDANCY STATISTICS ARCHIVE
>http://www.usaor.net/users/ipm/pif.html
>DIVERSITY'S DESTRUCTION DOCUMENTED
>http://webusers.anet-stl.com/~civil/dv0.html
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>NATIONAL ALLIANCE - The Leading Patriotic Organization
>in America http://www.natvan.com/ Hear NA chairman
>Dr. William Pierce's Hard-Hitting Weekly Internet
>Broadcasts at http://www.natvan.com/internet-radio/
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>THE INCOMPARABLE DR. REVILO OLIVER
>http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/america
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'm sorry, but I have a hard time taking seriously anyone or any
organization which takes seriously Dr. William "Billy Bob" Pierce.
Would you take anyone seriously if they quoted Barney the Dinosaur on
a regular basis? Barney, Doc Pierce... Both equals on an intellectual
level, although Barney has a much firmer grasp of logic and reality,
though not by much.
Byte me.
GARRYOWEN!
Thomas Mohr
<rgp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
< snip >
>PHillips
>
>Just what was it that the "racists" ruined?
>===============================================
The decadelong discrimination against certain segments of the
population based on race. Look, if you don't have even the
opportunities you automatically slip down to a lower scial level.
< snip >
>Phillips
>
>What are the problems caused by racists?
>==========================================
F.i. *glass ceilings* and other restrictions for certain groups of the
population.
> All this legislation would
>> not exist if the US weren't a racist country. And it is a racist
>> country because racists (i.o. words YOU) exist.
>=============================================
>PHillips
>
>Are you calling into question my right to (a) choose my own friends, (b)
>associate with whom I wish to associate, (c) live in a neighborhood of
>people like myself, (d) have neighbors of a sort who are congenial to
>me.
>========================================
Look, the SMAE rights apply to blacks. Remember, your personal freedom
ends when others are negatively affected.
>PHillips
>
>why isn't it OK?
>======================
Because it is based on prejudices.
Thomas Mohr
< snip >
>Mohr, you don't know you ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to
>America, so don't lecture me about what goes on here. These Blacks
>behave the way they do because they've been handed everything they have
>and think that "Whitey" is here merely so they have someone to blame for
>their irresponsibilities and stupidities.
McKinney, you can't ´distinguish between your ass and a hole in the
ground when it comes to nearly everything, as you repeatedly proved.
You can't even interpret such simple things as crime-data. Therefore
you NEED a lecture. Fact is, in your country blacks are
disproportionally poor and the reason for this is among others an
inherent racism. Your ideology. Now you promote - instead of HELPING
your own con-Americans (I don't speak about Affirmative Action and
such) - that they are thrown away like an milk-bottle which has been
sucked empty. How egocentric and sick.
Mark Van Alstine
> Thomas Mohr wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 29 Aug 1998 08:01:09 -0400, "Richard G. Philllips"
> > <rgp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > < snip >
> >
> > >Phillips
> > >
> > >I repeat my question: what was it that the racists "ruined?"
> > >===========================================
> >
> > As an answer see your reply below about having a *boogie* as
> > supervisor.
> ===========================================
> Phillips
>
> I repeat my question: what was it that racists have ruined?
Well, Dickie, you senile moron, for starters: The lives of millions of people.
That is reason enough alone to condemn racsists and proactively seek to
abolish racism.
[snip]
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line seperating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties--but right through every human heart--and all human hearts."
-- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard G. Philllips
>
> On Sat, 29 Aug 1998 09:57:43, thomas.kei...@magnet.at (Thomas
> Mohr) wrote:
>
> > McKinney, you can't 悲istinguish between your ass and a hole in the
> > ground when it comes to nearly everything, as you repeatedly proved.
> > You can't even interpret such simple things as crime-data.
>
> who has had real-life experience with non-whites. You don't have that.
> You're in a White country and all you know about Black behavior is what
> you're heard in some liberal social studies professor's class!
>
> > Therefore
> > you NEED a lecture. Fact is, in your country blacks are
> > disproportionally poor and the reason for this is among others an
> > inherent racism.
>
> fact, colleges practically beg Blacks to attend! They roll out the red
> carpet and give them all kinds of special benefits denied Whites.
>
> All I can say is you have no idea about how Blacks shit on opportunity
> in America. Give them a paid college education and they do nothing but
> party, take dope, get drunk, have sex, and they couldn't care less about
> studying. I know about that, I saw it. My wife saw it. Anybody would
> paid attention saw it! And these weren't Blacks dragged off the street.
> No, these were selected Blacks.
>
> Mohr, I've said it before and I'll say it again and again because it's
> incontrovertibly true - you're full of crap!
=====================================================================
Phillips
I take it that you are completely unaware of a commonly-observed
behavior of black college students - many of whom were given their
places at the expense of a better qualified white person. You profess to
be completely unaware of the posturing, the parading, the
placard-carrying with demands for black this and black that. You are
completely unaware of the frequent chants of: "He hi ho; Western culture
has got to go."
Now let me say something about those black students. IF they had
buckled down and done the best they could --possibly not as good as
whites but the best they could-- THAT would have earned them respect.
OR, if they gone in a body to the dean and said something like this:
"Maybe we shouldn't be here but we are and we want to make the most of
it. Would it be possible in some way for the university's resources be
enlisted to bring us up to speed in the basics." THAT also would have
earned them respect.
============================================================
Jeffrey G. Brown
Philllips") wrote:
>Now let me say something about those black students. IF they had
>buckled down and done the best they could --possibly not as good as
>whites but the best they could-- THAT would have earned them respect.
>OR, if they gone in a body to the dean and said something like this:
>"Maybe we shouldn't be here but we are and we want to make the most of
>it. Would it be possible in some way for the university's resources be
>enlisted to bring us up to speed in the basics." THAT also would have
>earned them respect.
Who could possibly want or need the respect of a liar like you, Philllips?
JGB
=====================================================================
Jeffrey G. Brown jeff_...@bigfoot.com
"What's going to happen?" "Something wonderful..." -- '2010'
Real Name:
"
Look, the SMAE rights apply to
blacks. Remember, your personal
freedom ends when others are negatively
affected.
"
ever shoveled onto this newsgroup .
You MUST be joking !
If you want to re-phrase it to exclude
antiwhites, we can argue it, not that I
think it's worth MY time, seeing how its'
fundamental basis is non-existent, but
someone might .
I negatively value things that are
exterminating my race .
If you use it to enforce your White
genocide, then it's a bad thing .
END IT ALL, don't mend it .
Ken.
------------Reply Separator----------------
On 8/29/98 4:01AM, in message
<35E7ED...@earthlink.net>, "Richard G.
Philllips" <rgp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Thomas Mohr wrote:
>
> On Fri, 28 Aug 1998 18:50:25 -0400, "Richard G.
Philllips"
> <rgp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
> >PHillips
> >
> >Just what was it that the "racists" ruined?
> >===============================================
>
> The decadelong discrimination against certain
segments of the
> population based on race. Look, if you don't have
even the
> opportunities you automatically slip down to a
lower scial level.
========================================
Phillips
I repeat my question: what was it that the racists
"ruined?"
===========================================
>
> < snip >
>
> >Phillips
> >
> >What are the problems caused by racists?
> >==========================================
>
> F.i. *glass ceilings* and other restrictions for
certain groups of the
> population.
=========================================
Phillips
Which is exactly the way it should be. I don't want
a boogie as my
supervisor.
=====================================================
======
>
> > All this legislation would
> >> not exist if the US weren't a racist country.
And it is a racist
> >> country because racists (i.o. words YOU) exist.
> >=============================================
> >PHillips
> >
> >Are you calling into question my right to (a)
choose my own friends, (b)
> >associate with whom I wish to associate, (c) live
in a neighborhood of
> >people like myself, (d) have neighbors of a sort
who are congenial to
> >me.
> >========================================
>
> Look, the SMAE rights apply to blacks. Remember,
your personal freedom
> ends when others are negatively affected.
=================================================
Phillips
I do not admit the "right" of a black person to ram
himself down muy
throat in any way whatsoever.
====================
>
> >PHillips
> >
> >why isn't it OK?
> >======================
>
> Because it is based on prejudices.
=====================================================
Phillips
So?
================================
Thomas Mohr
<rgp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
< snip >
>Phillips
< snip >
>> No, it is not. Restrictions based solely on race are very stupid in
>> every area of living. Not all blacks a boogies, yet racists treat them
>> as if they would be.
>==========================================
>Phillips
>
>why are they "stupid?"
>===================================
Because they do not take into account the real abilities of a person.
Example: If a black is better qualified in a field than a white to do
a job for you, yet there are restrictions based on race which prevent
the black to be choosen for the job, you get damaged. If YOU made this
restrictions, then you're stupid because you damage yurself. Got the
concept ? Restrictions based on race prevent the full development of
the abilities of a society and that is stupid.
< snip >
>Hoewever, I have never heard of such a thing happening to a white
>'American. Can you give me some reasons why people might wish to do such
>a thing.
>=================================================
Really ? Imagine you go to Europe and lfall in love with Tyrol. You
want to buy a house in a rural village for your retirement. First you
have to get a special permit because it is prohibited for aliens to
buy soil there, and even if you get the permit you will NEVER be a
part of the community. They won't directly hound you out, but they
won't permit you into their community. Well, maybe after 30-40 years
of residence. They will always talk of you as the "Ami" (for
American). If you don't behave VERY well and VERY adapted (which is
practically impossible for an American during the first years) you
will even be the "stupid Ami" for them. How would you like that ?
Being an outcast even after years just because you are an American and
not from Tyrol ?
Thomas Mohr
wrote:
>Hi,
>"
> Look, the SMAE rights apply to
>blacks. Remember, your personal
>freedom ends when others are negatively
>affected.
>"
> This is the purest crap,
>ever shoveled onto this newsgroup .
>
> You MUST be joking !
>
> If you want to re-phrase it to exclude
>antiwhites, we can argue it, not that I
>think it's worth MY time, seeing how its'
>fundamental basis is non-existent, but
>someone might .
It's fundamental base is not existent ? Well, then I might engage some
Killer to kill you ? Do I have the freedom to do such a thing that
ultamitively affects you negatively ?
Fortuinately for you, the overwhelming majority of people think MY way
and not yours. Otherwise you'd have to fight FAR more in your daily
life.
Thomas Mohr
< snip >
>Your crime data interpretations are worthless and laughable to anyone
>who has had real-life experience with non-whites. You don't have that.
>You're in a White country and all you know about Black behavior is what
>you're heard in some liberal social studies professor's class!
McKinney, you are not in the position to judge my analysis. You - as
you yourself admitted - have no dew on how to correctly analyze data
beyond some VERY simple and basic techniques. Moreover, my analysis is
backed by a study carried out in Chicago about the risk-factors
leading to violent crime and race is NOT risk facter #1, it is NOT #2
and NOT #3, it is not even #4 or#5.
< snip >
>All I can say is you have no idea about how Blacks shit on opportunity
>in America. Give them a paid college education and they do nothing but
>party, take dope, get drunk, have sex, and they couldn't care less about
>studying. I know about that, I saw it. My wife saw it. Anybody would
>paid attention saw it! And these weren't Blacks dragged off the street.
>No, these were selected Blacks.
Can you cite studies on that ? That you saw it doesn't mean anything,
you're biased.
>Mohr, I've said it before and I'll say it again and again because it's
>incontrovertibly true - you're full of crap!
Truth hurts, doesn't it ?
Thomas Mohr
<rgp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
< snip >
>I take it that you are completely unaware of a commonly-observed
>behavior of black college students - many of whom were given their
>places at the expense of a better qualified white person. You profess to
>be completely unaware of the posturing, the parading, the
>placard-carrying with demands for black this and black that. You are
>completely unaware of the frequent chants of: "He hi ho; Western culture
>has got to go."
First, giving college places to people based on race is NOT okay, be
they black, white or whatever. It is racistic.
>Now let me say something about those black students. IF they had
>buckled down and done the best they could --possibly not as good as
>whites but the best they could--
Alone THIS remark says VOLUMES. I know some non-whites who would beat
you with their left hand only in ANY test.
>THAT would have earned them respect.
>OR, if they gone in a body to the dean and said something like this:
>"Maybe we shouldn't be here but we are and we want to make the most of
>it. Would it be possible in some way for the university's resources be
>enlisted to bring us up to speed in the basics." THAT also would have
>earned them respect.
Do you see what racists destroy ? Alone such remarks like - maybe we
shouldn't be here but we are - I mean, "The Negroe" as such does not
exist. If you want it or not, there are probably a lot of "Negroes"
that would beat you when it comes to a fair competition for a college
place. Your remarks are malicious and creat hate.
Look, I am at a university myself. The students here demonstarte too,
not for black things, but for other things. Do you know WHEN they
demonstrate ? If they SEE NO OTHER CHANCE.
Thomas Mohr
< snip >
>Your crime data interpretations are worthless and laughable to anyone
>who has had real-life experience with non-whites. You don't have that.
>You're in a White country and all you know about Black behavior is what
>you're heard in some liberal social studies professor's class!
I have real life experience with non-whites. In fact some of my best
friends are non-whites. McKinney, if my analysis is that worthless,
why are you unable to disprove it - except by telling with personal
and very biased anecdotes which have zero value for the overall
picture ?
Richard G. Philllips
>
> On Sat, 29 Aug 1998 22:21:16 -0400, "Richard G. Philllips"
> <rgp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
> >I take it that you are completely unaware of a commonly-observed
> >behavior of black college students - many of whom were given their
> >places at the expense of a better qualified white person. You profess to
> >be completely unaware of the posturing, the parading, the
> >placard-carrying with demands for black this and black that. You are
> >completely unaware of the frequent chants of: "He hi ho; Western culture
> >has got to go."
>
> First, giving college places to people based on race is NOT okay, be
> they black, white or whatever. It is racistic.
Phillips
Glad we agree. However, right or wrong it is currently being done.
============================================================
>
> >Now let me say something about those black students. IF they had
> >buckled down and done the best they could --possibly not as good as
> >whites but the best they could--
>
> Alone THIS remark says VOLUMES. I know some non-whites who would beat
> you with their left hand only in ANY test.
===================================================
Phillips
Non-whites includes not only Negores but also Asians and Hispanics.
Which group did you mean?
==========================================
>
> >THAT would have earned them respect.
> >OR, if they gone in a body to the dean and said something like this:
> >"Maybe we shouldn't be here but we are and we want to make the most of
> >it. Would it be possible in some way for the university's resources be
> >enlisted to bring us up to speed in the basics." THAT also would have
> >earned them respect.
>
> Do you see what racists destroy ? Alone such remarks like - maybe we
> shouldn't be here but we are - I mean, "The Negroe" as such does not
> exist. If you want it or not, there are probably a lot of "Negroes"
> that would beat you when it comes to a fair competition for a college
> place. Your remarks are malicious and creat hate.
=============================================================
Phillips
(1) It is a fact, whether or not you care to admit it, that because of
political pressures, blacks have been given university places for which
they were utterly unprepared and unqualified. In other words, they
SHOULDN't have been there.
(2) I say again that if they had taken an honest look at themselves and
asked for help to do the best they could, THAT would have earned respect
for them. No, I do not see what racists destroy.
(3) Hate is not created by remarks such as mine. It is created by
craven politicians who bend the law to give special privileges to vocal
minorities who have done nothing to earn them.
