Racial Responsibility? What the Fuck?

O.k., I am recapping off of my last thread and the other new threads dealing with such subjects [in euphemism] as the 'stereotypical universal B.O. of Arab peoples' and '"What If" Slavery of Blacks was Reinstated as a Legal Institution' and there seems to be some reoccuring themes in the [il]logic of those who argue for the supremacy/pride/nationalism/genocide/subjugation/etc. of various races on all sides...

 [...I've seen forums in which it has literally turned into a White vs. Black vs. Yellow debate in which the racist Whites accuse ALL Blacks of inferiority and universal problem-making, the racist Blacks accuse ALL Whites of universally instituted racism and holding them back and the racist Yellows accuse the Whites AND Blacks of genetically objective inferiority [see: Wikipedia article on 'Race and Intelligence'] and themselves of being the true superior peoples of humanity... Egh, at least to me, all of these people just seem likepeople needing a lesson in objectivity playing out old evolutionarily primate neuro-script under the guise of objectivity and 'intellectualism'...]

...of this conflict. One of these themes is the theory that because a person is of a certain skin color, they are instantly and undeniably universally responsible AND A PART OF the actions of other people of that same skin color, whether positive or negative. Some of the arguments I've seen from various people who spout this 'Racial Responsibility' as if it was as absolute and irrefutable as the loads of other ignorance they consider true are...

From Racist Whites = "We Anglo-Saxxons have practically carried the Western World, European AND American on our backs. Economic, Scientific, Philosophic, Literary... all us. We have the Magna Carta. Shakespeare. Quantum Physics, the Constitution... all of it. All these inferior races have... what? Nothing." Analysis: So, based upon this logic of ability based on race, you're able to  recite all of Shakespeare's sonnets and plays, explain the structure and significance of Iambic Pentameter, explain the full spectrum of mathematic, physical and theoretical principles surrounding quantum mechanics and apparently do anything that anyone who's white has ever done... AND YOU WERE THERE AT THE MAGNA CARTA, TOO? WOW!

From Racist Blacks = Usually there is a mentioning of how their musical traditions have been stolen by Whites. Everything from original tribal beats to original Rock&Roll to Raggae to Funk to House to Disco to Jazz has been co-opted... Unh-huh... Same analysis, write and perform a song of the genres mentioned here based upon your obvious ability to do so as a black person and THEN talk to me.

You get my point people.

Discuss... rationally, please.

Don't get your point.

Shorten it down plz

¯\(°_o)/¯

I think I get it:

Just because we many philosophers and sienticst where whites it doest mean that you or me can do just what they did. And that everyone is responsible for their own actions. We should not judge all blacks just because some of them do bad things.

AmIrite?

Most Japanese can't do what the samurai did, but that doesn't mean they aren't proud of their ancestors and cultural forebears and RACIAL forebears that were samurai.

Seriously, all you anti-racists have a stick up your ass. Let people do what they want. Anti-racists are some of the most hateful and 'discriminatory' people around, especially when it comes to putting their nose into other people's beliefs and business. So, I'm proud of being white. Puhleeez, my heroes are white, and since I'm into everything from science to ol' school logical positivism, I've got a lot in common with my white forebears. We've got serious pride, and things to be proud about, in our ancestors. It doesn't give us superpowers or anything like that, but it definately gives up somebody to look up too. Gives us cultural meaning and a common heritage to share as well. White people have got alot to be proud of. In the past, we didn't take 'shit' from nobody. Hopefully more people will wise out and step out of this religion and inquisition of political correctness.

I say let people be proud of their racial heritage. Stop hating on whites. I've got serious racial love for my people.

Yours truly,
The Racist 

Yeah, let's hate solely on Saxons instead.
FRANKISH PRYDE!!!!

I'm pretty racist myself but I agree that people shouldn't base their opinions/beliefs on stereotypes or basically something that doesn't support their opinions well. 

How come you don't have a section on racist yellows? 

>>1
You already finnished the discussion.

"From Racist Whites = "We Anglo-Saxxons have practically carried the Western World, European AND American on our backs. Economic, Scientific, Philosophic, Literary... all us. We have the Magna Carta. Shakespeare. Quantum Physics, the Constitution... all of it. All these inferior races have... what? Nothing." Analysis: So, based upon this logic of ability based on race, you're able to  recite all of Shakespeare's sonnets and plays, explain the structure and significance of Iambic Pentameter, explain the full spectrum of mathematic, physical and theoretical principles surrounding quantum mechanics and apparently do anything that anyone who's white has ever done... AND YOU WERE THERE AT THE MAGNA CARTA, TOO? WOW!

From Racist Blacks = Usually there is a mentioning of how their musical traditions have been stolen by Whites. Everything from original tribal beats to original Rock&Roll to Raggae to Funk to House to Disco to Jazz has been co-opted... Unh-huh... Same analysis, write and perform a song of the genres mentioned here based upon your obvious ability to do so as a black person and THEN talk to me."

>>2
>>3
>>4
>>5

Since everything ever is TL;DR fo ryou guys, here:
Just because old white dudes did noteable things, doesn't mean that any given white dd you encounter is the next Einstein or Voltaire.
Just because old black dudes made tribal music that influenced music for many generations, doesn't mean and random black dud you meet is a musical genius.
Just because asians are stereotyped as being smart, doesn't mean some every asian person you meet will be a superultramega genius.

>>10
WTF is wrong with my keyboard?!
Sorry,

Since everything ever is TL;DR for you guys, here:
Just because old white dudes did noteable things, doesn't mean that any given white dude you encounter is the next Einstein or Voltaire.
Just because old black dudes made tribal music that influenced music for many generations, doesn't mean and random black dude you meet is a musical genius.
Just because asians are stereotyped as being smart, doesn't mean some every asian person you meet will be a superultramega genius.

There, now the spelling isn't all fucked up

>>10
Your spelling sucks, you must be a female canadian with south western Irish ancestry between the ages of 22-34.

>>10
GTFO

>>10
FUCK OFF SNARKLON

I am NOT knocking White Pride... Well actually, I am... Mostly because it seems foolish for so many different white, black, asian, etc. cultural backgrounds to all automatically group themselves together into one mega-culture.
Kind of like whites who automatically take up their "Nordic" and "Celtic" heritage without actual proof of having ancestors that were actually involved in the events that forged those cultures.
Kind of like blacks who automatically take up their "Slave" and "African High Bred" [Nubian, Egyptian, etc.] heritage without having any actual proof of ancestors involved in the events that forged those cultures.

On Asian Racists: I realize that there are many Asian racists out there, but lets face it folks: Besides the occasional nationalistic "Got Rice, Nigga?"-spouting fool from Asia or America, there doesn't seem to be as many well... nationalistic fools coming around 4chan and other websites spouting off their particular brand of ignorance.

On stereotyped behavior of "Anti-Racists": I'm Libertarian, against political correctness and am a full supporter of your pride in your ancestor's achievements... [Besides grouping all of the Caucasian people's various cultures under the label of just WHITE. That seems more of an insult to the forebearers of Western Civilization... Caking them all together and erasing their individual/cultural achievements rather than recognizing them.], but I don't appreciate one thing...

How the Politics section of World4Chan and some of the associated Image Boards of the [#]Chan network have degraded into all out racism...

If you want to show pride in your peoples, then please, do. Don't let any bleeding heart "white guilt"-spouting liberal tell you what to think or how to act.

If you want to make social commentary on the various sides of the Cultural Wars, whether on the social or racial aspect, then please do... But please keep it tasteful, free of slurs [Which you should all know more or less degrade the quality of an argument anyway.] and a commentary meant to invoke free thought and thoughtful speech, not put down a whole type of people for the actions of a minority of those people. Whether through images or words...

This is all I ask that may happen here. I realize we have a diverse and...creepily open community here sometimes, but there is a very thin line between expressing oneselves freely and freely being a fucktard. Ponder this. Thank you.

1. Racism isn't a bad thing. It's a current taboo. What is racism? Racism means that you believe that races exist, races being the convergence of statistical data in observations to correlate to probabilities that certain traits will show up in a population group due to shared genetic, primarily, and cultural, secondarily, characteristics. These probabalities are actually closed to Bayesian, being that they are more like confidence that something will be a certain way rather than reflecting an actual 'real' probablity as is the case with quantum physics.

2. When you say racism, you seem to be using it inapproiately as a term that means, "white dominated interracial conflict."

Whites do not dominate every interracial conflict, and when they do they tend to be rather tame. The full-blown 'informal' genocide and removal of whites in Zimbabwe/Rhodesia and in South Africa seems to be a nice contrast.

http://www.africancrisis.org/default2.asp

Let's take the United States, for instance. Let's consider the immigration problem racially. Living space is a limited commodity; Japan illustrates this concept nicely. Right now, white living space in the United States is being threatened by an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. In Europe, the white population is being threatened by a muslim population.

Throughout this conflict, whites standing up for white self-interest are being portrayed as immoral or villanous somehow, i.e. racist (a term that is silly as the much ballyhoo-ed anti-semetic.) Ones that stand up for anti-white activity are seen as progressive. No one questions the right of
these various non-white populations to encroach upon the territory of white populations.

To illustrate this let's take into account Bob's mantra:

BOB'S MANTRA
"Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries."


"The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them."


"Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites."


"What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?"


"How long would it take anyone to realize I'm not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?"


"And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn't object to this?"


"But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews."


"They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white."


"Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white."
 

Bob Whitaker

http://www.whitakeronline.org/
----------------

This is the interesting part of this topic. Whites are 'suggested' in modern white cultures to not stand up for their own self interest. It's racial and cultural suicide on a massive scale.



My theories on who heads the propagation of this implicit anti-white attitude? It's a group that no one dares criticize. They are incredibly powerful within the economies and media of nearly every white country today; they somehow manage to get billions upon billions of dollars in free aid to a country that has little to do with the self-interest of the United States; they control the most powerful lobby in the United States; they implicitly direct the military and foreign policy of the United States; they regularly commit atrocities without mention; they attacked a military vessel of the United States with the intention to damage relations or start a war between the U.S. and Egypt; they practice a religion which preaches ethnic superiority and xenophobia; they have been repeatedly removed from countries after they 'overstayed' their welcome to the point of becoming destructive pests and refusing to assimilate; they have been remarked on negatively by some of the greatest figures in Western history.

"If you want to identify the real rulers of any society, simply ask yourself this question: Who is it that I cannot criticize?"

>>16
immigrants from mexico enter the USA because they can get hired and work for 3 dollars an hour because your businessmen care more about cutting costs than what is right

don't confuse the issue, it's largely economical- and youre a shining example of those outstanding morons who believe it is solely an issue of race.

racism is at best one of the factors which helps antagonize the american populous against the immigrants. racism, at least the way most of the racist posters in this thread go about it, has no rational grounds. statistics might prove that generally speaking one group might be a little smarter than the other, but it does not account for the exceptions to the rule, and it leaves it up for speculation as to what causes the gap. in your every day conduct, you cannot justify racism- no matter how much you want to, no matter how much it was reinforced when you were growing up.

>>17

1. Define racism
Ok, I went ahead and made a very formal definition of 'racism.' You are obviously not using my definition.

2. "racism has no rational grounds"
Ok (for your definition,) explain why and prove it.
Then, for MY definition explain why and prove it.

To prove that my definition of racism has no grounds and is not justified you will have to prove that:

1. Statistical correlation is a fallacy.
2. Genetics is a hoax propagated by white 'racist' eugenicists that didn't really study Euclid or mathematics or advanced logic or the material they, but just like white skin.
3. Heredity, if it exists, is only skin deep and other traits outside of the aesthetic are inherited from something other than parents.
4. Inherited traits within a population are not excised or increased by breeding patterns.
5. People that come from the same region of the world that share some sort of common history and genetic linkage do not have the right to name that shared bond.
6. There is absolutely no observational data that links the idea of race to any statistical correlation, whether it be genetic, cultural, relgious, psychological, sociological, physical, spiritual, idealistic, or so on.

Somehow, I think my 'racist' ideas will stand up to logical scruntiny. After all, I 'came into' my racist ideas by analyzing the current multicultural ideals. The irony of the current explosion of 'racists' is that we all came from 'multicultural society' families.


Aracialism (the idea that races cannot be observed) is a ridiculous idea. You might then say, "Well, where do you draw the lines?" I would answer at the ones that most obviously fill the criteria for race, as could be inversely derived from the criteria about. The irony about thought is that even with mathematical constructs there is no such thing as absolute certainty. Real numbers, when analyzed deeply, are similar to cauchy sequences that extend indefinitely and are cut off by a error bar, the epsilion in the definition of a limit in calculus. Is a human being 1 human being or 1

One irony that I've noticed, with my high racist IQ, is that 'anti-racists' seem to know what racists are 1. thinking 2. how they grew up 3. how racism affects their behavior 4. what normative scheme (shoulds and shouldn'ts) 'racists' should be judged by.

There are people to whom family is everything. Let's call those familists. There are people to whom country is everything. Those are called nationalists. There are people to whom a single idea is more important than anything else. These are called idealists. There are people who believe everyone should believe that no one should disapprove of anyone else, except of who someone is disapproving. Somehow, you fit that requirements for that role.