===================================================
Richard G. Philllips
>
> On Sat, 29 Aug 1998 13:19:56 -0400, "Richard G. Philllips"
> <rgp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
>
> < snip >
>
> >> No, it is not. Restrictions based solely on race are very stupid in
> >> every area of living. Not all blacks a boogies, yet racists treat them
> >> as if they would be.
> >==========================================
> >Phillips
> >
> >why are they "stupid?"
> >===================================
>
> Because they do not take into account the real abilities of a person.
> Example: If a black is better qualified in a field than a white to do
> a job for you, yet there are restrictions based on race which prevent
> the black to be choosen for the job, you get damaged. If YOU made this
> restrictions, then you're stupid because you damage yurself. Got the
> concept ? Restrictions based on race prevent the full development of
> the abilities of a society and that is stupid.
==================================================
Phillips
Your thesis seems to be based on a number of unstated assumptions, all
of which I find very questionable.
(1) YOu seem to think that society's ills today stem of dearth of
talent, and that the Negro represents a huge pool of unexploited talent,
and that we shoot ourselves in the fot by our failure to use it. NOne of
these is the case. We have no shortage of talent; indeed we are hard
put to find jobs for the talent we have.
(2) there are to be sure many highly talented Negroes. And while denying
them appropriate positions on account of their race may be inflicting an
injustice on the individual, it can hardly be said that we as a nation
suffer for it. As I said, there is no general shortage of talent.
(3) If I am an employer and must choose between a Negro and a white
candidate I must, whether you like it or not, take into account things
other than their respective technical merits. For when i employ a
person I am not employing a set of skills, I am employing a human
totality, and I have to consider the "big picture' of just how he is
going to fit in. Today, in large organizations, no one is indispensable.
============================================================
>
> < snip >
>
> >Hoewever, I have never heard of such a thing happening to a white
> >'American. Can you give me some reasons why people might wish to do such
> >a thing.
> >=================================================
>
> Really ? Imagine you go to Europe and lfall in love with Tyrol. You
> want to buy a house in a rural village for your retirement. First you
> have to get a special permit because it is prohibited for aliens to
> buy soil there, and even if you get the permit you will NEVER be a
> part of the community. They won't directly hound you out, but they
> won't permit you into their community. Well, maybe after 30-40 years
> of residence. They will always talk of you as the "Ami" (for
> American). If you don't behave VERY well and VERY adapted (which is
> practically impossible for an American during the first years) you
> will even be the "stupid Ami" for them. How would you like that ?
> Being an outcast even after years just because you are an American and
> not from Tyrol ?
========================================================
Phillips
Bravo for the Tyroleans. I'm a firm believer in closed societies.
==================================================================
Thomas Mohr
<rgp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
< snip >
>(3) If I am an employer and must choose between a Negro and a white
>candidate I must, whether you like it or not, take into account things
>other than their respective technical merits. For when i employ a
>person I am not employing a set of skills, I am employing a human
>totality, and I have to consider the "big picture' of just how he is
>going to fit in. Today, in large organizations, no one is indispensable.
Exactly THAT it is what you SHOULD do. And exactly THAT is what
racists DO NOT DO. Employing a human totality. However, you would
practically only take into account skills and .... race. Racists do
not take into account a human totality. They think according the
motto: "S/he is not white, that s/he is a human does not count"
Thomas Mohr
<rgp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
< idiocies snipped >
>
>========================================================
>Phillips
>
>Bravo for the Tyroleans. I'm a firm believer in closed societies.
>==================================================================
As your previous replies and this prove, you are also a firm believer
in closed minds. Guess what ? Due to this - your very own attitude -
this area was one of the most backwards of Austria until it was
discovered by tourists.
Richard G. Philllips
>
> On Sun, 30 Aug 1998 08:03:03 -0400, "Richard G. Philllips"
> <rgp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> >(3) If I am an employer and must choose between a Negro and a white
> >candidate I must, whether you like it or not, take into account things
> >other than their respective technical merits. For when i employ a
> >person I am not employing a set of skills, I am employing a human
> >totality, and I have to consider the "big picture' of just how he is
> >going to fit in. Today, in large organizations, no one is indispensable.
>
> Exactly THAT it is what you SHOULD do. And exactly THAT is what
> racists DO NOT DO. Employing a human totality. However, you would
> practically only take into account skills and .... race. Racists do
> not take into account a human totality. They think according the
> motto: "S/he is not white, that s/he is a human does not count"
======================================================
Phillips
Not quite, sir. when I ponder the question of how this man is going to
"fit in" I must consider, for one thing: maybe my other workers are not
going to like having him around. Should I ignore that? I also have to
consider whether the man is going to have a racial chip on his shoulder
and is going to looking around for opportunities to make trouble for the
sake of making trouble. It does happen.
==========================
Richard G. Philllips
>
> On Sun, 30 Aug 1998 08:03:03 -0400, "Richard G. Philllips"
> <rgp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >========================================================
> >Phillips
> >
> >Bravo for the Tyroleans. I'm a firm believer in closed societies.
> >==================================================================
>
> As your previous replies and this prove, you are also a firm believer
> in closed minds. Guess what ? Due to this - your very own attitude -
> this area was one of the most backwards of Austria until it was
> discovered by tourists.
Phillips
Since you brought up the subject of closed minds, let me ask: has it
ever occurred to you that there could be examples of this on your side.
Have you ever read some of my exchanges with Chuck Ferree:
Phillips: Chuck, how did you know it was a gas chamber?
Ferree: It was a gas chamber.
Phillips: Chuck, how did you KNOW it was a gas chamber.
Ferree: It was a gas chamber godammit.
If that is not a case of a closed mind, then I learned my English in the
wrong place.
=========================
Thomas Mohr
<rgp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
< snip >
>======================================================
>Phillips
>
>Not quite, sir. when I ponder the question of how this man is going to
>"fit in" I must consider, for one thing: maybe my other workers are not
>going to like having him around. Should I ignore that?
That depends. Imagine following scenario: you are my employee. I
engage a black because he is the best and install him as your
supervisor. You make troubles out of racial reasons. At first I'd have
a sincere talk with you and if that doesn't help, I'd very likely fire
YOU. Reason: At your workplace you have to forget political opinions,
you have to work as a team which you are not able to do.
Aside that, racism is stupid because it can cost tremeduous money
overall since:
1) If you hire the second best qualified you have a loss.
2) If you refuse to hire a black because he's the best qualified and
search instead for a white, you again loose time and money.
>I also have to
>consider whether the man is going to have a racial chip on his shoulder
>and is going to looking around for opportunities to make trouble for the
>sake of making trouble. It does happen.
People making trouble for racial reasons are racists. People like you.
Somebody who doesn't care about race can not make troubles for racial
reasons.
Richard G. Philllips
>
> On Sun, 30 Aug 1998 10:28:39 -0400, "Richard G. Philllips"
> <rgp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
> >======================================================
> >Phillips
> >
> >Not quite, sir. when I ponder the question of how this man is going to
> >"fit in" I must consider, for one thing: maybe my other workers are not
> >going to like having him around. Should I ignore that?
>
> That depends. Imagine following scenario: you are my employee. I
> engage a black because he is the best and install him as your
> supervisor. You make troubles out of racial reasons. At first I'd have
> a sincere talk with you and if that doesn't help, I'd very likely fire
> YOU. Reason: At your workplace you have to forget political opinions,
> you have to work as a team which you are not able to do.
Phillips
Your scenario contradicts its own premises. YOu said you hired this
black person as a supervisor becuase he appeared to be the best. Well,
he wasn't the best because putting him in that position led to trouble.
What you have given is an excellent reason why black persons should
never be permitted to superviser white persons, the prohibition to be
enacted into law if necessary.
=======================================
>
> Aside that, racism is stupid because it can cost tremeduous money
> overall since:
>
> 1) If you hire the second best qualified you have a loss.
> 2) If you refuse to hire a black because he's the best qualified and
> search instead for a white, you again loose time and money.
=============================================
PHillips
That is the concern of the company's stockholders; it is none of yours.
If you don't like the hiring policy, then acquire stock in sufficient
amounts to give you a voice in its affairs.
=======================================================
>
> >I also have to
> >consider whether the man is going to have a racial chip on his shoulder
> >and is going to looking around for opportunities to make trouble for the
> >sake of making trouble. It does happen.
>
> People making trouble for racial reasons are racists. People like you.
> Somebody who doesn't care about race can not make troubles for racial
> reasons.
=======================================
Phillips
Sometimes the trouble can be rammed down your throat without your asking
for it. I've worked at AT&T in New Jersey and I know what goes on there.
so spare me your tolerance horse manure.
=========================================
Jeffrey G. Brown
Philllips") wrote:
>Thomas Mohr wrote:
> [...deletia...]
>> That depends. Imagine following scenario: you are my employee. I
>> engage a black because he is the best and install him as your
>> supervisor. You make troubles out of racial reasons. At first I'd have
>> a sincere talk with you and if that doesn't help, I'd very likely fire
>> YOU. Reason: At your workplace you have to forget political opinions,
>> you have to work as a team which you are not able to do.
>==========================================
>Phillips
>
>Your scenario contradicts its own premises. YOu said you hired this
>black person as a supervisor becuase he appeared to be the best. Well,
>he wasn't the best because putting him in that position led to trouble.
>What you have given is an excellent reason why black persons should
>never be permitted to superviser white persons, the prohibition to be
>enacted into law if necessary.
Liar Phillips once again demonstrates that, like most racists, he is
incapable of understanding the concept of personal responsibility. If
employee X takes exception to supervisor Y's race and disrupts the
workplace on that account, then employee X, and he alone, is responsible
for his actions.
Certainly, no one expects a liar like Widdle Ricky Philllips to understand
this; but it needs to be pointed out, just the same.
Thomas Mohr
<rgp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
< snip >
>Phillips
>
>Your scenario contradicts its own premises. YOu said you hired this
>black person as a supervisor becuase he appeared to be the best. Well,
>he wasn't the best because putting him in that position led to trouble.
A manager thinking that way would be VERY stupid. I will explain why
YOU are the candidate to be fired:
1) You obviously can't work in teams. You destroy the team and what is
worst, this is based on totally irrelevant things like skincolour and
race. Therefore you should be fired to avoid further trouble and that
means:
2) You would make trouble EVERY time I would hire the best qualified
who is coincidentially black or I would move a black in your group.
Therefore if I replace YOU with a person not making troubles, the
problem is solved, ONCE AND FOREVER.
>What you have given is an excellent reason why black persons should
>never be permitted to superviser white persons, the prohibition to be
>enacted into law if necessary.
You asked for an example what racists destroy ? You yourself gave the
answer. With this proposal you destroy the career and maybe even the
life of hundreds of thousands of persons.
Oh, I forgot, they are not white, so who cares taht they are humans.
Phillips, you're a very poor man. When I meet people like you I'm
ashamed of being white.
ORAC
>Thomas Mohr wrote:
>>
>> That depends. Imagine following scenario: you are my employee. I
>> engage a black because he is the best and install him as your
>> supervisor. You make troubles out of racial reasons. At first I'd have
>> a sincere talk with you and if that doesn't help, I'd very likely fire
>> YOU. Reason: At your workplace you have to forget political opinions,
>> you have to work as a team which you are not able to do.
>
>Your scenario contradicts its own premises. YOu said you hired this
>black person as a supervisor becuase he appeared to be the best. Well,
>he wasn't the best because putting him in that position led to trouble.
Wait a minute. It is not the fault of the black person hired as supervisor
that one bigoted white underling (you) can't deal with taking orders from
a black man. In the scenario, no one else has a problem with it but you.
You are the only one creating "trouble" with your inability to take orders
from a black. If, as the scenario postulates, this black man is the best,
he can over time overcome mild racism from some whites. However, such
strong racism as yours would prevent even the most competent manager in
the world from winning your respect. Therefore, the employer is quite
justified in getting rid of you if you can't shape up and deal with your
new boss.
In my lifetime, I've worked for whites, blacks, Jews, Arabs, and Asians at
various times in various capacities. I never had a problem with any of
them because of their race/nationality. Personality, competence at their
job, and management style matter far more than race, and when I had a
problem with a supervisor it was always either because our personalities
clashed or because I considered the supervisor to be incompetent. Indeed,
the most obnoxious and incompetent supervisors I ever worked for was a
white male.
>What you have given is an excellent reason why black persons should
>never be permitted to superviser white persons, the prohibition to be
>enacted into law if necessary.
Whites and blacks work together without difficulty all the time now, and
more and more frequently, blacks are in management positions. Other whites
seem able to deal with it. Why can't you?
[Snip]
>>
>> People making trouble for racial reasons are racists. People like you.
>> Somebody who doesn't care about race can not make troubles for racial
>> reasons.
>
>Sometimes the trouble can be rammed down your throat without your asking
>for it. I've worked at AT&T in New Jersey and I know what goes on there.
>so spare me your tolerance horse manure.
No racism, no racism-caused trouble. It really is that simple. Now, of
course, there can always be interpersonal conflicts that have nothing to
do with race. These occur any time humans interact and happen between
people of the same race. That, however, is a different matter.
--
ORA...@aol.com ACCEPTS E-MAIL ONLY FROM FAMILY AND FRIENDS.
TO REPLY TO THIS BY E-MAIL, USE dgorski(at)xsite(dot)net!
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
ORAC, a.k.a. David Gorski |"A statement of fact cannot be
Chicago, IL | insolent" ORAC
Richard G. Philllips
>
> In article <35E986...@earthlink.net>, rgp...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> >Thomas Mohr wrote:
> >>
> >> That depends. Imagine following scenario: you are my employee. I
> >> engage a black because he is the best and install him as your
> >> supervisor. You make troubles out of racial reasons. At first I'd have
> >> a sincere talk with you and if that doesn't help, I'd very likely fire
> >> YOU. Reason: At your workplace you have to forget political opinions,
> >> you have to work as a team which you are not able to do.
> >
> >Your scenario contradicts its own premises. YOu said you hired this
> >black person as a supervisor becuase he appeared to be the best. Well,
> >he wasn't the best because putting him in that position led to trouble.
>
> Wait a minute. It is not the fault of the black person hired as supervisor
> that one bigoted white underling (you) can't deal with taking orders from
> a black man.
Phillips
I cannot deal with taking orders from a black man and, unless it was
your OBJECT to get rid of me, then you exercised very poor judgement in
putting a black man over me.
==================================================
In the scenario, no one else has a problem with it but you.
=======================================================
Phillips
Well, I'd say that depends on who writes the scenario.
================================================================
> You are the only one creating "trouble" with your inability to take orders
> from a black. If, as the scenario postulates, this black man is the best,
> he can over time overcome mild racism from some whites. However, such
> strong racism as yours would prevent even the most competent manager in
> the world from winning your respect. Therefore, the employer is quite
> justified in getting rid of you if you can't shape up and deal with your
> new boss.
================================================
Phillips
He wouldn't _have_ to fire me, I'd quit --that is, after I had first
warned my new "supervisor' of the dangers of gorging on too much
underdone missionary.
========================================================
>
> In my lifetime, I've worked for whites, blacks, Jews, Arabs, and Asians at
> various times in various capacities. I never had a problem with any of
> them because of their race/nationality. Personality, competence at their
> job, and management style matter far more than race, and when I had a
> problem with a supervisor it was always either because our personalities
> clashed or because I considered the supervisor to be incompetent. Indeed,
> the most obnoxious and incompetent supervisors I ever worked for was a
> white male.