One key fact you have to understand is that racists embrace separate, diversity, and freedom of expression. Anti-racists embrace cosmopolitanism and the outlawing of 'wrong ways of thinking.' People like me are true heretics, the Martin Luthers that are chased by the modern inquisition.

continuation of above regarding numbers and 'separation' of traits into catagories:

Where do you draw the line between objects? 1 human being? What does that mean? There isn't some abstract concept of 'human being' floating around. Berkley proved that when someone thinks of an 'abstract' concept they are actually thinking of many concrete ones. So, what fits the bill for the object of a human being? Well, whatever matches the many relational statistical correlations that you 'subconciously' associate with the words (reference) of 'human being.' In the same way, race is a clear enough idea if you have a concept of the idea, and if you don't have a clear enough concept of the idea, you don't have a thorough experience of diverse groupings of human beings or the data related to them. In other words, if you do not have a concept of 'relation by race' you are 'racially blind' or 'racially naive.'

Also, another issue I might address while I'm at it, before someone moronically mentions it again, is that statistical data by its very nature includes variation. In fact, depending on the variation, statistical data might include in it its very points of falsifiability. For instance, a statistic might include green and not green.

If I say that black population group A contains haplogroup C 90% percent of the time, I have IMPLICITLY inferred that 10% of the time they do not. If I take this to be Bayesian, then that means my confidence that any black person I see has this haplogroup is 90% and my confidence that they DON'T have this haplogroup is 10%.

Not every black person has to be a criminal for blacks to be 400% more likely to commit an interracial crime than whites. All that means is that (postulating in this current example that I'm asian, which I am not) I'm perfectly certain that, if I'm looking to avoid interacial assaults, I'm 400% safer in a white neighborhood than I am in a black neighborhood.

"I'm 400% safer in a white neighborhood than I am in a black neighborhood. "

Well, if you're white... Of course. Clearly judging by America's current racial climate, in a white neighborhood non-whites will have a problem being safe in a definate psychological sense of the word. Racist love to dice shit up into "who steals, who rapes?" as if history hasn't proven their (so called white) behavior to be just as hostile if not more. This is like the Japanese caliming to be peaceful despite the Rape of Nanking.

Your non-hostile experiences with whites come from you being white. Don't delude yourself with any sense of objectivity, because by virtue of your dogmatic approach to race- you simply lack the inborn ability to approach the issue objectively now matter how loudly you rail on about the lack of falsibility of statistics or logics or what have you.

What you fail to understand time and time again is that race, as concept has thus far done more harm than good. Can you enlighten us on what good it's done for all of human kind? What do you think gets a stronger negative reaction from the human psyche? Being different...or being treated a certain way FOR being different?

Your approach is clearly one of white supremacism because thus far "Race" as a concept has only "worked" in favor of white privalege. Anyone cheering for race and ignoring the harm the concept has done is cheering for the unfair privaleges that come with their race. (Affrimative action, positive stereotyping into certain roles within society, etc)

Finally, it's a common effort amoung those adopting psuedo-logical racism to totally ignore their lack of data and data that clearly speaks contrary to their views. Arguements for "the overpowering strength of genetics" would have worked when we couldn't identify the mechansims by which we actually gain an understanding of ourselves and the environment.

Of course you can't just come right out and say "nurture doesn't make a difference" because you know you'd be wrong. Instead you puff up genetics like it's "safe" in a game of freeze tag.

Summing up: Race isn't a purely logical, genetic or natural concept. Cows, Monkeys and Ducks don't group together according to facial features or color or whatever genetic definition you've got. To approach it as this tangiable idea rooted in the logic of nature is pretty fucking ridiculous- so ridiculous that it almost refutes itself over and over again.

How much longer do we have to sit here and watch you contradict yourself with concepts that are apparently so lofty to you that you don't understand the irreconcilable conflicts that give rise to turning your ideas into social modus operandi.

but the japanese are superior to us is a fact
god i wish I where born japanese ;'[

1. My assumption in this example was if I were Asian.
-----------------
Clearly judging by America's current racial climate, in a white neighborhood non-whites will have a problem being safe in a definate psychological sense of the word. Racist love to dice shit up into "who steals, who rapes?" as if history hasn't proven their (so called white) behavior to be just as hostile if not more.
--------------------
No. Blacks are safer in a white neighborhood than they would be in a black neighborhood. Of course, one neighborhood is not equal to another, but let's take this construction to be poor neighborhoods. Blacks are safer in a poor white neighborhood than they are in a poor black neighborhood.

---------------
What you fail to understand time and time again is that race, as concept has thus far done more harm than good. Can you enlighten us on what good it's done for all of human kind? What do you think gets a stronger negative reaction from the human psyche? Being different...or being treated a certain way FOR being different?
---------------
Race is a concept and it is an observation. Observational data doesn't just pop out of existsnce because you don't like it. If a group of like-minded people get together to reinforce their ideas this is known as politics. Races, families, clans, nations, ideological groups, colleges, states, and so on, all have political underpinnings. When you say 'difference' you are relating to group conflict which is spriously correlated with race. In other words, you aren't being entirely intellectually honest. In order to attack race from this viewpoint, you have all forms of human grouping, the social aspect being one of the most powerful forces for change by mankind.

The good that realization of race does comes from the support roles and human activity that comes out of it. Let's compare the idea to realization of family, family also being a heredity based social construct. When a family functions appropriately, it offers a support base and a boon of good will to the members from the members. Families, if they work properly, are good for the interaction of the members. It gives people a reason to come together.

You rail against the concept of the 'other' and the idea that conflict comes from it. But, you have forgotten something. Being white, when I interact with Asian mathematicians, do I consider them the 'other' or do I consider to have a bond with them through commonality of interest? Well, I can tell you that from my experience that I do not consider them the 'other.' But, I realize that they do not come from the same race as I. They have a different heritage. This is not a source of conflict; like nation, it only becomes a source of conflict when one group threatens another in some way. Ironically, all the much ballyhooed hype about and concentrating on blacks, who have played a very small role in history, is that blacks are overly threatening to whites as they encroach on white living space and cultural standards. Orientals do not do this, so there are no complaints about this.

When race is realized, blacks obviously are given a bad reputation, but in all honesty, as a race they deserve that bad reputation. When race is realized, Orientals are given a generally good reputation and they generally deserve this. When race is realized, whites are given a good reputation, and guess what, they too deserve this reputation as a race. Considering that all white people are following in the tradition of many great men and women, we certainly have a lot to live up to.


Who should you blame, the 'racist' for being observative or the black community for not being able to control their own?


The irony about 'race,' no matter how hard you try to attack those that recognize it, is that it will persist beyond you. Why? Because it gets its roots from observation. People will observe it over and over again and be driven to come to their own natural conclusions.

-------------
Anyone cheering for race and ignoring the harm the concept has done is cheering for the unfair privaleges that come with their race. (Affrimative action, positive stereotyping into certain roles within society, etc)
-------------

This again is a biased attack on observation. Observation affects cognition. This much is certain. However, being Oriental does not mean that you have a degree in mathematics. However, it has been observed that many Orientals tend to flourish in math.

Basically your argument on 'stereotyping' is this:
"I recognize that Oriental students do better in math in class, because I recognize this I will give Oriental students a better score in math because I know they are Oriental."

This is a laughable concept. It is an especially laughable concept to white people, who in general practice the ideas of distinction handed down through our traditions. Those ideas being from Greece, giving logic special claims to certainty, and to emphasis on freedom of expression and result, i.e. the scientist culture that came out of our ancestors' advances in philosophy. Your arguement is that race shouldn't be realized because it might lead to some form of nepotism, but by that arguement nation or family or friendship or any other sort of common bond, outside of the ironically 'white' set of cultural values, that could result in nepotism, shouldn't be realized. In other words, the relation with race and nepotism is spurious, related rather to shared group bonds than race itself.  If you wish to make an attack against all form of human identity, observational like race or species, or convienient like fraternity membership, then go ahead and do so. You will be wasting your breath; human beings tend to thrive on these things and derive considerable benefits from them. 

Ha, you mentioned 'white supremacism.' Took you long enough. Any white people that realizes and acts on their racial membership is eventually called this. Once you have realized this identity, you also realize that this term has become so ubiquitous that really what it has come to mean is, "realization of white racial interests as a group." So, if you mean to say that I realize race and recognize that white people have a right to continue their culture and racial traditions without attack or disruption, rather the disruption be black, mexican, or muslim, then you are absolutely correct and this attitude is good and beneficial for white people to have, for themselves.


As for an
================
Apes and monkeys in the wild live in close-knit families, generally isolated from other groups. They can be extremely territorial and aggressive if threatened. Recently, biologists studying chimpanzees in western Africa noticed a huge decline in the chimps' numbers as logging operations neared their home range. It seems that the loggers' machines chase chimps across territorial borders, resulting in a deadly conflict between opposing chimp groups.
==================

So, why are so many whites coming to a racial realization against the surge of propaganda designed to 'turn off their brain' to the realization of race? Because white racial interest is being especially threatened. The problem is not with whites flooding into other countries and demanding to fly an alien flag or demanding that schools be taught in English rather than Chinese or with whites attacking or breaking the laws of the culture they have infiltrated, the problem is that whites are being threatened in this manner.

This is forcing whites to realize that they share things in common with one another and that they have shared interests in the preservation of their race and culture and living space.

As these forces rise to a climax, which they currently are, no amount of propaganda designed to manipulate psychological awareness will stifle the common realization of shared racial bonds.

>>21
Whites are capable of crime? Is that your only argument? OF course we're capable of crime, I'll even help you kick down that strawman, since it's not me, I agree. Whites are capable of crime.

They enslaved millions of blacks was for 2 reasons.

1: The technology gap allowed them to do so. When one despotic group finds itself with military superiority over another, that's what happens. The Romans did the same to the Gauls, the Mongols did the same to China, the Khwarazmian empire and the Kievan Rus and the Tutsis did the same to the Hutus. If you have a problem with crimes committed by whites, don't forget to whine to your own race and Mongoloids aswell.

2: Blacks have no balls. They didn't enslave the locals because they kept fighting back, it was too much work. When the first few docile and dumb black slaves began to arrive they had no trouble putting them to work. In the Haiti revolt it was at a time when France was in political turmoil, they outnumberred their slavers 14 to 1 with the slaves having access to guns making them very close to the effectiveness of any european soldier after the revolt was in full swing. This compared to the rampage through Italy of Spartacus where slavers outnumberred slaves 2 to 1 and in which not all slaves were involved in combat and did not have the spartan training, discipline, arms and armour of the roman legions. Spartacus initiated the revolt with much worse odds since whites have the intelligence to see beyond their own immediate needs. The enslavement on the scale during the triangular trade could have never been done with any other race than the cowardly negro race. Blacks are good runners.

With reason 2 in mind it is obvious why so many blacks are too short sighted to solve their problems and resort to crime.

What I would actually like to put down here is that the root word of nation in latin refers to race. The original idea of nation was racial, and the idea of nation somehow transferring from a people to a piece of land marked be imaginary borders happened over thousands of years as a matter of convienience.

The actual root national idea is racial, speaking of a specific people.


# natio nationis : nation, race, people, breed /pagan people.
# nativitas : birth.
# natu : (ab,sing.) by birth.
# natalis natalis : birthday.

>>23

1. You need to broaden your definition of the word "safe". Who is safe from people who beat drums about "racial bonds" and cry "the whites are under attack!" and build up petty delusions about "their way of life being threatened". It's ridiculous that you can pretend this environment is "safe" for non-whites.

2. Trying to hide racism under the "blanket of observation" as if you're defending the concept of logic itself is a long overused fallacy by white nationalists. Observation and co-relatives aren't whole sciences and they aren't wholly scientific ways of percieving race and race's relevance in society. Once again this is the "nurture doesn't exist" argument that your types are quite afraid to use openly.

Of course I'm attacking observation. That's scientific skeptism and that doesn't go away just because you want so desperately to belong to a ficticious group of peoples who you *think* you share something in common with.

"Observation affects cognition"

LOL, you sound like a child. Of course it does. But without indentifying and reconciling the mechanisms which produce the results we observe- we don't have truth. It is "knowledge"? In a sense, yes. But is it the truth? Obviously not.

It's a generality, a stereotype and it is possible to stack stereotype upon stereotype until you've convinced yourself that your observations are true- which is clearly what you've done with the whole concept of race.

3. You wrote: "The good that realization of race does comes from the support roles and human activity that comes out of it. Let's compare the idea to realization of family, family also being a heredity based social construct. When a family functions appropriately, it offers a support base and a boon of good will to the members from the members. Families, if they work properly, are good for the interaction of the members. It gives people a reason to come together."

But even the perfect Family doesn't work properly. What makes a family "work"? A mommy, A daddy, and 2 siblings? People don't adhere to how you think "family" should be. The idea of the proper family changes. Father no longer knows best. Are you saying that your family has to be someone who looks like you and speak the same language as you do? Putting race and family together in such a way is a page right out of every black and white nationalist group ever.

Think about it. All you basically did was validate my statement. The only good that race does is that it gives you someone to indentify with in society- thus providing support. But race can be replaced with so much else that I'm hard pressed to see much use in the concept unless you happen to be at the top of the racial heirarchy (and benefitting from the idea of race)

I mean: Are we babies? Do any of us really *need* this extra support? And why can't this behavior stretch beyond race and progress into love for other human beings as "family"? Family is such an abstract term that can apply to anyone for any reason- regardless of race. That's how love and support actually work.

When race is realized, blacks obviously are given a bad reputation, but in all honesty, as a race they deserve that bad reputation. When race is realized, Orientals are given a generally good reputation and they generally deserve this. When race is realized, whites are given a good reputation, and guess what, they too deserve this reputation as a race. Considering that all white people are following in the tradition of many great men and women, we certainly have a lot to live up to.