>
> >What you have given is an excellent reason why black persons should
> >never be permitted to superviser white persons, the prohibition to be
> >enacted into law if necessary.
>
> Whites and blacks work together without difficulty all the time now, and
> more and more frequently, blacks are in management positions. Other whites
> seem able to deal with it. Why can't you?
====================================================
PHillips
What makes you so sure of that? You see what you imagine to be a
whole-hearted acceptance when in reality it may be nothing more than a
grudging acquiescence on the part of men who know perfectly well what a
serious protest would get them.
================================================
>
> [Snip]
>
> >>
> >> People making trouble for racial reasons are racists. People like you.
> >> Somebody who doesn't care about race can not make troubles for racial
> >> reasons.
> >
> >Sometimes the trouble can be rammed down your throat without your asking
> >for it. I've worked at AT&T in New Jersey and I know what goes on there.
> >so spare me your tolerance horse manure.
>
> No racism, no racism-caused trouble. It really is that simple. Now, of
> course, there can always be interpersonal conflicts that have nothing to
> do with race. These occur any time humans interact and happen between
> people of the same race. That, however, is a different matter.
=============================================
Phillips
the laws and institutions of a country should properly be based on the
way people are, even though this is not the way the liberals think
people ought to be. People are racists, whether you like it or not.
=====================
ORAC
>ORAC wrote:
>>
>> In article <35E986...@earthlink.net>, rgp...@earthlink.net wrote:
>>
>> >Thomas Mohr wrote:
>> >>
>> >> That depends. Imagine following scenario: you are my employee. I
>> >> engage a black because he is the best and install him as your
>> >> supervisor. You make troubles out of racial reasons. At first I'd have
>> >> a sincere talk with you and if that doesn't help, I'd very likely fire
>> >> YOU. Reason: At your workplace you have to forget political opinions,
>> >> you have to work as a team which you are not able to do.
>> >
>> >Your scenario contradicts its own premises. YOu said you hired this
>> >black person as a supervisor becuase he appeared to be the best. Well,
>> >he wasn't the best because putting him in that position led to trouble.
>>
>> Wait a minute. It is not the fault of the black person hired as supervisor
>> that one bigoted white underling (you) can't deal with taking orders from
>> a black man.
>
>I cannot deal with taking orders from a black man and, unless it was
>your OBJECT to get rid of me, then you exercised very poor judgement in
>putting a black man over me.
No, it was good judgment to hire the best possible person in a supervisory
role. If one employee can't deal with him simply because he is black, then
the company is better off without that one employee. As I said, you are
the only one causing the problem, not the person who hired the black man
and not the black man who was hired.
>> You are the only one creating "trouble" with your inability to take orders
>> from a black. If, as the scenario postulates, this black man is the best,
>> he can over time overcome mild racism from some whites. However, such
>> strong racism as yours would prevent even the most competent manager in
>> the world from winning your respect. Therefore, the employer is quite
>> justified in getting rid of you if you can't shape up and deal with your
>> new boss.
>
>He wouldn't _have_ to fire me, I'd quit --that is, after I had first
>warned my new "supervisor' of the dangers of gorging on too much
>underdone missionary.
Very funny, and your pathetic attempt at "humor" is more proof (if any was
needed) that the company would be better off without you.
>> In my lifetime, I've worked for whites, blacks, Jews, Arabs, and Asians at
>> various times in various capacities. I never had a problem with any of
>> them because of their race/nationality. Personality, competence at their
>> job, and management style matter far more than race, and when I had a
>> problem with a supervisor it was always either because our personalities
>> clashed or because I considered the supervisor to be incompetent. Indeed,
>> the most obnoxious and incompetent supervisors I ever worked for was a
>> white male.
>>
>> >What you have given is an excellent reason why black persons should
>> >never be permitted to superviser white persons, the prohibition to be
>> >enacted into law if necessary.
>>
>> Whites and blacks work together without difficulty all the time now, and
>> more and more frequently, blacks are in management positions. Other whites
>> seem able to deal with it. Why can't you?
>
>What makes you so sure of that? You see what you imagine to be a
>whole-hearted acceptance when in reality it may be nothing more than a
>grudging acquiescence on the part of men who know perfectly well what a
>serious protest would get them.
You're dodging my question, which was: "Other whites seem able to deal
with it. Why can't you?" I never meant that it's "whole-hearted
acceptance" that leads whites to "deal with it." What I did mean is that
the vast majority of whites, whether racist or not, can manage to work
with blacks and even for blacks. Even though most people have varying
degrees of racism in their hearts, it is not usually enough to prevent
them from putting racism aside for a common purpose. This shows two
things: (1) level of self-restraint and maturity that you appear to lack
and (2) a much less intense level of racism than you possess. As an added
benefit, close contact with people of other races over time tends to
decrease any racist feelings held by most people.
>> >> People making trouble for racial reasons are racists. People like you.
>> >> Somebody who doesn't care about race can not make troubles for racial
>> >> reasons.
>> >
>> >Sometimes the trouble can be rammed down your throat without your asking
>> >for it. I've worked at AT&T in New Jersey and I know what goes on there.
>> >so spare me your tolerance horse manure.
>>
>> No racism, no racism-caused trouble. It really is that simple. Now, of
>> course, there can always be interpersonal conflicts that have nothing to
>> do with race. These occur any time humans interact and happen between
>> people of the same race. That, however, is a different matter.
>
>the laws and institutions of a country should properly be based on the
>way people are, even though this is not the way the liberals think
>people ought to be. People are racists, whether you like it or not.
Whether or not "people are racists" is besides the point. The point is
that most people, whether racist or not, can manage to work with others of
another race without causing trouble. You can't. Therefore the company is
better off without you.
Jeffrey G. Brown
Philllips") wrote:
>ORAC wrote:
> [...deletia...]
>> Wait a minute. It is not the fault of the black person hired as supervisor
>> that one bigoted white underling (you) can't deal with taking orders from
>> a black man.
>==========================================
>Phillips
>
>I cannot deal with taking orders from a black man...
The problem, therefore, is _your_ attitude. It remains _your_
responsibility to deal with it -- though of course, no one here seriously
expects you to actually take responsibility for your own actions. It's
been clear for some time that doing so is beyond your capabilities, Liar.
Jeffrey G. Brown
Philllips") wrote:
>Jeffrey G. Brown wrote:
> [...deletia...]
>> The problem, therefore, is _your_ attitude. It remains _your_
>> responsibility to deal with it -- though of course, no one here seriously
>> expects you to actually take responsibility for your own actions. It's
>> been clear for some time that doing so is beyond your capabilities,
>Liar.
>
>==========================================================
>PHillips
>
>(1) I always take responsibility for my actions.
False. Liar Philllips has never accepted responsibility for the multiple
lies he has posted here on Usenet.
> [...deletia...]
>(2) If I had a nigger supervisor foisted on me, my action would be to
>quit (for which I take complete responsibility).
Quote:
"I cannot deal with taking orders from a black man and, unless it
was your OBJECT to get rid of me, then you exercised very poor
judgement in putting a black man over me."
Clearly, Liar Philllips would blame someone else's "very poor judgement"
for his own decision to quit -- thus shifting the responsibility from
himself, yet again.
>(3) Show us the posting where Kadach made that specific claim you said
>he made -- liar.
Request denied. No specific claims have ever been attributed to Kadach.
Chuck Ferree
Richard G. Philllips wrote:
> Jeffrey G. Brown wrote:
> >
> > In article <35E9CC...@earthlink.net>, rgp...@earthlink.net ("Liar
> > Philllips") wrote:
> >
> > >ORAC wrote:
> >
> > > [...deletia...]
> >
> > >> Wait a minute. It is not the fault of the black person hired as supervisor
> > >> that one bigoted white underling (you) can't deal with taking orders from
> > >> a black man.
> > >==========================================
> > >Phillips
> > >
> > >I cannot deal with taking orders from a black man...
> >
> > The problem, therefore, is _your_ attitude. It remains _your_
> > responsibility to deal with it -- though of course, no one here seriously
> > expects you to actually take responsibility for your own actions. It's
> > been clear for some time that doing so is beyond your capabilities,
> Liar.
>
> ==========================================================
> PHillips
>
> (1) I always take responsibility for my actions. It's one of the reasons
> why I am successful in my line of work.
CF:>>>>Lemme guess:
1-you sell shoes for Baker Brothers, a Jewish outfit, which helped put me through
college.
2-You are an airline stewardess in charge of the Microwave oven on a DC-3
3-You are a college professor, sans tenure, and will never be tenured.
4-You are a male "jiggles" dancer, with a size tiny G-String.
5-You write porno scripts for has-been porno queens.
6-You create bumper stickers for Pat Robertson.
7-You are a former CIA agent, fired for playing grab-ass with your Black superior.
8-You are a seeker-of-celebrities for Candid Camera.
9-You are a pumper of gasoline for BP, using watered gasoline.
10-You are a pimp for teenage male prostitutes.
Then again you may be the CEO for General Motors, used Datson Department.
Who tha hell cares. A dummy, that's not in question.
Chuck Ferree
>
>
> (2) If I had a nigger supervisor foisted on me, my action would be to
> quit (for which I take complete responsibility).
CF:>>>Do not use the "N" word, phillips, or I shall write to your server, and
you'll have to use AOL. They take anybody.
>
>
> (3) Show us the posting where Kadach made that specific claim you said
> he made -- liar.
> ==========================================================
ORAC
>The Negro has certain inborn cognitive limitations which (so far as can
>be seen) will forever place sharp limits on the roles he can play in our
>technological society.
And your evidence for this assertion, which you have made repeatedly and
failed to back up, is?
[Remainder of drivel snipped]
--
THE ABOVE E-MAIL ADDRESS ONLY ACCEPTS MAIL FROM FAMILY
AND FRIENDS. TO E-MAIL ME, USE: dgorski[at]xsite[dot]net!
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
ORAC |"A statement of fact cannot be
a.k.a. David Gorski | insolent." ORAC
Chicago, IL |
ORAC
>Thomas Mohr wrote:
>> >Phillips
>> >
>> >What are the problems caused by racists?
>>
>> F.i. *glass ceilings* and other restrictions for certain groups of the
>> population.
>
>Which is exactly the way it should be. I don't want a boogie as my
>supervisor.
And most blacks and other minorities wouldn't want a racist white power
ranger with delusions of grandeur like you as their supervisor either, I'm
sure. Hell, given your racist views and Aryan nationalist politics, I
certainly wouldn't want you as my supervisor either, and I'm white.
>> Look, the SMAE rights apply to blacks. Remember, your personal freedom
>> ends when others are negatively affected.
>
>I do not admit the "right" of a black person to ram himself down muy
>throat in any way whatsoever.
In that case, then why is it that you constantly insist that YOU have the
right to ram your Aryan nationalist views down the throats of black
people? After all, you yourself have stated on numerous occasions that you
want America to become an Aryan nation, with forced separation of the
races and deportation of blacks. If this isn't advocating "ramming
yourself down the throats" of blacks and other minorities, I don't know
what is.
How hypocritical can you get?
[Snip]
Richard G. Philllips
=============================================
Phillips
Anything that damages the self-esteem of the white man (be it feminism
or racial equality) is not to be tolerated.
================================================
>
> >> >> People making trouble for racial reasons are racists. People like you.
> >> >> Somebody who doesn't care about race can not make troubles for racial
> >> >> reasons.
> >> >
> >> >Sometimes the trouble can be rammed down your throat without your asking
> >> >for it. I've worked at AT&T in New Jersey and I know what goes on there.
> >> >so spare me your tolerance horse manure.
> >>
> >> No racism, no racism-caused trouble. It really is that simple. Now, of
> >> course, there can always be interpersonal conflicts that have nothing to
> >> do with race. These occur any time humans interact and happen between
> >> people of the same race. That, however, is a different matter.
> >
> >the laws and institutions of a country should properly be based on the
> >way people are, even though this is not the way the liberals think
> >people ought to be. People are racists, whether you like it or not.
>
> Whether or not "people are racists" is besides the point. The point is
> that most people, whether racist or not, can manage to work with others of
> another race without causing trouble.
===========================================
PHillips
they adapt for the good and simple reason that they have no choice and
know it perfectly well.
==================================================
Richard G. Philllips
> >> >
> >> >What are the problems caused by racists?
> >>
> >> F.i. *glass ceilings* and other restrictions for certain groups of the
> >> population.
> >
> >Which is exactly the way it should be. I don't want a boogie as my
> >supervisor.
>
> And most blacks and other minorities wouldn't want a racist white power
> ranger with delusions of grandeur like you as their supervisor either, I'm
> sure. Hell, given your racist views and Aryan nationalist politics, I
> certainly wouldn't want you as my supervisor either, and I'm white.
Phillips
As long as you did your job, I would have no problem with your being a
liberal.
======================================================================
>
> >> Look, the SMAE rights apply to blacks. Remember, your personal freedom
> >> ends when others are negatively affected.
> >
> >I do not admit the "right" of a black person to ram himself down muy
> >throat in any way whatsoever.
>
> In that case, then why is it that you constantly insist that YOU have the
> right to ram your Aryan nationalist views down the throats of black
> people? After all, you yourself have stated on numerous occasions that you
> want America to become an Aryan nation, with forced separation of the
> races and deportation of blacks. If this isn't advocating "ramming
> yourself down the throats" of blacks and other minorities, I don't know
> what is.
====================================================
Phillips
I must remind you of just WHOSE country this is. If the presence of
blacks in their present numbers threatens the continuance of our white,
European heritage, then they will have to go. I would seek to make it
no more harsh than it had to be but I am convinced there will have to be
a separation. I might add; so is Louis Farrakan.
===========================================================================
>
> How hypocritical can you get?
============================================
Phillips
I am certainly a racist. I do not believe I am hypocritical.
=======================================
Richard G. Philllips
>
> In article <35E7F5...@earthlink.net>, rgp...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> >The Negro has certain inborn cognitive limitations which (so far as can
> >be seen) will forever place sharp limits on the roles he can play in our
> >technological society.
>
> And your evidence for this assertion, which you have made repeatedly and
> failed to back up, is?
Phillips
The Bell Curve, the Tanser Report, and dozens of other studies whose
names i could dig up for you.
NOw possibly you would like to lay before me evidence supporting YOUR
view.
==========================================
>
> [Remainder of drivel snipped]
Richard G. Philllips
> >happens when Blacks are the majority population in an area and attempt
> >to run it: corruption, inefficiency, and deterioration. Look at Detroit
> >or East St. Louis. In fact, Washington DC would be far worse than it
> >already is if it weren't for the millions of dollars that the Federal
> >government pours into the city. In fact, just recently, Congress was
> >forced to take-over control of the city due to the incompetency and
> >corruption of the city's idiot Black mayor, Marion Barry.
>
> McKinney, once again, if my analysis is that worthless, why can't you
> disprove it by presenting other things than anecdotes ? Why can't you
> prove that all these things are race related - except by some dubious
> anectdotal evidence ? Why can't you do that ?
==============================================
PHillips
Do you call the chaos of Washington Dc "an anecdote?"