"Race is realized". See, this is what doesn't sit well with me. What you're clearly expressing to me is that race is a choice. You can *choose* to deal with people on either general or individual levels.

So, according to your statement, it's alright that whites have a reputation for mass genocides, warmongering, ethinic cleansing, bigotry, etc? By calling this "revised white history" you're saying that I'm not indentifying the mechanism for the behaviors of whites. Why is wrong from me to not indentify the mechanisms for white, but right when you don't address or indentify the mechanisms for blacks? Why do you refuse to acknowledge the fact that no one- no human being wants to be treated based on generalities? Why do you continue to ignore the basic human need for affection? Given this acknowledgement- what do you think is going to eventually happen if your big seperatist race war prophecy comes true? Do you really think human history is going to look at your types as new frontier liberators? You're delusional.

4. The only thing whites are coming to realize is that there will soon be an end to white privalege. The "realization" you speak of is just that- a realization that (A) Whites have no culture. None. Your race isn't based on culture, it's primarly based on skin color/facial features/etc. Russians, Irish, Scottish, British = All seperate cultures, seperate genes, seperate families and these people aren't consider different races from "the white race"? Why not?

I suppose you don't have an answer for any of my questions because you are even too fucking stupid to get that you not only called yourself a white supremacist (I mean, you welcomed the term) - but you basically validated the believe that people like you are white supremacist/seperatist/nationalist - whatever. You're looking out for "white interests" - we all understand that and because you don't truly have the entirety of humanities interests at heart- you must be stopped.

>>25
NATIONALIS LEBENSRAUM

Any "race" will only be as unified as the enemy races it can rally up against. If all the other races you didn't like were eradicated, your life would soon revert back to infighting, when there's nothing to unify against anymore. Eventually, when enough divergence happens, your progeny will be hurled back into another racial conflict.

1. You ignored most of my essay.

2. Inductivity ensures that we can never have perfect certainty about any testable knowledge.

3. Yes, race has to be realized. It's not necessarily a choice to realize it, more like a choice to stop denying it. Race is a natural observation. Shared traits are easily recognizable.

For some alterior motive you are being disingenuous. It's easy to tell when your opinion of whites comes through.


---------------
So, according to your statement, it's alright that whites have a reputation for mass genocides, warmongering, ethinic cleansing, bigotry, etc? By calling this "revised white history" you're saying that I'm not indentifying the mechanism for the behaviors of whites. Why is wrong from me to not indentify the mechanisms for white, but right when you don't address or indentify the mechanisms for blacks? Why do you refuse to acknowledge the fact that no one- no human being wants to be treated based on generalities? Why do you continue to ignore the basic human need for affection? Given this acknowledgement- what do you think is going to eventually happen if your big seperatist race war prophecy comes true? Do you really think human history is going to look at your types as new frontier liberators? You're delusional.
--------------------

Your argument is thus:


defending white racial interest against invaders = nazis = genocide

What you have ignored is that 'race-replacing' whites throughout the world is genocide in itself. Politically correct genocide is genocide never the less.

Here's Bob's Mantra in case you haven't read it.

BOB'S MANTRA
"Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries."


"The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them."


"Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites."


"What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?"


"How long would it take anyone to realize I'm not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?"


"And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn't object to this?"


"But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews."


"They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white."


"Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white."
 

Bob Whitaker


Obviously, you have no problems with mexicans encroaching upon white living space. You also have no problems with whites being raped, removed, displaced, and killed in South Africa and Zimbabwe.

The white people suffering in South Africa are suffering due to a government that embraces 'communism, diversity, and equality.' Apparently, diversity is a world which is without the only people that are not diverse, i.e. whites. Apparently equality means violent oppression of whites by non-whites.

Anti-racism means anti-white. Anti-whiteness carries the implicit definition of oppression of whites and their genocide.

You state more by what you implicitly don't talk about than what you do.

Ignoring race does not rid you of racial conflict. Racial conflict can only be avoided by limited separation, mutal respect, and non-aggression.

The only argument against racism seems to be "WHITES ARE EVIL THEY GONE AN DONE AN CONQUERRED AND ENSLAVED!!". This is more nazi than some of the shit militant racists spout out, since the nazis just loved pinning all their problems on jews and believing any crimes committed against them and "collaborators" are justified. I believe racism is the major cause of high crime rates by the black community. Anti-white racism.

Whites are not a minority yet so the aggression is relegated to non-whites with nothing to lose. When the entire community sees they will lose nothing, the similarity will become more apparent. If black crime rates were acceptably low and the majority of blacks were conservative, there would be no racism.

-----------------
I mean: Are we babies? Do any of us really *need* this extra support? And why can't this behavior stretch beyond race and progress into love for other human beings as "family"? Family is such an abstract term that can apply to anyone for any reason- regardless of race. That's how love and support actually work.
------------
1. Yes human beings need support. No this is not an indication of being 'a baby'.

2. There is a shared comaraderie that humans share with each other. This is true. This is not racial comaraderie.

Races also share racial comaraderie with each other. You speak as though the two are mutually exclusive. They are not.

There is also family comaraderie. This is not mutually exclusive with race or nation or species either. You can share racial, familial, national, and idealistic comraderie with different sets of people. They are not mutually exclusive. Race is just a current taboo. In the future, the taboo might be family or nation. who knows?

As per family, Joe who lives down the street is not family.

When you say that two non-blood related people are 'family' then you are using the term with a different connotation. My dog is family. She isn't even human. However, she is not related by blood either. I know this. So, what does family mean in this case? It means that my dog and I are as close as families are supposed to idealistically be.

Certainly, race is no barrier to two non-blood-related or copulation-related people being 'family' in this connotation. Why waste your mind attacking racialists? There is something else going on here. You consistently portray the 'white' in your mind as 'the other'. You see whites with a racial identity as threatening. Threatening to the point where you wish to spend hours talking on a message board to oppose the realization of racial identity by whites.

Again, you portray whites as being some sort of villian throughout history. This is odd. From my perspective, even before my racial realization, I saw whites as heroes. My heroes were Leibniz and Newton, Decartes and Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Aesop's fables was my joy.

You might say this is 'one-sided' but I think positively of my own people. This is typically a healthy view that peoples and races have. They believe that they come from a positive tradition. Yet, your world view is one where the white is greedy, sinister and evil, the caricatured villan.

In fact, you would characterize my believe in white history being a positive one as being evil. This is strange.

Again, you are being disingenious. I wonder where your self-interest lies? I wonder what motivations you have? Where does your racial interest lie? Where do your other interests lie? You obviously have some motive for doing this. Will you be disingenuous in that admittal as well?

If I were planning to destabilize Japan, I would first seek to divide its people. I would convince them that Japanese is really a silly term, and actually most Japanese come from specific regions. These regions are distinct. And the Japanese look different, why look at the Ainu! They hardly look Japanese at all! Why, there is no such thing as Japanese people!

The first activity of the propagandist is to attack unity.

'Anti-racism' is 'anti-white-ism.' So, why do you fear and hate the white race so much, that you would attack its members implicitly by dividing them?

>>29

You ignored most of my essay.

I really didn't. Perhaps you can cite passages that I've ignored?

Inductivity ensures that we can never have perfect certainty about any testable knowledge.

Such a statement reveals the nebulous core of your hastily thrown together set of beliefs. More to the point- I find it funny that you're able to acknowledge this and then rail off another "essay" about what you think race absolutely means. You seem to think lack of perfect certainty doesn't invalidate your statements. Meanwhile, this is the glaring hole in your race theory. Your refusal to indentify, acknowledge and address the varying mechanisms for such "observations" is what makes you wrong.

Yes, race has to be realized. It's not necessarily a choice to realize it, more like a choice to stop denying it. Race is a natural observation. Shared traits are easily recognizable.

Oh, no, see it is indeed a choice. A choice to deny or accept or disregard or impose importance upon. Race is passed down like stereotypes about blondes and redheads, woman and man, God and you and I. It's something that is socially re-enforced over and over to the point where you simply cannot begin to express to me where the line ends and begins. You don't know which came first- the race or the racist. It is this lack of "perfect certainty" that leaves your ideals wanting of something other than just (constantly) repeating over and over that you're just "observing". If people just simply "observed race" - then there would be no concept of "race" (and therefore no race conflict) to begin with. What else is the repetition of "Shared traits are easily recognizable" but social dogma?

For some alterior motive you are being disingenuous. It's easy to tell when your opinion of whites comes through.

On the alterior motive front I'm going to have to plead ignorance. However, I think it should be pointed out that you are constantly confusing "white privelage" with "the white race". My opinions on the white race, or any race for that matter stem from the inherant wrong of racial privelage in a world where seperatism, accepted unequal treatment, lack of cultural and genetic diversity are apart of a set of dying core values. 

"Your argument is thus:"

Time to deflate this. You'll forgive me if I completely ignore Bob's Mantra. I'm not arguing with Bob. I'm arguing with you. Plus there was already a thread about Bob where I and many other addressed the mantra. I'm sure you remember.

"White racial interest" is a funny phrase. It's almost as if you're afraid call it what it is.

White privalage.

At this point in human history it's rediculous of you to come on here speaking innocenously of "white racial interest" as if their interest hasn't historically been at another race's expense. Who are these "white people" what types of things are in their "racial interest"? Sounds very, very abstract to me. 

And LOL "Race replacing"? As if what exactly? There was some grand non-white scheme to remove whites from their "homes"? Come on, now. In the name of white privalage, whites have been "race replacing" for quite a while now. They called it colonialism.

"Obviously, you have no problems with mexicans encroaching upon white living space. You also have no problems with whites being raped, removed, displaced, and killed in South Africa and Zimbabwe.

Actually, I have a very basic problem with immigration and it comes from being a non-white middle class American and has nothing to do with "white living space". My problem with immigration is the narrow-sightedness of the movement itself- but that these people are acting as a shield for a class conflict that has to take place.

But I think I should point out the duplicity in your implication. Let's say for instance that I didn't have a problem with all the whites being kicked out of Africa----how would that hypothetical concern (or lack of) be any different from your real-to-life concern for "the white race"? How would that be adverse to "seperation"? Shouldn't the whites leave Africa, like you believe the blacks should leave White America? Where was the "mutual respect" in Manifest Destiny? Where was the "non-agression" in colonization of Africa and the western slave trade? You seem so willing to call all these "white men" from the past "your fathers" based on a subjective view of history--- yet you can't find it in your idiotic heart to acknowledge "your fathers" sins?
 
While you're at it, answer these questions (THAT YOU IGNORED) as well.

***Why is wrong from me to not indentify the mechanisms for white, but right when you don't address or indentify the mechanisms for blacks? Why do you refuse to acknowledge the fact that no one- no human being wants to be treated based on generalities? Why do you continue to ignore the basic human need for affection? Given this acknowledgement- what do you think is going to eventually happen if your big seperatist race war prophecy comes true? Do you really think human history is going to look at your types as new frontier liberators?

Ignoring race does not rid you of racial conflict. Racial conflict can only be avoided by limited separation, mutal respect, and non-aggression.

Ignoring race doesn't rid one of racial conflict because a racist will always spread the conflict to others. Misery loves company. So you got it half right. Racial conflict can only be avoided by limited seperation from RACISTS while remaining non-aggressive and respectful of their inherant dumbfuckery.

>>31

Hey, can you try and keep your replies to one thread? Or would that be too much to ask? Why do you need to carpet bomb your retorts?

1. Yes human beings need support. No this is not an indication of being 'a baby'.

Considering race is truly a frivilous area of human support...you can see why I consider it to be spoiling to the intellectual development of a young human mind. It's funny, those that have basked in white privalage are reacting the same way a child would react to being told "no"- only you're calling it "white racial interest" and "survival".

Rubbish.

There is a shared comaraderie that humans share with each other. This is true. This is not racial comaraderie.

It is *very* true and more powerful than racial comaraderie. Having trouble admitting this, are we? Bringing two whites together in a common cause is business as usual. People of different colors coming together provides affection for more than one group of people and is a more favorable image of humanity in the collective (conscious?) memory of humankind. 

Races also share racial comaraderie with each other. You speak as though the two are mutually exclusive. They are not.

Oh but they are. It's so easy for you to make these blanketing statements...Hahaha..."They are not." It's really funny. Racial comaraderie is directly opposed to fundamental drive of human comaraderie, in that racial comaraderie comes from RACE and the other comes from simply being HUMAN. 


When you say that two non-blood related people are 'family' then you are using the term with a different connotation.

This is you trying to set-up what "family" means. There are no "connotations" when you feel that you have real family ties. It isn't always something defined by blood, race, etc. And it doesn't require such a great deal of thought. Deal with it.

Certainly, race is no barrier to two non-blood-related or copulation-related people being 'family' in this connotation. Why waste your mind attacking racialists? There is something else going on here. You consistently portray the 'white' in your mind as 'the other'. You see whites with a racial identity as threatening. Threatening to the point where you wish to spend hours talking on a message board to oppose the realization of racial identity by whites.

You can continue to believe what you want, honestly. I'm threatened by whites in the same way I'm threatened by other blacks, the rich, the drone-like middle class,  fundamentalists, anything that's opposed to my sense of individuality. Everything is the other if it tries to treat me as a generality.