===============================================
> >
> >Regards,
> >Ian McKinney
> >======================================================
> >WESTERN IMPERATIVE NETWORK (WIN) - Fighting Anti-White
> >Propaganda, Misinformation, and Attitudes in Cyberspace
> >http://www.usaor.net/users/ipm/
> >NON-WHITE CRIME AND DEPENDANCY STATISTICS ARCHIVE
> >http://www.usaor.net/users/ipm/pif.html
> >DIVERSITY'S DESTRUCTION DOCUMENTED
> >http://webusers.anet-stl.com/~civil/dv0.html
> >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >NATIONAL ALLIANCE - The Leading Patriotic Organization
> >in America http://www.natvan.com/ Hear NA chairman
> >Dr. William Pierce's Hard-Hitting Weekly Internet
> >Broadcasts at http://www.natvan.com/internet-radio/
> >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >THE INCOMPARABLE DR. REVILO OLIVER
> >http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/america
> >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
Jeffrey G. Brown
Philllips") wrote:
>Anything that damages the self-esteem of the white man (be it feminism
>or racial equality) is not to be tolerated.
Awwwww..... did the people who look diffwent fum poor widdle Wicky make
hims feel all yucky?
Any white "man" -- anyone of any race or gender, for that matter -- whose
precious 'self-esteem' is threatened by having to live in a world where
those who are different are nonetheless treated with respect and accorded
equality is suffering from a self-created problem. Your problem is your
problem, Liar -- no Mighty Whitey Cloud-Cuckoo Land is going to solve it
for you.
ORAC
>ORAC wrote:
>>
>> In article <35E7ED...@earthlink.net>, rgp...@earthlink.net wrote:
>> >Which is exactly the way it should be. I don't want a boogie as my
>> >supervisor.
>>
>> And most blacks and other minorities wouldn't want a racist white power
>> ranger with delusions of grandeur like you as their supervisor either, I'm
>> sure. Hell, given your racist views and Aryan nationalist politics, I
>> certainly wouldn't want you as my supervisor either, and I'm white.
>
>As long as you did your job, I would have no problem with your being a
>liberal.
It just goes to show how far right you are. You have to be one of the
first people who has ever accused me of being a "liberal."
>> >I do not admit the "right" of a black person to ram himself down muy
>> >throat in any way whatsoever.
>>
>> In that case, then why is it that you constantly insist that YOU have the
>> right to ram your Aryan nationalist views down the throats of black
>> people? After all, you yourself have stated on numerous occasions that you
>> want America to become an Aryan nation, with forced separation of the
>> races and deportation of blacks. If this isn't advocating "ramming
>> yourself down the throats" of blacks and other minorities, I don't know
>> what is.
>
>I must remind you of just WHOSE country this is.
Actually, I should remind you: This country belongs to ALL of its
citizens, not just the white ones, your delusions otherwise
notwithstanding.
>If the presence of
>blacks in their present numbers threatens the continuance of our white,
>European heritage, then they will have to go.
Their present numbers are only approximately 11-12% of the overall
population. "White European heritage" must be pretty fragile indeed if it
is threatened by that.
>I would seek to make it
>no more harsh than it had to be but I am convinced there will have to be
>a separation.
What you are convinced of matters little.
>I might add; so is Louis Farrakan.
Oh, great. Now *that's* an endorsement that's likely to persuade me to
come over to your viewpoint--not!
>> How hypocritical can you get?
>
>I am certainly a racist. I do not believe I am hypocritical.
Then explain again how you "do not admit the "right" of a black person to
ram himself down [your] throat in any way whatsoever," but are perfectly
happy to ram your white power ranger agenda down the throats of our black
and minority citizens.
--
ORA...@aol.com ACCEPTS E-MAIL ONLY FROM FAMILY AND FRIENDS.
TO REPLY TO THIS BY E-MAIL, USE dgorski(at)xsite(dot)net!
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
ORAC, a.k.a. David Gorski |"A statement of fact cannot be
Chicago, IL | insolent" ORAC
ORAC
>ORAC wrote:
>>
>> In article <35E9CC...@earthlink.net>, rgp...@earthlink.net wrote:
>>
>> >What makes you so sure of that? You see what you imagine to be a
>> >whole-hearted acceptance when in reality it may be nothing more than a
>> >grudging acquiescence on the part of men who know perfectly well what a
>> >serious protest would get them.
>>
>> You're dodging my question, which was: "Other whites seem able to deal
>> with it. Why can't you?" I never meant that it's "whole-hearted
>> acceptance" that leads whites to "deal with it." What I did mean is that
>> the vast majority of whites, whether racist or not, can manage to work
>> with blacks and even for blacks. Even though most people have varying
>> degrees of racism in their hearts, it is not usually enough to prevent
>> them from putting racism aside for a common purpose. This shows two
>> things: (1) level of self-restraint and maturity that you appear to lack
>> and (2) a much less intense level of racism than you possess. As an added
>> benefit, close contact with people of other races over time tends to
>> decrease any racist feelings held by most people.
>
>Anything that damages the self-esteem of the white man (be it feminism
>or racial equality) is not to be tolerated.
ROTFLMAO!
This is just too funny!! You sound like the very liberals you decry for
their whining about how self-esteem is the be-all and end-all of
existence! And don't go telling me that it's your way of "parodying" the
liberal penchant for overvaluing "self-esteem" over achievement! I don't
buy it.
Is the self-esteem of your great Aryan Man, who, according to you, created
Western Civilization throught force of his will and intelligence, raised
Himself above all other races, and now deserves to reclaim this nation
from the "dark hordes" you so fear and have a separate kingdom of his own
to be ruled according to principles of Aryan Bliss, so fragile that it is
threatened by having to come into contact with people of different races
on a regular basis?
If, as we are told by you and other white power rangers, this Great Aryan
Man is so great, representing the "pinnacle of evolution" and the race
that produced the vast majority of scientific and social advances over the
last several millenia, why would His precious self-esteem be threatened by
having to deal with other races?
This is just too rich!
>> >the laws and institutions of a country should properly be based on the
>> >way people are, even though this is not the way the liberals think
>> >people ought to be. People are racists, whether you like it or not.
>>
>> Whether or not "people are racists" is besides the point. The point is
>> that most people, whether racist or not, can manage to work with others of
>> another race without causing trouble.
>
>they adapt for the good and simple reason that they have no choice and
>know it perfectly well.
No, they have the same choice you do: to leave and find a better job if
they can't deal with it.
ORAC
>ORAC wrote:
>>
>> In article <35E7F5...@earthlink.net>, rgp...@earthlink.net wrote:
>>
>> >The Negro has certain inborn cognitive limitations which (so far as can
>> >be seen) will forever place sharp limits on the roles he can play in our
>> >technological society.
>>
>> And your evidence for this assertion, which you have made repeatedly and
>> failed to back up, is?
>
>The Bell Curve, the Tanser Report, and dozens of other studies whose
>names i could dig up for you.
>
>NOw possibly you would like to lay before me evidence supporting YOUR
>view.
Those are all exceedingly flawed studies, for reasons that have been
discussed here previously.
Phil Nation
Ian McKinney (i...@usaor.com) wrote:
: Al Gore Calls For Radical Crackdown on Whites
: The M.L. King holiday meeting at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta
: had Al Gore as the main speaker. Seeking to lock-in his Negro support he
: made an uncharacteristic fire and brimstone M.L. King style speech. Gore
: called for a crackdown on Whites who do not want to rent or sell
: property to blacks declaring:
: "Congress has failed to recognize the taproot of racism of almost 400
: years and it must be crushed. We are launching a new civil rights
: initiative and asking the Congress for $35 million in additional funding
: for a 16% increase in the enforcement agencies of the Equal Opportunity
: Commission. We will prevent discrimination before it occurs and punish
: those severely who discriminate in employment and in housing to the
: limit of the law!"
: It should be noted that Gore lived in segregated neighborhoods in
: Tennnessee and sent his children to private White schools. Clinton also
: sent his daughter Chelsea to an exclusive private high school. They
: should practice what they preach before demanding draconian police
: powers to force race-mixing on the American people!
PROVE that he lived in said neighborhoods and sent his kids to those
schools on account of race.
: Castro Type "Block Spies"
: Cuba's police maintain spies on every block to report on neighbors who
: oppose the Castro regime. With little publicity we read about "testers"
: the Justice Dept. sends out to hunt down those who might be unwilling to
: rent or sell to minorities. The word "tester" is tantamount to "spy."
: Anyone who would even accept such a job as a spy would have to be an
: abhorrent person.
: Allen Park, Mich. is a pleasant, safe, and mostly White suburb of
: Detroit. The Justice Dept sent spies to the Park Woods Apartments. This
: is an 11 building complex with 252 units. It is run by John Dastl and
: his daughter Lisa. It is alleged that the White spies were accepted and
: the black spies told there were no units available. Thus, the Jewish
: U.S. Attorney, Saul A. Green, brought suit against the complex. The
: appointed "magistrate" granted a whopping judgement of $475,000 of which
: $100,000 will go to four blacks turned down for apartments and $75,000
: will go to the government.
: This is real Communism in Action! Today, we have Clinton's Chinese Red,
: Bill Lee, running this mis-named "Civil Rights Division." This means
: that police state terror against landlords will be stepped-up!
You give Communism too much credit. This was a perfect example of
racism in action. Communism is hardly an antidote to racism, as you
would have us believe.
An ABC show ran something several years ago on racism, with a
similar example. They had a White man and a Black man check out an
apartment that was supposedly for rent. The Black man was told that the
apartment was taken earlier that morning- after the White man was told
it was still available and allowed to check the place out.
The story you gave isn't the first example of this that's been
documented.
Phil Kasiecki
--
Philip T. Kasiecki
pkas...@ieee.org
http://lynx.dac.neu.edu/p/pkasieck/
"Life is not important except in the impact it has on others' lives."
-Jackie Robinson
ro...@webtv.net
> > >crime, drugs and interracial mixing throughout the White suburbs. It is
> > >also of interest to note that Judge Buchmeyer has also ordered that
> > >public transportation be provided for these new tenants!
> > >
> > >TRUTH AT LAST
> > >
> > >=================
> >
> > McKinney, what these - as you call them - *liberals* want to do is to
> > repair what racists like you ruined.
> ========================================
> PHillips
>
> Just what was it that the "racists" ruined?
> ===============================================
>
> Problems caused by racism are
> > problems caused by racists and that is YOU.
> ===================================
> Phillips
>
> What are the problems caused by racists?
>
> All this legislation would
> > not exist if the US weren't a racist country. And it is a racist
> > country because racists (i.o. words YOU) exist.
> =============================================
> PHillips
>
> Are you calling into question my right to (a) choose my own friends, (b)
> associate with whom I wish to associate, (c) live in a neighborhood of
> people like myself, (d) have neighbors of a sort who are congenial to
> me.
Reply to C and D: Sorry but you cannot manipulate the world in the order you
so desire it. Yes you may move to Whiteburgh because only a white population
exists there at present time, but you cannot keep out a non-white population
from moving in if it so desires. Just as you have the freedoms you have
pointed out above, so does each and every other human being.
> ========================================
>
> F.i. letting an
> > apartment. Normal owners look at the references, the financial
> > situation, the character of the person. You look at the race: black -
> > no, white - yes. Because of this point of view, blacks have severe
> > disadvantages and that is not okay.
>
> =================================
> PHillips
>
> why isn't it OK?
> ======================
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Richard G. Philllips
=======================================================
PHillips
I must remind you of two things:
(a) Just whose country this is
(b) That American government runs (or is presumed to run) by the consent
of the governed, which may not be the same as our elitists feel it ought
to be.
I do not concede to the Negro any God-given pre-existing rights beyond
those which the white majority are willing to concede to him. If he does
not find the state of affairs in America a congenial one, no one is
preventing his leaving. there is no Berlin Wall around America.
Jeffrey G. Brown
Philllips") wrote:
>I do not concede to the Negro any God-given pre-existing rights beyond
>those which the white majority are willing to concede to him.
Nobody asked you. Nobody cares what a known liar is willing to 'concede',
in any case.
>If he does
>not find the state of affairs in America a congenial one, no one is
>preventing his leaving. there is no Berlin Wall around America.
Looks like _you're_ the one who doesn't find "the state of affairs in
America a congenial one". No one is preventing your leaving, either.
Start packing.
Richard G. Philllips
>
> In article <35EB54...@earthlink.net>, rgp...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> >ORAC wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <35E9CC...@earthlink.net>, rgp...@earthlink.net wrote:
> >>
> >> >What makes you so sure of that? You see what you imagine to be a
> >> >whole-hearted acceptance when in reality it may be nothing more than a
> >> >grudging acquiescence on the part of men who know perfectly well what a
> >> >serious protest would get them.
> >>
> >> You're dodging my questi
on, which was: "Other whites seem able to deal
> >> with it. Why can't you?"
Phillips
the operative word there is "seem." this sounds to me like an admission
that you really don't know what's going on in their hearts.
===================================
I never meant that it's "whole-hearted
> >> acceptance" that leads whites to "deal with it." What I did mean is that
> >> the vast majority of whites, whether racist or not, can manage to work
> >> with blacks and even for blacks.
======================================================
Phillips
The operative word there is "manage." they are "managing" to live with
it because they know there is no choice.
===============================
Even though most people have varying
> >> degrees of racism in their hearts, it is not usually enough to prevent
> >> them from putting racism aside for a common purpose.
================================================================
Phillips
I am against whites cooperating in the pursuit of your "common purpose"
becuase that common purpose is racial integration and that is not in the
best interests of whites; indeed, it is directly opposed to both their
interests and their wishes.
I refuse to be a "nice guy" and string along for the same reason that
the rebellious Ameircan colonists took a similar stand against the
British ministry.
====================================================
========================================================
This shows two
> >> things: (1) level of self-restraint and maturity that you appear to lack
> >> and (2) a much less intense level of racism than you possess. As an added
> >> benefit, close contact with people of other races over time tends to
> >> decrease any racist feelings held by most people.
=================================================================
Phillips
Tell that to the 1 million White Americans who were murdered, robbed,
raped, or assaulted by blacks in the year 1992 alone.
Source: Sydney (Australia) Morning herald, May 20 1995.
============================================================
> >
> >Anything that damages the self-esteem of the white man (be it feminism
> >or racial equality) is not to be tolerated.
>
> ROTFLMAO!
>
> This is just too funny!! You sound like the very liberals you decry for
> their whining about how self-esteem is the be-all and end-all of
> existence! And don't go telling me that it's your way of "parodying" the
> liberal penchant for overvaluing "self-esteem" over achievement! I don't
> buy it.
=======================
Phillips
funny or not funny, that is the way it will have to be.
=========================================
>
> Is the self-esteem of your great Aryan Man, who, according to you, created
> Western Civilization throught force of his will and intelligence, raised
> Himself above all other races, and now deserves to reclaim this nation
> from the "dark hordes" you so fear and have a separate kingdom of his own
> to be ruled according to principles of Aryan Bliss, so fragile that it is
> threatened by having to come into contact with people of different races
> on a regular basis?
=======================================
PHillips
why SHOULD Aryan people be forced into multi-racial contacts which they
do not want.
=====================================================
>
> If, as we are told by you and other white power rangers, this Great Aryan
> Man is so great, representing the "pinnacle of evolution" and the race
> that produced the vast majority of scientific and social advances over the
> last several millenia, why would His precious self-esteem be threatened by
> having to deal with other races?
>
> This is just too rich!