What you fail to understand is that by virtue of this little conversation...whites already have a racial identity and that indentity is a myth. I remember when nation and "race" were one in the same. Seperate nations were races unto themselves. And this changes because of what? You're going to tell me humans didn't understand color back then? Or is it more likely that has history marched on, race as a concept was easier to perpuate because of the privalages that come from being a certain race?

People just flat out don't want to be treated like that anymore. They want to be free. Your ideals do not facilitate that freedom.

Again, you portray whites as being some sort of villian throughout history.

And again you mistake whites of a certain era (with all their privaleges) as the entire white race. What's odd is your ability to claim your whiteness one second and then deny it everytime someone brings up the holocaust, slavery or imperialism. It's not your ability to think positively of "your people" that irks me...it's your inability to acknowledge that they may have negatively affected non-whites in the name of "white racial interests". Why do stereotypes cease to "have an element of truth" in them when it comes to white people?

History is history. So why do you cry when you're basically being treated like everyone else now? Whites have been given a stereotype and I say: So be it. POOF. There goes your superiority. There goes your heirarchy. There goes your privalage. 

Of course all of this seems strange to you.

You're white.

Maybe now you're beginning to understand the difference in being treated as an individual or a generality.

In fact, you would characterize my believe in white history being a positive one as being evil. This is strange.

Wrong again. How can you be apart of the "white guy" that wrote the Magna Carta, but then claim that you had nothing to do with the Holocaust? They're both "white" are they not? This thinking isn't in and of itself evil...but it leads to evil because of a distinct lack of perspective. You see nothing bad about your race when the negativty they perpetuate affects non-whites. Yet, "Blacks rapin' our white wimmins" is one of your frequently expressed concerns. You're right...it IS strange.

I wonder where your self-interest lies? I wonder what motivations you have? Where does your racial interest lie? Where do your other interests lie? You obviously have some motive for doing this. Will you be disingenuous in that admittal as well?

My self-interest lies fundamentally in the fostering of the individual spirt of human kind as a whole. My motivations are selfish in that I wish to be treated as an individual and not as a member of a group of people- whatever the commonality might appear to be. White privalage is an extention of the concept of race and has done far more harm to humanity than good. And what little good it does is frivilous. Race has become a burden and an obstuction to the individual. Only a madman can believe he has "a white heart" or "a black mind". The individual is greater than the sum of it's socially (or genetically) re-enforced parts.
 
In short: You, to me, represent everything adverse to the progression of my individual self. Racial privalage- white, black, whatever...must be stopped for the sake of a human kind that wants individuality.

...*sigh*...

At first, looking at the conversatiosn that emerged from my reposting, I was thrilled to see INTELLIGENT dialogue about cultural/sociological/racial/etc. issues...

But I've quickly come to see that people have reverted back into certain roles veiled as intellectual objectivity, instead of... "OMG, NIGGERS SUCK" or "OMG, WHITE PEOPLE SUCK" it is more like "fatalistic white nationalist/supremacist seeing a rising racial conflict" vs. "I will Group All White People As the Bearers of Previous Various White People's Actions Against Other's Crimes" vs. "I'm Going to be a Idiot Poster to this Thread"...

Seriously people, I'm not expecting a whole consensus as to the future of the Culture/Race Wars to come to a beautifully peaceful cease-fire based upon this thread, but in hopes that something may at least be achieved throughout or beloved Image Boards, I will reinterate my main points:

[1] Please do not group all people into one group based upon the actions of few of that group, whether positive or negative. You have not observed/interacted with the whole of those people, so thus you cannot pass ultimate judgement on them.

[2] Please refrain from using slurs... I'd really prefer there to be a refrain from racial slurs as it seems as if gender and sexual slurs will persist whether I like it or not [Call this P.C. if you want, but I'm really just trying to avoid conflict and a blow to the image of the board.], but still... Please.

[3] Please do not allow ANYONE to tell you what to think, do or say, even me, but please, if you have a point you're trying to get across, try to use LOGIC.

[4] Please tell me why there are people from http://www.stormfront.org a nd why Anti-Fascist-Action and Anti-Racist-Action all have this site on watch??? [Seriously, did we get infiltrated?]

Thank you.

>>33

There are no white people? Well, you seem to have no problems with using the word 'white' to throw around blame; you just seem to have a problem with it being used to throw about praise as well.

'White people' commit such and such crime and make up white privelege, but the work of science is due to specific individuals that HAPPEN to be white.

So, whites collectively aren't responsible for any of the good they do, but they are collectively responsible for the evil that they do. Either way, they shouldn't continue on as a heritage, tradition, or people.

That's a sort of hypocritical, and as has been mentioned on this board many times, and 'anti-white' way of looking at things.

There is no squeaky clean race. You have to do 'naughty' things to survive. Usually, there are also two sides to a story.

Example: Small band of white settlers wipes out such and such tribe in the congo. They meet each other by accident. Tribe is 100% uncivilized, steals children and rapes women. Does not understand 'white' way of looking at things, i.e. our form of morality. (And let's just say that even though there may be more than one good way of looking at the world, some ways are worse than others. In this case, the 'tribe' is way worse in terms of morality and being civilized.) White settlers, group of 20 maybe, go and wipe out the tribe of about 50. Remaining women and children integrated into white settlers.

Good or bad? Were the white people evil for wiping out a nuisance to the very last person who refused to surrender? Or were the natives bad for doing bad things to the white settler's women, children, or men (depending if they killed them too.) Heck, the white settlers and the 'tribe' could have had skirmishes with each other and nobody remembers who first started it. The white settlers win. Sociologist and PC crowd comes back 200-500 years later when they don't know the full story, and didn't live under threats or in the shoes of the white settlers, and condemn the white settlers as being evil. They bemoan the poor tribe. They call the white settlers evil and racist. If the sociologist and the politically correct crowd had been in the same situation, they probably would have been right in there helping with the fighting, because they were royally pissed off at the 'tribe' for things they did and what the hell they could willingly do to you.

Next, the PC crowd says, hey! Look! Not just the white settlers were evil, but 'whiteness' is evil! Apparently, the settlers are 'white' when they do things that the PC crowd doesn't like, but when they do good things they are 'British' or 'Irish' or 'French' or whatever. Oh, and they are symbols of 'whiteness'.

It's silly. Ok, white is a definition. You can fit into the definition or not. People make oberservations on racial terms. Big deal. Everybody seems to go spasmic on this junk.

People in Japan (if I remember correctly) did some studies on trying to figure out why 'white people' are so damned white, and why they have lots of diverse (and beautiful in my opinion, so sue me) eye colors and hair colors. Well, apparently, men in that part of the world had to go out and kill things alot. This meant that men were typically pretty scarce. Also, they were pretty monogamous starting from some point. So, women had extreme competition. Basically, women that had all these unique mutations were sought out over women that did not. Additionally, these mutations are MORE than just cosmetic. Apparently, blond hair is linked to higher levels of estrogen. So,

Apparently this is racist. Science is racist? Apparently the Japanese are white supremacists. Uh, right.