>
> >> >the laws and institutions of a country should properly be based on the
> >> >way people are, even though this is not the way the liberals think
> >> >people ought to be. People are racists, whether you like it or not.
> >>
> >> Whether or not "people are racists" is besides the point. The point is
> >> that most people, whether racist or not, can manage to work with others of
> >> another race without causing trouble.
> >
> >they adapt for the good and simple reason that they have no choice and
> >know it perfectly well.
>
> No, they have the same choice you do: to leave and find a better job if
> they can't deal with it.
=======================================================
Phillips
And what do they do when that "better job" cames under the scrutiny of
the multiculturalists. Do you imagine there are all that many _good_
jobs in America today.
===================================================
Joel Rosenberg
>====================================================
>Phillips
>
>I must remind you of just WHOSE country this is.
It's the country of something like three hundred million people, of all races
and ethnicities.
I know you don't like that, but I like it that you don't like that.
ORAC
>Jeffrey G. Brown wrote:
>
>> In article <35E9CC...@earthlink.net>, rgp...@earthlink.net ("Liar
>> Philllips") wrote:
>>
>> >ORAC wrote:
>>
>> > [...deletia...]
>>
>> >> Wait a minute. It is not the fault of the black person hired as supervisor
>> >> that one bigoted white underling (you) can't deal with taking orders from
>> >> a black man.
>> >
>> >I cannot deal with taking orders from a black man...
>
>CF:>>>Boy do you need help.CF:>>>>>Suppose you were a soldier in the U.S. Army,
>and I was your training officer, what would you do about *not being able
to take
>orders from me if I was a Black Lt. ?
Phillips would probably be court marshalled for refusing to take orders
from any black superior officer.
Chuck Ferree
ORAC wrote:
> In article <35E98CD1...@rio.com>, chu...@rio.com wrote:
>
> >Jeffrey G. Brown wrote:
> >
> >> In article <35E9CC...@earthlink.net>, rgp...@earthlink.net ("Liar
> >> Philllips") wrote:
> >>
> >> >ORAC wrote:
> >>
> >> > [...deletia...]
> >>
> >> >> Wait a minute. It is not the fault of the black person hired as supervisor
> >> >> that one bigoted white underling (you) can't deal with taking orders from
> >> >> a black man.
> >> >
> >> >I cannot deal with taking orders from a black man...
> >
> >CF:>>>Boy do you need help.CF:>>>>>Suppose you were a soldier in the U.S. Army,
> >and I was your training officer, what would you do about *not being able
> to take
> >orders from me if I was a Black Lt. ?
>
> Phillips would probably be court marshalled for refusing to take orders
> from any black superior officer.
CF:>>>At least a court marshall (I think it's spelled: court-martial). Anyway, just
a short experience along these lines.I had just recently graduated from Air Corps
Cadets, and commissioned a 2nd. Lt.
Still in training with P-47s, in Louisana. We had been training in formations, and
returned to base for more fuel. I taxied up to my slot, the crew chief was sitting
there reading a book. He was a Tech-Sgt., Former Marine. Anyway I asked him to
refuel my plane, and he said: "refuel it yourself, I'm busy." At first I was
flabergasted, then I gave him a direct order. He didn't move. I reported him to our
Exec. Officer, who was also flying with us, and we walked back to my plane, and I
ordered him once again to refuel. He ignored both of us. The Exec. Officer said to
me, "bust him to down to buck-ass
private." So I told the crew chief he was busted, he gave some smart-assed
response. Within three days, he was court-martialed, and transferred to the
Infantry, lost six months pay. He could have been sentenced to time in the
stockade.
Phillips would pay quite a price because of his racist problem. Today, I'm sure he
would serve time in the slammer.
Chuck Ferree
Joel Rosenberg
I disagree, Chuck. I think Phillips talks big, but I think it would be "Yes,
Sergeant Jackson," and "No, Sergeant Jackson", and "Whatever you say, Sergeant
Jackson." He'd still think bigoted thoughts, but he wouldn't want to be the
new blond on the cell block.
Charles Don Hall
>[...] I taxied up to my slot, the crew chief was sitting
>there reading a book. He was a Tech-Sgt., Former Marine. Anyway I asked him to
>refuel my plane, and he said: "refuel it yourself, I'm busy." At first I was
>flabergasted, then I gave him a direct order. He didn't move. I reported him to our
>Exec. Officer, who was also flying with us, and we walked back to my plane, and I
>ordered him once again to refuel. He ignored both of us. The Exec. Officer said to
>me, "bust him to down to buck-ass
>private." So I told the crew chief he was busted, he gave some smart-assed
>response. Within three days, he was court-martialed, and transferred to the
>Infantry, lost six months pay.
Well, don't keep us in suspense!! What book was he reading?? It sounds like
it must have been pretty good.
--
=================================================================
Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher (ch...@eco.twg.com)
The Graduation Webpage: http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Ginza/4185
=================================================================
Chuck Ferree
Charles Don Hall wrote:
> In article <35EBD8E6...@rio.com>, Chuck Ferree <chu...@rio.com> wrote:
> >[...] I taxied up to my slot, the crew chief was sitting
> >there reading a book. He was a Tech-Sgt., Former Marine. Anyway I asked him to
> >refuel my plane, and he said: "refuel it yourself, I'm busy." At first I was
> >flabergasted, then I gave him a direct order. He didn't move. I reported him to our
> >Exec. Officer, who was also flying with us, and we walked back to my plane, and I
> >ordered him once again to refuel. He ignored both of us. The Exec. Officer said to
> >me, "bust him to down to buck-ass
> >private." So I told the crew chief he was busted, he gave some smart-assed
> >response. Within three days, he was court-martialed, and transferred to the
> >Infantry, lost six months pay.
>
> Well, don't keep us in suspense!! What book was he reading?? It sounds like
> it must have been pretty good.
CF:>>>>>You really wanna know, doncha?
Richard G. Philllips
>
> ORAC wrote:
>
> > In article <35E98CD1...@rio.com>, chu...@rio.com wrote:
> >
> > >Jeffrey G. Brown wrote:
> > >
> > >> In article <35E9CC...@earthlink.net>, rgp...@earthlink.net ("Liar
> > >> Philllips") wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >ORAC wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > [...deletia...]
> > >>
> > >> >> Wait a minute. It is not the fault of the black person hired as supervisor
> > >> >> that one bigoted white underling (you) can't deal with taking orders from
> > >> >> a black man.
> > >> >
> > >> >I cannot deal with taking orders from a black man...
> > >
> > >CF:>>>Boy do you need help.CF:>>>>>Suppose you were a soldier in the U.S. Army,
> > >and I was your training officer, what would you do about *not being able
> > to take
> > >orders from me if I was a Black Lt. ?
> >
> > Phillips would probably be court marshalled for refusing to take orders
> > from any black superior officer.
===========================================
PHillips
I hope you credit me with enough sense, as an army private, not to defy
the order of a superior - no matter his color. I may be "bigoted" but
I'm not insane.
============================================
>
> CF:>>>At least a court marshall (I think it's spelled: court-martial). Anyway, just
> a short experience along these lines.I had just recently graduated from Air Corps
> Cadets, and commissioned a 2nd. Lt.
> Still in training with P-47s, in Louisana. We had been training in formations, and
> returned to base for more fuel. I taxied up to my slot, the crew chief was sitting
> there reading a book. He was a Tech-Sgt., Former Marine. Anyway I asked him to
> refuel my plane, and he said: "refuel it yourself, I'm busy." At first I was
> flabergasted, then I gave him a direct order. He didn't move. I reported him to our
> Exec. Officer, who was also flying with us, and we walked back to my plane, and I
> ordered him once again to refuel. He ignored both of us. The Exec. Officer said to
> me, "bust him to down to buck-ass
> private." So I told the crew chief he was busted, he gave some smart-assed
> response. Within three days, he was court-martialed, and transferred to the
> Infantry, lost six months pay. He could have been sentenced to time in the
> stockade.
> Phillips would pay quite a price because of his racist problem. Today, I'm sure he
> would serve time in the slammer.
==============================================
PHillips
did that REALLY happen in world War II. I thought that orders were
obeyed in those days. Vietnam, of course, was another matter.
================================================
Richard G. Philllips
>
> In article <35EBD8E6...@rio.com>, chu...@rio.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >ORAC wrote:
> >
> >> In article <35E98CD1...@rio.com>, chu...@rio.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >Jeffrey G. Brown wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> In article <35E9CC...@earthlink.net>, rgp...@earthlink.net ("Liar
> >> >> Philllips") wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >ORAC wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > [...deletia...]
> >> >>
> >> >> >> Wait a minute. It is not the fault of the black person hired as
> > supervisor
> >> >> >> that one bigoted white underling (you) can't deal with taking orders
> > from
> >> >> >> a black man.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I cannot deal with taking orders from a black man...
> >> >
> >> >CF:>>>Boy do you need help.CF:>>>>>Suppose you were a soldier in the U.S.
> > Army,
> >> >and I was your training officer, what would you do about *not being able
> >> to take
> >> >orders from me if I was a Black Lt. ?
> >>
> >> Phillips would probably be court marshalled for refusing to take orders
> >> from any black superior officer.
> >
> >
>
> I disagree, Chuck. I think Phillips talks big, but I think it would be "Yes,
> Sergeant Jackson," and "No, Sergeant Jackson", and "Whatever you say, Sergeant
> Jackson." He'd still think bigoted thoughts, but he wouldn't want to be the
> new blond on the cell block.
==================================================
Phillips
Precisely.
====================================
Chuck Ferree
Joel Rosenberg wrote:
CF:>>>If you mean phillips is chickenshit, I agree.
Chuck Ferree
Joel Rosenberg
>> >Phillips would pay quite a price because of his racist problem. Today, I'm
> sure
>> > he
>> >would serve time in the slammer.
>> >
>> >Chuck Ferree
>> >
>>
>> I disagree, Chuck. I think Phillips talks big, but I think it would be "Yes,
>> Sergeant Jackson," and "No, Sergeant Jackson", and "Whatever you say,
> Sergeant
>> Jackson." He'd still think bigoted thoughts, but he wouldn't want to be the
>> new blond on the cell block.
>
>==================================================
>Phillips
>
>Precisely.
>====================================
Of course -- otherwise you'd be a racist with the courage of his convictions,
and that's something you'll find in unicorn country.
Richard G. Philllips
>
> >> >Which is exactly the way it should be. I don't want a boogie as my
> >> >supervisor.
> >>
> >> And most blacks and other minorities wouldn't want a racist white power
> >> ranger with delusions of grandeur like you as their supervisor either, I'm
> >> sure. Hell, given your racist views and Aryan nationalist politics, I
> >> certainly wouldn't want you as my supervisor either, and I'm white.
> >
> >As long as you did your job, I would have no problem with your being a
> >liberal.
>
> It just goes to show how far right you are. You have to be one of the
> first people who has ever accused me of being a "liberal."
PHillips
I recall you described your self as a Conservative Catholic (or was it
Catholic and Conservative). Be it however it is, I'm damned if I can
figure out what it is you are trying to "conserve."
==============================
>
> >> >I do not admit the "right" of a black person to ram himself down muy
> >> >throat in any way whatsoever.
> >>
> >> In that case, then why is it that you constantly insist that YOU have the
> >> right to ram your Aryan nationalist views down the throats of black
> >> people? After all, you yourself have stated on numerous occasions that you
> >> want America to become an Aryan nation, with forced separation of the
> >> races and deportation of blacks. If this isn't advocating "ramming
> >> yourself down the throats" of blacks and other minorities, I don't know
> >> what is.
> >
> >I must remind you of just WHOSE country this is.
>
> Actually, I should remind you: This country belongs to ALL of its
> citizens, not just the white ones, your delusions otherwise
> notwithstanding.
>
> >If the presence of
> >blacks in their present numbers threatens the continuance of our white,
> >European heritage, then they will have to go.
>
> Their present numbers are only approximately 11-12% of the overall
> population. "White European heritage" must be pretty fragile indeed if it
> is threatened by that.
>
> >I would seek to make it
> >no more harsh than it had to be but I am convinced there will have to be
> >a separation.
>
> What you are convinced of matters little.
>
> >I might add; so is Louis Farrakan.
>
> Oh, great. Now *that's* an endorsement that's likely to persuade me to
> come over to your viewpoint--not!
>
> >> How hypocritical can you get?
> >
> >I am certainly a racist. I do not believe I am hypocritical.
>
> Then explain again how you "do not admit the "right" of a black person to
> ram himself down [your] throat in any way whatsoever," but are perfectly
> happy to ram your white power ranger agenda down the throats of our black
> and minority citizens.
========================================
Phillips
I have already explained that.
I begin to sense (as perhaps you do also) that this debate is futile
becuase you are I are coming from entirely different places. that is,
there is no common basis on which we can argue. YOur position, it would
seem, is that blacks, by the mere fact of having been born, have certain
pre-existing God-given "rights" and that it is not a legitimate function
of any government to restrict those rights.
My position is this: The United States of America was founded by white
men and meant as a country for white men. At the time of its founding,
Negroes (even free ones) were simply not considered to be part of the
American people. therefore, they have no rights other than those which
we, the majority white peopole, choose to give them.
=====================================================================
>
> --
> ORA...@aol.com ACCEPTS E-MAIL ONLY FROM FAMILY AND FRIENDS.
> TO REPLY TO THIS BY E-MAIL, USE dgorski(at)xsite(dot)net!
> -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
> ORAC, a.k.a. David Gorski |"A statement of fact cannot be
> Chicago, IL | insolent" ORAC
ORAC
>ORAC wrote:
>>
>> In article <35EB54...@earthlink.net>, rgp...@earthlink.net wrote:
[Much deleted, so that I can concentrate on what was my main point]
>> >Anything that damages the self-esteem of the white man (be it feminism
>> >or racial equality) is not to be tolerated.
>>
>> ROTFLMAO!
>>
>> This is just too funny!! You sound like the very liberals you decry for
>> their whining about how self-esteem is the be-all and end-all of
>> existence! And don't go telling me that it's your way of "parodying" the
>> liberal penchant for overvaluing "self-esteem" over achievement! I don't
>> buy it.
>
>funny or not funny, that is the way it will have to be.
Surely you must see the humor in your contention that the self-esteem of
the Great Aryan Man is so fragile that it cannot bear to have to deal with
such horrendous threats as the suggestion that women or minorities should
be treated with respect and equality. This Great Aryan Man must be pretty
weak indeed if He cannot deal with such minor threats to his hegemony and
therefore states that "anything that damages the self-esteem of the white
man ((be it feminism or racial equality) is not to be tolerated."
Or maybe the self-esteem of this Great Aryan Man is so incredibly weak
that, in order to be able to face Himself, He has to choose some aspect of
himself that he did nothing to earn and tell Himself that He is superior
to all others because of it. Conveniently for Him, His race, to which He
belongs only through accident of birth, will fulfill this function quite
nicely. Maybe that is the true source of the racism of these Brave Aryan
Warriors...
>> Is the self-esteem of your great Aryan Man, who, according to you, created
>> Western Civilization throught force of his will and intelligence, raised
>> Himself above all other races, and now deserves to reclaim this nation
>> from the "dark hordes" you so fear and have a separate kingdom of his own
>> to be ruled according to principles of Aryan Bliss, so fragile that it is
>> threatened by having to come into contact with people of different races
>> on a regular basis?
>
>why SHOULD Aryan people be forced into multi-racial contacts which they
>do not want.
Dodging the question again. How typical. The question was not why "Aryans"
should be forced into multiracial contacts but rathe why the Aryan Man's
self-esteem is so fragile that it cannot abide such contacts.
Chuck Ferree
Richard G. Philllips wrote:
> Chuck Ferree wrote:
> >
> > ORAC wrote:
> >
> > > In article <35E98CD1...@rio.com>, chu...@rio.com wrote:
> > >
> > > >Jeffrey G. Brown wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> In article <35E9CC...@earthlink.net>, rgp...@earthlink.net ("Liar
> > > >> Philllips") wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >ORAC wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > [...deletia...]
> > > >>
> > > >> >> Wait a minute. It is not the fault of the black person hired as supervisor
> > > >> >> that one bigoted white underling (you) can't deal with taking orders from
> > > >> >> a black man.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >I cannot deal with taking orders from a black man...
> > > >
> > > >CF:>>>Boy do you need help.CF:>>>>>Suppose you were a soldier in the U.S. Army,
> > > >and I was your training officer, what would you do about *not being able
> > > to take
> > > >orders from me if I was a Black Lt. ?
> > >
> > > Phillips would probably be court marshalled for refusing to take orders
> > > from any black superior officer.
>
> ===========================================
> PHillips
>
> I hope you credit me with enough sense, as an army private, not to defy
> the order of a superior - no matter his color. I may be "bigoted" but
> I'm not insane.
CF:>>>>well, lemme think about that! What about your statement: "I cannot deal with
taking orders from a black man...?" Flip, flopping around on this are you? I think so.
Either you can deal with taking orders from a black man, or you cannot deal with taking
orders from a black man. Can't have it both ways.
>
>
> ============================================
> >
> > CF:>>>At least a court marshall (I think it's spelled: court-martial). Anyway, just
> > a short experience along these lines.I had just recently graduated from Air Corps
> > Cadets, and commissioned a 2nd. Lt.
> > Still in training with P-47s, in Louisana. We had been training in formations, and
> > returned to base for more fuel. I taxied up to my slot, the crew chief was sitting
> > there reading a book. He was a Tech-Sgt., Former Marine. Anyway I asked him to
> > refuel my plane, and he said: "refuel it yourself, I'm busy." At first I was
> > flabergasted, then I gave him a direct order. He didn't move. I reported him to our
> > Exec. Officer, who was also flying with us, and we walked back to my plane, and I
> > ordered him once again to refuel. He ignored both of us. The Exec. Officer said to
> > me, "bust him to down to buck-ass
> > private." So I told the crew chief he was busted, he gave some smart-assed
> > response. Within three days, he was court-martialed, and transferred to the
> > Infantry, lost six months pay. He could have been sentenced to time in the
> > stockade.
> > Phillips would pay quite a price because of his racist problem. Today, I'm sure he
> > would serve time in the slammer.
>
> ==============================================
> PHillips
>
> did that REALLY happen in world War II. I thought that orders were
> obeyed in those days. Vietnam, of course, was another matter.
CF:>>>>Yeah, Vietnam was criminal on our part. Our soldiers were victims of piss poor US
government policies and gigantic mistakes in judgement, by three presidents.
I'd go for war crimes trials for all three presidents, MCNammra, and several other
officials who lead us down that path.
ORAC
>I begin to sense (as perhaps you do also) that this debate is futile
>becuase you are I are coming from entirely different places. that is,
>there is no common basis on which we can argue. YOur position, it would
>seem, is that blacks, by the mere fact of having been born, have certain
>pre-existing God-given "rights" and that it is not a legitimate function
>of any government to restrict those rights.
Despite what you say below, our position seems to be that white people, by
virtue of their simply being white, should have *more* rights than others
and that they have some God-given "right" to be at the pinnacle of society
and to drive out other races if they so desire. I reject this contention
utterly.
>My position is this: The United States of America was founded by white
>men and meant as a country for white men. At the time of its founding,
>Negroes (even free ones) were simply not considered to be part of the
>American people. therefore, they have no rights other than those which
>we, the majority white peopole, choose to give them.
Of course, the founding of this nation happened well over 200 years ago,
and much has changed since then. The Founding Fathers purposely crafted
the Constitution to be a living document that can be amended and evolve
with the times.
This nation fought a bloody Civil War over 130 years ago over the very
question of the rights of blacks, as well as the question of whether
states have the right to secede from the Union. The Civil War pretty much
settled both questions. Slavery is no longer considered permissible and
all citizens are to have equal rights under the law.
I'm sorry you can't deal with the suggestion that all citizens of the
U.S., regardless of race, should be treated fairly and equally under the
law, perhaps you should go elsewhere.
--
ORA...@aol.com ACCEPTS E-MAIL ONLY FROM FAMILY AND FRIENDS.
TO REPLY TO THIS BY E-MAIL, USE dgorski(at)xsite(dot)net!
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
ORAC, a.k.a. David Gorski |"A statement of fact cannot be
Chicago, IL | insolent" ORAC
ORAC
>ORAC wrote:
>> Phillips would probably be court marshalled for refusing to take orders
>> from any black superior officer.
>
Couldn't happen to a nicer person....
ORAC
>Richard G. Philllips wrote:
>> I hope you credit me with enough sense, as an army private, not to defy
>> the order of a superior - no matter his color. I may be "bigoted" but
>> I'm not insane.
>
>CF:>>>>well, lemme think about that! What about your statement: "I
cannot deal with
>taking orders from a black man...?" Flip, flopping around on this are
you? I think so.
>Either you can deal with taking orders from a black man, or you cannot
deal with taking
>orders from a black man. Can't have it both ways.
And this after all the brave talk about how he would quit his job rather
than take orders from a black supervisor and how it's such a great
injustice for a Brave Aryan to be forced to work for a black man.
So, I'm with you. I have to wonder which it is for Phillips, too.
Alexander Baron
i...@usaor.com "Ian McKinney" writes:
> > An ABC show ran something several years ago on racism, with a
> > similar example. They had a White man and a Black man check out an
> > apartment that was supposedly for rent. The Black man was told that the
> > apartment was taken earlier that morning- after the White man was told
> > it was still available and allowed to check the place out.
Without more information your premise is worthless. Was the landlord Jewish?
Was the landlord black? Was the black man "shifty looking"? Was the white
man a professional person. Etc. This sort of nonsense really won't do; people
are beginning to see through it now.
--
Alexander Baron,
93c Venner Road,
Sydenham,
London SE26 5HU.
England.
+44 (0)181 659 7713
E-Mail A_B...@ABaron.Demon.Co.UK
"He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself
the accomplice of liars and forgers." - Charles Peguy
Gregory Taylor
>>me, "bust him to down to buck-ass
>>private." So I told the crew chief he was busted, he gave some smart-assed
>>response. Within three days, he was court-martialed, and transferred to the
>>Infantry, lost six months pay.
>
>it must have been pretty good.
Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason." He was looking for the naughty bits....
--
When I pronounce the word Future,/the first syllable already belongs to the
past./When I pronounce the word Silence,/I destroy it./When I pronounce the
word Nothing,/I make something no nonbeing can hold./ (Wislawa Szymborska)
Gregory Taylor WORT-FM www.msn.fullfeed.com/~gtaylor/RTQE.html 608.828.3385
Phil Nation
Alexander Baron (A_B...@abaron.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <sIpIsn0OJtIk-p...@dap01-146080.untn.sgi.net>
: i...@usaor.com "Ian McKinney" writes:
: > > An ABC show ran something several years ago on racism, with a
: > > similar example. They had a White man and a Black man check out an
: > > apartment that was supposedly for rent. The Black man was told that
: > > the apartment was taken earlier that morning- after the White man was
: > > told it was still available and allowed to check the place out.
: Without more information your premise is worthless. Was the landlord
: Jewish? Was the landlord black?
The landlord was as White as I am. Do you think I would have brought
this up if he was Black, given the context of the discussion? If he was
Black, that would be discussion for another thread, not this one.
: Was the black man "shifty looking"? Was the white man a professional
: person. Etc.
Both were professionals; they were good friends who worked together
in a corporation. And who cares how the Black man looked? The fact is,
the landlord told him a bold-faced lie, one that he didn't tell the White
man.
: This sort of nonsense really won't do; people are beginning to see
: through it now.
??
Phil "could you have possibly been more vague?" Kasiecki
Phil Nation
Ian McKinney (i...@usaor.com) wrote:
: On Tue, 1 Sep 1998 03:58:04, pkas...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu (Phil Nation)
: > An ABC show ran something several years ago on racism, with a
: > similar example. They had a White man and a Black man check out an
: > apartment that was supposedly for rent. The Black man was told that the
: > apartment was taken earlier that morning- after the White man was told
: > it was still available and allowed to check the place out.
: So what? People should have the right rent or not to rent to whomever
: they want for whatever reason.
I'll lay even money that if the roles were reversed, McKinney would
be the first to say how wrong discrimination is.
Once again, we see White privilege blocking one's ability to have
any sense of morals.
Phil Kasiecki
pgroff
Baron) wrote:
>Without more information your premise is worthless. Was the landlord Jewish?
>man a professional person. Etc. This sort of nonsense really won't do; people
>are beginning to see through it now.
Alec, with your logic, I then must conclude that because you live in
the more bohemian section of London, your are influenced by your
surroundings, and cannot beheld accountable for your abusive nature,
those ugly little screeds that you publish, and the awful way you
conduct yourself in public. Yes, it is becoming obvious to me why you
post the material you do, blame it on your surroundings.
PGroff
|
To Believe that evil has its own,positive existence
is to incorrectly believe that there are two divine powers rather
than one.
|
http://www.holocaust-history.org
http://www.nizkor-usa.org
http://www.mazal.org
|
supporter of
http://www.nizkor.org
meje...@csulb.edu
pkas...@lynx.dac.neu.edu wrote:
> In article <904677...@abaron.demon.co.uk>,
> Alexander Baron (A_B...@abaron.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> : In article <sIpIsn0OJtIk-p...@dap01-146080.untn.sgi.net>
> : i...@usaor.com "Ian McKinney" writes:
>
> : > > similar example. They had a White man and a Black man check out an
> : > > apartment that was supposedly for rent. The Black man was told that
> : > > the apartment was taken earlier that morning- after the White man was
> : > > told it was still available and allowed to check the place out.
>
> : Jewish? Was the landlord black?
>
> this up if he was Black, given the context of the discussion? If he was
> Black, that would be discussion for another thread, not this one.
>
> : person. Etc.
>
> Both were professionals; they were good friends who worked together
> in a corporation. And who cares how the Black man looked? The fact is,
> the landlord told him a bold-faced lie, one that he didn't tell the White
> man.
>
capital felony.
Michael
Dan Lungren for Governor of California
meje...@csulb.edu
pkas...@lynx.dac.neu.edu wrote:
> In article <sIpIsn0OJtIk-p...@dap01-146080.untn.sgi.net>,
> Ian McKinney (i...@usaor.com) wrote:
> : On Tue, 1 Sep 1998 03:58:04, pkas...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu (Phil Nation)
> : wrote:
> : > similar example. They had a White man and a Black man check out an
> : > apartment that was supposedly for rent. The Black man was told that the
> : > apartment was taken earlier that morning- after the White man was told
> : > it was still available and allowed to check the place out.
>
> : they want for whatever reason.
>
> I'll lay even money that if the roles were reversed, McKinney would
> be the first to say how wrong discrimination is.
>
> Once again, we see White privilege blocking one's ability to have
> any sense of morals.
>
> Phil Kasiecki
If they believed that inferior people should be exterminated,they would gas
themselves.
Alexander Baron
pkas...@lynx.dac.neu.edu "Phil Nation" writes:
>
> : Without more information your premise is worthless. Was the landlord
> : Jewish? Was the landlord black?
>
> The landlord was as White as I am. Do you think I would have brought
> this up if he was Black, given the context of the discussion? If he was
> Black, that would be discussion for another thread, not this one.
>
> : Was the black man "shifty looking"? Was the white man a professional
> : person. Etc.
>
> Both were professionals; they were good friends who worked together
> in a corporation. And who cares how the Black man looked?
Well, how about if he had a tattoo on his forehead?
>The fact is,
> the landlord told him a bold-faced lie, one that he didn't tell the White
> man.
>
> : This sort of nonsense really won't do; people are beginning to see
> : through it now.
>
> ??
>
> Phil "could you have possibly been more vague?" Kasiecki
>
Like I said, it won't do. I remember an incident at Victoria Station
a few years ago very well. I got into a train carriage and sat down near the
only other occupant, a young black man. A white girl, probably an office
worker, opened the door, took one look at us, then slammed it shut and walked
further up the train. We looked at each other and laughed. Now if he'd
been sitting on his own and this had happened, would he have interpreted
this as - bore, bore - racism?
Should he have taken offence? Should we both have taken offence?
Obviously not. This sort of nonsense doesn't prove anything.
Alexander Baron
pkas...@lynx.dac.neu.edu "Phil Nation" writes:
> be the first to say how wrong discrimination is.
>
> Once again, we see White privilege blocking one's ability to have
> any sense of morals.
White privilege, bullshit. I never met a man I hated so much that I wouldn't
take his money. If landlords or others want to discriminate that's their
choice. Personally I'd rather have taken the man's money.
ORAC
>White privilege, bullshit. I never met a man I hated so much that I wouldn't
>take his money. If landlords or others want to discriminate that's their
>choice. Personally I'd rather have taken the man's money.
Isn't that what you and other white racists say about Jews?
Wayne C. Leake
meje...@csulb.edu wrote:
> In article <6sinff$70n$2...@isn.dac.neu.edu>,
> pkas...@lynx.dac.neu.edu wrote:
> > In article <904677...@abaron.demon.co.uk>,
> > Alexander Baron (A_B...@abaron.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> > : In article <sIpIsn0OJtIk-p...@dap01-146080.untn.sgi.net>
> > : i...@usaor.com "Ian McKinney" writes:
> >
> > : > > An ABC show ran something several years ago on racism, with a
> > : > > similar example. They had a White man and a Black man check out an
> > : > > apartment that was supposedly for rent. The Black man was told that
> > : > > the apartment was taken earlier that morning- after the White man was
> > : > > told it was still available and allowed to check the place out.
> >
> > : Without more information your premise is worthless. Was the landlord
> > : Jewish? Was the landlord black?
> >
> > The landlord was as White as I am. Do you think I would have brought
> > this up if he was Black, given the context of the discussion? If he was
> > Black, that would be discussion for another thread, not this one.
> >
> > : Was the black man "shifty looking"? Was the white man a professional
> > : person. Etc.
> >
> > Both were professionals; they were good friends who worked together
> > in a corporation. And who cares how the Black man looked? The fact is,
> > the landlord told him a bold-faced lie, one that he didn't tell the White
> > man.
> >
> Yes,this is a serious problem. I believe this sort of thing should be a
> capital felony.
>
I don't think Capital is the word.
It is, however, illegal in most states.
Richard G. Philllips
>
> Charles Don Hall wrote:
>
> > In article <35EBD8E6...@rio.com>, Chuck Ferree <chu...@rio.com> wrote:
> > >there reading a book. He was a Tech-Sgt., Former Marine. Anyway I asked him to
> > >refuel my plane, and he said: "refuel it yourself, I'm busy." At first I was
> > >flabergasted, then I gave him a direct order. He didn't move. I reported him to our
> > >Exec. Officer, who was also flying with us, and we walked back to my plane, and I
> > >ordered him once again to refuel. He ignored both of us. The Exec. Officer said to
> > >private." So I told the crew chief he was busted, he gave some smart-assed
> > >response. Within three days, he was court-martialed, and transferred to the
> > >Infantry, lost six months pay.
> >
> > Well, don't keep us in suspense!! What book was he reading?? It sounds like
> > it must have been pretty good.
>
>
> >
> >
> > --
> > =================================================================
> > Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher (ch...@eco.twg.com)
> > The Graduation Webpage: http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Ginza/4185
> > =================================================================
================================================
PHillips
Did THIS really happen in World War II. I thought orders were obeyed in
those days. Of course, Vietnam was another matter.
=========================================
Richard G. Philllips
>
> In article <sIpIsn0OJtIk-p...@dap01-146080.untn.sgi.net>,
> Ian McKinney (i...@usaor.com) wrote:
> : On Tue, 1 Sep 1998 03:58:04, pkas...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu (Phil Nation)
> : wrote:
> : > similar example. They had a White man and a Black man check out an
> : > apartment that was supposedly for rent. The Black man was told that the
> : > apartment was taken earlier that morning- after the White man was told
> : > it was still available and allowed to check the place out.
Phillips
I am bound to ask: why this very strong urge among blacks to live
amongst whites. Is it that they cannot abide living amongst their own
kind?
Is it so strange that whites should prefer to have forced upon them
precisely the conditions that so many black people wish to get away
from?
===========================================================
>
> : So what? People should have the right rent or not to rent to whomever
> : they want for whatever reason.
>
> I'll lay even money that if the roles were reversed, McKinney would
> be the first to say how wrong discrimination is.
>
> Once again, we see White privilege blocking one's ability to have
> any sense of morals.
>
Chuck Ferree
Richard G. Philllips wrote:
> Phil Nation wrote:
> >
> > In article <sIpIsn0OJtIk-p...@dap01-146080.untn.sgi.net>,
> > Ian McKinney (i...@usaor.com) wrote:
> > : On Tue, 1 Sep 1998 03:58:04, pkas...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu (Phil Nation)
> > : wrote:
> > : > An ABC show ran something several years ago on racism, with a
> > : > similar example. They had a White man and a Black man check out an
> > : > apartment that was supposedly for rent. The Black man was told that the
> > : > apartment was taken earlier that morning- after the White man was told
> > : > it was still available and allowed to check the place out.
CF:>>>Still unfortunately, a common practice in the USA. It's wrong, and it's
also illegal.
> ===============================================================
> Phillips
>
> I am bound to ask: why this very strong urge among blacks to live
> amongst whites. Is it that they cannot abide living amongst their own
> kind?
CF:>>>>Of course, phillips, you are bound to ask this racist question.I don't
know how strong the urge is, but Americans do live in a free country, where we
all have equal opportunity to: "pursue happiness," among other goals and
objectives.
Who are *you, phillips, to decide that: " All Men Are *Not Created Equal and
entitled to the pursuit of happiness?" You know, phillips, I am aware that there
are an abundance of racists out there, and of all the people whom I believe this
country would better off without, racists and bigots top the list.
I know about racism, I have witnessed this obscene practice in the Military, in
civilian life, in my own career with major US Corporations. I wouldn't tolerate
it then, and I don't tolerate it now. As a 50 year member of the Elks, I fought
to have the "Whites Only" clause removed from the Elks constitution. My Lodge in
San Diego, California demanded that I resign, in 1967. I refused to resign, and
three years later, the National membership *voted to remove that very clause. It
wasn't to permit Blacks to submit applications for membership, it was because the
bigots in that very good Fraternity, *thought......that there would be a rush of
Blacks trying to get into our Lodge. That didn't happen, and it still hasn't
happened, but anybody can apply, and the membership votes to accept on merit and
sponsorship. The point being, what an evil thing racism really is, and for no
valid reason. I know of no racists, and in my lifetime I have known many a
racist, who can give me a rational explanation for their racist attitude, and
that's what it is, an ugly attitude.
> Is it so strange that whites should prefer to have forced upon them
> precisely the conditions that so many black people wish to get away
> from?
CF:>>>first of all, phillips, you are one white man. You can't speak for anybody
but yourself.
White Spirit
> >Phillips
> >
> >I must remind you of just WHOSE country this is.
>
> and ethnicities.
>
> I know you don't like that, but I like it that you don't like that.
And for those of us who don't like it, we just continue to keep our
towns and neighborhoods white and right. We recently purchased a home
from a real estate agency and specifically requested that we are not
shown any neighborhoods where there are blacks.Fortunately, we live in
that kind of town. The white agent did not even bat an eyelash and
smiled "Yes, I understand.....we know what you want."
It is right now a silent power that governs the arrangement of blacks
in business and residence...lest they get too close for comfort. The
whites still hold the high card dude. Blacks aren't even in the game,
They have neither the smarts nor the money to stand up to the big boys.
Pass a cigar over here, Joel...maybe I'll let you cut the cards....just
keep your hands off my money.
White Spirit
Phil Nation
Alexander Baron (A_B...@abaron.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <6sinff$70n$2...@isn.dac.neu.edu>
: pkas...@lynx.dac.neu.edu "Phil Nation" writes:
: > : Was the black man "shifty looking"? Was the white man a professional
: > : person. Etc.
: > Both were professionals; they were good friends who worked together
: > in a corporation. And who cares how the Black man looked?
: Well, how about if he had a tattoo on his forehead?
Depends on the tattoo, if that even makes a difference. I know
plenty of perfectly decent, law-abiding people who have tattoos.
: > : This sort of nonsense really won't do; people are beginning to see
: > : through it now.
: > ??
: >
: > Phil "could you have possibly been more vague?" Kasiecki
: Like I said, it won't do.
Why? Because you say so?
: I remember an incident at Victoria Station a few years ago very well.
: I got into a train carriage and sat down near the only other occupant,
: a young black man. A white girl, probably an office worker, opened the
: door, took one look at us, then slammed it shut and walked further up
: the train. We looked at each other and laughed. Now if he'd been sitting
: on his own and this had happened, would he have interpreted this as -
: bore, bore - racism?
: Should he have taken offence? Should we both have taken offence?
: Obviously not. This sort of nonsense doesn't prove anything.
You can't compare this at all to being told a lie about the
availability of an apartment because of your skin color. This is
ridiculous. This, and your "bore, bore" comment illustrate that you
speak from the perspective of a privileged person who doesn't have to
deal with the negative realities of race. You can conveniently ignore
it and write it off as "bore, bore".
Thomas Mohr
<rgp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
< snip >
>> : > An ABC show ran something several years ago on racism, with a
>> : > similar example. They had a White man and a Black man check out an
>> : > apartment that was supposedly for rent. The Black man was told that the
>> : > apartment was taken earlier that morning- after the White man was told
>> : > it was still available and allowed to check the place out.
>===============================================================
>Phillips
>
>I am bound to ask: why this very strong urge among blacks to live
>amongst whites. Is it that they cannot abide living amongst their own
>kind?
Ever thought that blacks want to move OUT of the ghettos when they get
more wealthy ?
>Is it so strange that whites should prefer to have forced upon them
>precisely the conditions that so many black people wish to get away
>from?
Phillips, use your brain-cell. If people want to get away from
conditions, it's unlikely that they create them again. Got that ?
Phil Nation
Richard G. Philllips (rgp...@earthlink.net) wrote:
: Phil Nation wrote:
: > In article <sIpIsn0OJtIk-p...@dap01-146080.untn.sgi.net>,
: > Ian McKinney (i...@usaor.com) wrote:
: > : On Tue, 1 Sep 1998 03:58:04, pkas...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu (Phil Nation)
: > : wrote:
: > : > similar example. They had a White man and a Black man check out an
: > : > apartment that was supposedly for rent. The Black man was told that
: > : > the apartment was taken earlier that morning- after the White man
: > : > was told it was still available and allowed to check the place out.
: ===============================================================
: Phillips
: I am bound to ask: why this very strong urge among blacks to live
: amongst whites. Is it that they cannot abide living amongst their own
: kind?
Idiot!! This was done for a show to investigate racism in the US,
and to show viewers where things are today on this issue (well, at the
time anyway; this was done almost 10 years ago, as I recall). Can't you
read? I guess not.
And for the record, most Blacks don't care about the demographics of
where they live.
: Is it so strange that whites should prefer to have forced upon them
: precisely the conditions that so many black people wish to get away
: from?
Before you ask this question, you have to prove that Black people
moving to predominately White areas are doing so because of the
demographics of the respective areas. Otherwise, the question is moot
since the premise has no factual backing.
Phil Nation
: pkas...@lynx.dac.neu.edu "Phil Nation" writes:
: > be the first to say how wrong discrimination is.
: >
: > Once again, we see White privilege blocking one's ability to have
: > any sense of morals.
: White privilege, bullshit. I never met a man I hated so much that I
: wouldn't take his money. If landlords or others want to discriminate
: that's their choice. Personally I'd rather have taken the man's money.
Then why do you justify the action?
My point was directed to McKinney. I'll lay even money that if
someone did to him what was done to the Black man in the ABC story I
mentioned, he'd be the first to talk about how wrong discrimination is.
But since that doesn't happen to him, he can easily justify the action.
White privilege...
Thomas Mohr
>On Sun, 30 Aug 1998 16:21:10, thomas.kei...@magnet.at (Thomas
>Mohr) wrote:
>
>> That depends. Imagine following scenario: you are my employee. I
>> engage a black because he is the best and install him as your
>> supervisor. You make troubles out of racial reasons.
>
>Blah, blah, blah. Here we go again with another "expert" opinion on
>racial matters from a liberal who lives in a country with virtually no
>non-whites in it.
Here goes another post by Mckinney, a narrow minded racist who knows
nothing about almost everything. McKinney, your problem is that you
ran out of arguments for your idiotic little ideology. Admit defeat
and clear off.
Richard G. Philllips
>
> Richard G. Philllips wrote:
>
> > Phil Nation wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <sIpIsn0OJtIk-p...@dap01-146080.untn.sgi.net>,
> > > Ian McKinney (i...@usaor.com) wrote:
> > > : On Tue, 1 Sep 1998 03:58:04, pkas...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu (Phil Nation)
> > > : wrote:
> > > : > An ABC show ran something several years ago on racism, with a
> > > : > similar example. They had a White man and a Black man check out an
> > > : > apartment that was supposedly for rent. The Black man was told that the
> > > : > apartment was taken earlier that morning- after the White man was told
> > > : > it was still available and allowed to check the place out.
>
> also illegal.
>
> > Phillips
> >
> > I am bound to ask: why this very strong urge among blacks to live
> > amongst whites. Is it that they cannot abide living amongst their own
> > kind?
>
Phillips
By calling it a "racist" question what you really meant was an
inconvenient question. But of course calling it "racist" relieves you of
the need to reply to it.
=================================================
I don't
> know how strong the urge is, but Americans do live in a free country, where we
> all have equal opportunity to: "pursue happiness," among other goals and
> objectives.
===============================================
Phillips
"Freedom" does not mean the freedom to force yourself into places where
you are not wanted.
Permit me to point out that white people have rights as well.
==================================================================================
> Who are *you, phillips, to decide that: " All Men Are *Not Created Equal and
> entitled to the pursuit of happiness?"
==================================================
Phillips
(1) When the Declaration of Independence said that all men are created
equal it did not mean "all men" to include blacks.
(2) Furthermore, by equal it meant equal before the law; not equal in
talent, character or capacity.
If happiness for certain blacks is forcing their way into my
neighborhood, happiness for me is keeping them out. I'll be damned if
I'll have inflicted on me the same conditions that these people helped
create and are now themselves fleeing from.
===============================================================
You know, phillips, I am aware that there
> are an abundance of racists out there, and of all the people whom I believe this
> country would better off without, racists and bigots top the list.
==================================================================
Phillips
Do you call Jefferson and Lincoln racists because they wanted the blacks
repatriated?
Do you call Theodore rooosevelt a racist because he had very definite
ideas as to what should be and should not be black roles in America.
Do you call Calvin Coollidge a racist when he praised the 1924
restrictive immigration act because it "keeps America American."
=============================================================
> I know about racism, I have witnessed this obscene practice in the Military, in
> civilian life, in my own career with major US Corporations. I wouldn't tolerate
> it then, and I don't tolerate it now. As a 50 year member of the Elks, I fought
> to have the "Whites Only" clause removed from the Elks constitution. My Lodge in
> San Diego, California demanded that I resign, in 1967. I refused to resign, and
> three years later, the National membership *voted to remove that very clause. It
> wasn't to permit Blacks to submit applications for membership, it was because the
> bigots in that very good Fraternity, *thought......that there would be a rush of
> Blacks trying to get into our Lodge. That didn't happen, and it still hasn't
> happened, but anybody can apply, and the membership votes to accept on merit and
> sponsorship. The point being, what an evil thing racism really is, and for no
> valid reason. I know of no racists, and in my lifetime I have known many a
> racist, who can give me a rational explanation for their racist attitude, and
> that's what it is, an ugly attitude.
===========================================
Phillips
Quite so, we cannot give you a "rational" explanation for our racism and
we do not have the slightest intention of trying. It is something that
comes from deep within our beings and it is utterly beyond any reason or
logic. But then exactly the same thing is true of love. do you
similarly condemn love on that account.
==============================================
>
> > Is it so strange that whites should prefer to have forced upon them
> > precisely the conditions that so many black people wish to get away
> > from?
>
> CF:>>>first of all, phillips, you are one white man. You can't speak for anybody
> but yourself.
================================================
PHillips
I trust I am permitted to ecxpress a distillation of what I have
observed over the past 50-60 years of my life.
================================================================
>
> > ===========================================================
> > >
> > > : So what? People should have the right rent or not to rent to whomever
> > > : they want for whatever reason.
> > >
> > > I'll lay even money that if the roles were reversed, McKinney would
> > > be the first to say how wrong discrimination is.
> > >
> > > Once again, we see White privilege blocking one's ability to have
> > > any sense of morals.
> > >
Richard G. Philllips
>
> On Wed, 02 Sep 1998 18:44:43 -0400, "Richard G. Philllips"
> <rgp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
> >> : > similar example. They had a White man and a Black man check out an
> >> : > apartment that was supposedly for rent. The Black man was told that the
> >> : > apartment was taken earlier that morning- after the White man was told
> >> : > it was still available and allowed to check the place out.
> >Phillips
> >
> >I am bound to ask: why this very strong urge among blacks to live
> >amongst whites. Is it that they cannot abide living amongst their own
> >kind?
>
> more wealthy ?
>
> >precisely the conditions that so many black people wish to get away
> >from?
>
> conditions, it's unlikely that they create them again. Got that ?
PHillips
Yes, I've got it and, now that I have gotten it, I herewith consign it
to the trash barrel where it belongs.
The first blacks who seek to move into a white neighborhood are usually
persons who, judged on their personal merits, no one could take
exception to. It is not those persons who are so violently objected to;
it is what will inevitably follow them. For once these black model
citizens have a foothold, they will soon be followed other
not-quite-so-model blacks and they in turn will be followed by even less
desireable types. Once the blacks get a foothold it is only a matter of
time before the neighborhood is made uninhabitable for whites.
So spare me any more of your tolerance bilge. You llive in a virtually
all-white country where this has never happened. I have lived all my
life in America and have SEEN it happen countless times.
==============================================================
Richard G. Philllips
> : Phil Nation wrote:
> : > In article <sIpIsn0OJtIk-p...@dap01-146080.untn.sgi.net>,
> : > Ian McKinney (i...@usaor.com) wrote:
> : > : On Tue, 1 Sep 1998 03:58:04, pkas...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu (Phil Nation)
> : > : wrote:
> : > : > similar example. They had a White man and a Black man check out an
> : > : > apartment that was supposedly for rent. The Black man was told that
> : > : > the apartment was taken earlier that morning- after the White man
> : > : > was told it was still available and allowed to check the place out.
> : ===============================================================
> : Phillips
>
> : I am bound to ask: why this very strong urge among blacks to live
> : amongst whites. Is it that they cannot abide living amongst their own
> : kind?
>
> and to show viewers where things are today on this issue (well, at the
> time anyway; this was done almost 10 years ago, as I recall). Can't you
> read? I guess not.
>
> And for the record, most Blacks don't care about the demographics of
> where they live.
>
> : precisely the conditions that so many black people wish to get away
> : from?
>
> moving to predominately White areas are doing so because of the
> demographics of the respective areas. Otherwise, the question is moot
> since the premise has no factual backing.
Phillips
OK. Then suppose you tell me why so many blacks want to move into white
areas.
===================================
Thomas Mohr
<rgp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
< snip >
>> Who are *you, phillips, to decide that: " All Men Are *Not Created Equal and
>> entitled to the pursuit of happiness?"
>==================================================
>Phillips
>
>(1) When the Declaration of Independence said that all men are created
>equal it did not mean "all men" to include blacks.
Phillips, have you an idea how laws are interpreted ?
First, you take the law as it is written.
Second, if that is doubtful, and only then, you interpret the
intention of the law. If that is doubtful, you interpret the
intentions of the law-giving body.
In that case, "all men are created equal" the law is crystal clear and
it includes blacks. Do you get that ?
If you say that blacks are NOT included, you preclude that they are
not huamns. Do you do that ?
>(2) Furthermore, by equal it meant equal before the law; not equal in
>talent, character or capacity.
Wow, a real triviality.
>If happiness for certain blacks is forcing their way into my
>neighborhood, happiness for me is keeping them out. I'll be damned if
>I'll have inflicted on me the same conditions that these people helped
>create and are now themselves fleeing from.
People *fleeing* from certain conditions hardly will creat them
elsewhere.
<snip >
>Phillips
>
>Do you call Jefferson and Lincoln racists because they wanted the blacks
>repatriated?
That depends on the reason why. If it would be a reason like yours,
they have to be called racist. Just because they are among your
founding fathers doesn't mean they are shining examples in all things
or saints. Obviously US-Americans often have a difficulty to see their
founding fathers what they really are: Children of their (and I
repeat: THEIR) time with all their goods and bads. And no saints - and
surely not shinig examples in everything.
< snip >
>===========================================
>Phillips
>
>Quite so, we cannot give you a "rational" explanation for our racism and
>we do not have the slightest intention of trying. It is something that
>comes from deep within our beings and it is utterly beyond any reason or
>logic.
A very true word. Racism is truely beyond any reason or logic. It is
also beyond all sense and use.
>But then exactly the same thing is true of love. do you
>similarly condemn love on that account.
Contrary to racism, love HAS a reason, and a sense.
>PHillips
>
>I trust I am permitted to ecxpress a distillation of what I have
>observed over the past 50-60 years of my life.
>================================================================
There is a famous song in Germany: "60 years and not a bit of wisdom"
.. well that just came to my mind on that remark.
Thomas Mohr
<rgp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
< snip >
>The first blacks who seek to move into a white neighborhood are usually
>persons who, judged on their personal merits, no one could take
>exception to. It is not those persons who are so violently objected to;
>it is what will inevitably follow them. For once these black model
>citizens have a foothold, they will soon be followed other
>not-quite-so-model blacks and they in turn will be followed by even less
>desireable types. Once the blacks get a foothold it is only a matter of
>time before the neighborhood is made uninhabitable for whites.
>
>So spare me any more of your tolerance bilge. You llive in a virtually
>all-white country where this has never happened. I have lived all my
>life in America and have SEEN it happen countless times.
>==============================================================
Demographic shifts happen everywhere. The same is the case in Austria
with Turks, with one difference, contrary to your blacks, which have
practically the same culture than you have (if you want it or not),
Turks alse bring with them an entirely different culture. Until
recently it is the same mechanism, declining living quality, rising
crime, everything - slummification. However, now we have
neighbourhoods in Vienna which are almost 60-90% Turkish, yet you can
live decently there. Do you ask yourself why we have - contrary to the
US no slums there ? The solution is simple. The city has good (and
working) revitalization programs for areas which are in danger to
become a slum. We have an effective legislation against speculation
with houses (you have to own a house at least 10 years - if you live
in only three years) before you can sell it without being taxed with
20%). and we have a strict and effective legislation protecting both
the owner and the inhabitant of the house, appartment or whatever.
Jeffrey G. Brown
Philllips") wrote:
>I trust I am permitted to ecxpress a distillation of what I have
>observed over the past 50-60 years of my life.
Of course you are.
Just as I'm permitted to express my observation -- backed up by
documentary evidence -- that you're a liar.
JGB
=====================================================================
Jeffrey G. Brown jeff_...@bigfoot.com
"What's going to happen?" "Something wonderful..." -- '2010'
ORAC
>Phil Nation wrote:
>>
>> In article <sIpIsn0OJtIk-p...@dap01-146080.untn.sgi.net>,
>> Ian McKinney (i...@usaor.com) wrote:
>> : On Tue, 1 Sep 1998 03:58:04, pkas...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu (Phil Nation)
>> : wrote:
>> : > An ABC show ran something several years ago on racism, with a
>> : > similar example. They had a White man and a Black man check out an
>> : > apartment that was supposedly for rent. The Black man was told that the
>> : > apartment was taken earlier that morning- after the White man was told
>> : > it was still available and allowed to check the place out.
>
>I am bound to ask: why this very strong urge among blacks to live
>amongst whites. Is it that they cannot abide living amongst their own
>kind?
No, it's more an urge common to poor people of every race to escape their
poverty-stricken neighborhoods when they attain the means.
>Is it so strange that whites should prefer to have forced upon them
>precisely the conditions that so many black people wish to get away
>from?
It's a class issue, not a race issue. When blacks achieve the middle
class, they tend to want to move to the better neighborhoods in the
suburbs, just like the whites and European immigrants before them.
Fantomas
Thomas Mohr <thomas.kei...@magnet.at> escribió en artículo
<35e91d92...@news.univie.ac.at>...
> On Sun, 30 Aug 1998 00:33:20 GMT, i...@usaor.com (Ian McKinney) wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
> >Your crime data interpretations are worthless and laughable to anyone
> >who has had real-life experience with non-whites.
anyone who has had real life experience with nonwhites will know that
people
are people, and scum are scum regardless of race.
You don't have that.
> >You're in a White country
And why aren´t you McKaradzic ? Why aren´t you killing children with your
relatives
in the ¨Real IRA ¨ ?
and all you know about Black behavior is what
> >you're heard in some liberal social studies professor's class!
And all you know about it is what you´ve heard in some loony neo-Nazi
ex-chemistry professor´s inane website.
> I have real life experience with non-whites. In fact some of my best
> friends are non-whites. McKinney, if my analysis is that worthless,
> why are you unable to disprove it - except by telling with personal
> and very biased anecdotes which have zero value for the overall
> picture ?
McKaradzic has no right to be on alt.california as he has never been in
California and has contempt for it. Why isn´t he posting his garbage in a
group like soc.politics.yugoslavia where he can be amongst his own
kind defending Serb atrocities
>
>
ORAC
<mort...@homail.com> wrote:
>And for those of us who don't like it, we just continue to keep our
>towns and neighborhoods white and right. We recently purchased a home
>from a real estate agency and specifically requested that we are not
>shown any neighborhoods where there are blacks.Fortunately, we live in
>that kind of town. The white agent did not even bat an eyelash and
>smiled "Yes, I understand.....we know what you want."
> It is right now a silent power that governs the arrangement of blacks
>in business and residence...lest they get too close for comfort. The
>whites still hold the high card dude. Blacks aren't even in the game,
>They have neither the smarts nor the money to stand up to the big boys.
>Pass a cigar over here, Joel...maybe I'll let you cut the cards....just
>keep your hands off my money.
I see a contradiction here. If what you say above is the case, then why
are your fellow white power rangers always whining about the encroaching
"brown hordes" and how blacks and other minorities are threatening to
displace "Aryans" from their supposedly rightful place in society?
Alexander Baron
rgp...@earthlink.net "Richard G. Philllips" writes:
> I am bound to ask: why this very strong urge among blacks to live
> amongst whites. Is it that they cannot abide living amongst their own
> kind?
There is no such strong urge among most blacks but there are a lot of
people hard at work trying to convince them how evil whitey is.
Alexander Baron
ORA...@aol.com "ORAC" writes:
> In article <904740...@abaron.demon.co.uk>, A_B...@abaron.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
> >White privilege, bullshit. I never met a man I hated so much that I wouldn't
> >take his money. If landlords or others want to discriminate that's their
> >choice. Personally I'd rather have taken the man's money.
>
> Isn't that what you and other white racists say about Jews?
As I am not a white "racist" I would have to answer no. And that notwithstanding
that the concept of racism is bulshit.
justi...@yahoo.com
In article <6slk0k$4v0$2...@isn.dac.neu.edu>,
pkas...@lynx.dac.neu.edu wrote:
> In article <904740...@abaron.demon.co.uk>,
> Alexander Baron (A_B...@abaron.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> : In article <6sinmo$70n$3...@isn.dac.neu.edu>
> : pkas...@lynx.dac.neu.edu "Phil Nation" writes:
> : >
> : > Once again, we see White privilege blocking one's ability to have
> : > any sense of morals.
>
> : wouldn't take his money. If landlords or others want to discriminate
> : that's their choice. Personally I'd rather have taken the man's money.
>
>
> My point was directed to McKinney. I'll lay even money that if
> someone did to him what was done to the Black man in the ABC story I
> mentioned, he'd be the first to talk about how wrong discrimination is.
> But since that doesn't happen to him, he can easily justify the action.
> White privilege...
>
>
> --
> Philip T. Kasiecki
> pkas...@ieee.org
> http://lynx.dac.neu.edu/p/pkasieck/
>
> "Life is not important except in the impact it has on others' lives."
> -Jackie Robinson
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Richard G. Philllips
>
> On Thu, 03 Sep 1998 06:23:06 -0400, "Richard G. Philllips"
> <rgp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
> >> entitled to the pursuit of happiness?"
> >==================================================
> >Phillips
> >
> >(1) When the Declaration of Independence said that all men are created
> >equal it did not mean "all men" to include blacks.
>
>
> First, you take the law as it is written.
> Second, if that is doubtful, and only then, you interpret the
> intention of the law. If that is doubtful, you interpret the
> intentions of the law-giving body.
>
> In that case, "all men are created equal" the law is crystal clear and
> it includes blacks. Do you get that ?
Phillips
That blacks and whites are equal in today's America is an unquestioned
legal fact but then it is equally so that the Sedition Act was an
unquestioned legal fact in 1798 and that the fugitive Slave law was a
legal fact in 1858. thus, the mere fact that something is enshrined into
law does not make it either wise or right.
======================================================
>
> If you say that blacks are NOT included, you preclude that they are
> not huamns. Do you do that ?
===========================================
Philllips
Not so. I do not deny their humanity. I do however maintain that they
are at a different state of evolutionary development and that this has
to be taken into account.
======================================
>
> >(2) Furthermore, by equal it meant equal before the law; not equal in
> >talent, character or capacity.
>
> Wow, a real triviality.
>
> >If happiness for certain blacks is forcing their way into my
> >neighborhood, happiness for me is keeping them out. I'll be damned if
> >I'll have inflicted on me the same conditions that these people helped
> >create and are now themselves fleeing from.
>
> People *fleeing* from certain conditions hardly will creat them
> elsewhere.
================================================
Phillips
Oh? Just who created the ghastly conditions in ghettoes except the
people who lived there.
=====================================
>
> <snip >
>
> >Phillips
> >
> >Do you call Jefferson and Lincoln racists because they wanted the blacks
> >repatriated?
>
> That depends on the reason why.
=======================================
Phillips
Their reason was that they saw with perfect clarity that balck people
could never truly integrate into our soceity. And God, how they have
been proven right.
I put far more stock in men of proven patriotism, character and
integrity than I do in the last fads of wise-assed elitists whose roots
in America, in many cases, are of very recent origin.
=========================================================
If it would be a reason like yours,
> they have to be called racist. Just because they are among your
> founding fathers doesn't mean they are shining examples in all things
> or saints. Obviously US-Americans often have a difficulty to see their
> founding fathers what they really are: Children of their (and I
> repeat: THEIR) time with all their goods and bads. And no saints - and
> surely not shinig examples in everything.
>
> < snip >
>
> >===========================================
> >Phillips
> >
> >Quite so, we cannot give you a "rational" explanation for our racism and
> >we do not have the slightest intention of trying. It is something that
> >comes from deep within our beings and it is utterly beyond any reason or
> >logic.
>
> A very true word. Racism is truely beyond any reason or logic. It is
> also beyond all sense and use.
>
> >But then exactly the same thing is true of love. do you
> >similarly condemn love on that account.
>
> Contrary to racism, love HAS a reason, and a sense.
==================================
Phillips
No, it does not have a reason. that is its very essence.
==============================
>
> >PHillips
> >
> >I trust I am permitted to ecxpress a distillation of what I have
> >observed over the past 50-60 years of my life.
> >================================================================
>
> There is a famous song in Germany: "60 years and not a bit of wisdom"
> .. well that just came to my mind on that remark.
========================================
PHillips
Liberal wiseassery. I've heard it before and I have heard it done
better.
==========================
>
Richard G. Philllips
>
> In article <35EDCA...@earthlink.net>, rgp...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> >Phil Nation wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <sIpIsn0OJtIk-p...@dap01-146080.untn.sgi.net>,
> >> Ian McKinney (i...@usaor.com) wrote:
> >> : On Tue, 1 Sep 1998 03:58:04, pkas...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu (Phil Nation)
> >> : wrote:
> >> : > An ABC show ran something several years ago on racism, with a
> >> : > similar example. They had a White man and a Black man check out an
> >> : > apartment that was supposedly for rent. The Black man was told that the
> >> : > apartment was taken earlier that morning- after the White man was told
> >> : > it was still available and allowed to check the place out.
> >
> >amongst whites. Is it that they cannot abide living amongst their own
> >kind?
>
> poverty-stricken neighborhoods when they attain the means.
>
> >Is it so strange that whites should prefer to have forced upon them
> >precisely the conditions that so many black people wish to get away
> >from?
====================================
PHillips
and so, merely because they have the means, we must allow them to come
into and ruin our neighborhoods just as they did with their own. Forget
it.
================================================
>
> It's a class issue, not a race issue. When blacks achieve the middle
> class, they tend to want to move to the better neighborhoods in the
> suburbs, just like the whites and European immigrants before them.
>