Basically, my belief is one day we'll have the ability to basically make anybody into nearly anything using genetic science. Race will become less important then, because there won't be stable populations breeding with each other. Everybody will be intelligent or have the traits that they want. If you like blond hair better than brunette hair, then you can have blond hair. You can get the gene. If you have blond hair and you like brunette hair, you can have brunette hair too. If you want to be smarter and have more self control, you can get the genes for that too.

For some reason I don't think anybody would like to get the 'dumbing down' genes that make it harder for you to control yourself and think.

Look, not every race is equal to every other race. The world has been going on for a frickin long time, and some races have gone through more selective breeding than other. But, in the future, if we can keep from losing our ability to discriminate the good from the bad because of PC relativism, we'll all have the choice to be what is good for us.

To end this, I'll add two things. One, some things are equally good, but some things are worse than those equally good things. Sorry, some people got the short end of the stick. With science, hopefully we'll be able to change things so everybody 'gets a good.' Or, at least they can choose whether they want the good or not. Two, race 'exists' right now. It is a pretty good way of
categorizing things. In the future though, race might be a good way of categorizing things. Most people might have blond hair, or red hair (real read, not orange red) and purple hair or even green hair, and all sorts of things like that. I say, more power to them. But, we haven't reached that point yet, and let's not glorify savagry because it's 'different.' Let's not glorify stupidity because it's 'different.' Seriously, I believe that this isn't my final life on this world, and I do not want to have to live in a 'gone native PC culture' in my future lives.

Yours truly,
The Racist  

-------
In the future though, race might be a good way of categorizing things. Most people might have blond hair, or red hair (real read, not orange red) and purple hair or even green hair, and all sorts of things like that.
----

Sorry that's suppose to be 'might not be'.

The Racist

That's a sort of hypocritical, and as has been mentioned on this board many times, and 'anti-white' way of looking at things.

What is so hypocritical about it? My basis for saying that the white race is a fabrication is based on the fact the root of the word was used to define nations of people. The only benefit from realizing race is "support", support that frankly should be aptly filled by family and friends. Just because someone is the same race as you doesn't make them your family. It is in this way that race becomes a strong social force based on the priveleges of being a certain race. The racial heirarchy exist for this reason alone. Not as a mere classification.

So, whites collectively aren't responsible for any of the good they do, but they are collectively responsible for the evil that they do. Either way, they shouldn't continue on as a heritage, tradition, or people.

No. If you perceive yourself to be a part of "the white race". Then it is simply a matter of taking responsibily and pride in all the think the white race has done collectively. Negative or Positive. THis is your burden and your responsibilty to your racial indentity. This isn't about non-whites history getting the short end of the stick. This about your ability to knowledge that way the world is now- owned by whites- is due to white privalege. You trumpeting all the good whites have done, while glaring over the past atrocites by screaming "objectivy" works only when you having this discussion with other white men.

Meaning- your behavior in regards to "preserving white racial interest" (See: White privalege) doesn't fly with the rest of the world. All this "white backlash" you seem occupied with, as if you're afriad your people are going to be wiped out- stems from you wanting to see white privalege continue.

Of course you want to keep thing seperate and use these definions- you're white and you're on top of the racial heirarchy. What I'm saying is: For human kind to continue on this way is just silly. Race does very liitle good. Most of what race has done has been bad.

Acknowledge this, already and put it perspective as to where you see the world going in the next 1,000 years.

This about your ability to knowledge that way the world is now- owned by whites- is due to white privalege.

You mean like affirmative action? We own the world? China? Taiwan? Japan? Neat? Umm, where's my slice? I mean, I could have sworn that I worked for what I have...  Maybe this invisible white privelege has invisible benefits too? Gee, I guess somebody else stole it for me and forgot to send the memo? So, where's the white privelge in China? Where's the white privelege in Japan? Where's the white privelege in the middle east? Where's the white privelege in South America? Gee, I thought they had Japanese privelege and Chinese privelege and Arabic privelege and all that. I don't really mind because that's their business and I'm perfectly fine with staying in my own country. Oh well. At least you've clarified that white people are the only people not allowed to be 'priveleged,' even amongst themselves. Silly me.

I always thought it was rich people that got priveleges for their class. I guess now it's 'white' people. Oh well. Umm, maybe you live in a place where all the white people are rich?

I know that in the U.S. alone that 45% of the wealthiest portion of our country is either part/half jewish or jewish. Whee! Most ethnocentrific people evar! So, jewish people don't get privelege but WHITE people get privelge. You can't insult jews because otherwise you're a nazithatwantstokillsixmillionjews and a holocaust magician. You can't mention that you might think that the middle east is more of a war for Israel than anything else because you're an evil anti-semite that wants to wipe out the jewish race! Jewish nepotism and private community funds and jewish groups and jew-only schools and communities abound, but it's WHITES that have the privlege. Silly me.

Oh, I'm sorry. Jews aren't racial whatsoever. They base continued membership of your lineage through your mother's side of the family and some of them consider the combining of jews with non-jews as 'destroying the jewish spirit.' Silly, silly, silly me! It's white privelege, stupid!

Jewish people are successful, not because of jewish privelege, but because they are a smart and industrious and harmless and blameless people! White people get all their benefits from white privelege and are evil and sickly and dasterdly! Also, they don't even exist! They're just an illusion! They THINK they exist, but they DON'T really! It's just a social fabrication! They really don't have anything in common, like history or common ground to ethics or common heritage or a similar pool of genetic traits! It's just a white illusion! Don't you see?

You trumpeting all the good whites have done, while glaring over the past atrocites by screaming "objectivy" works only when you having this discussion with other white men.

Atrocities? Uh? At least I know you aren't white. Interesting, apparently you don't have any problems insulting my heritage or my people, which is precisely what you are doing. I know that if I insult black people they get pissed. I know if I insult jewish people they get pissed. I know that if I insult mexican people they get pissed. Apparently, unless I hate my 'white' heritage then I'm some backwards bigot? Uh, ok.

Yes! Hating my own heritage and myself is the first step to enlightenment! Everybody else should hate themselves too! We should talk about black atrocities and Chinese atrocities and Japanese atrocities and jewish atrocities all day too! Never forgive, never forget! We only need one side to history!

There is this little stipulation that anti-racists make that I find ironic. Non-white people are apparently not responsible for their actions, like white people are. That's because non-white people either: have no control over their destiny or 2. aren't considered to have any moral authority because they don't know any better, and whites are supposed to.

Race does very liitle good. Most of what race has done has been bad.

Family too! We should wipe out this idea of family! It only divides people! If we didn't have the idea of family, we'd have world peace!

We need more sterile faceless units for the global village!



Who are you to tell me that 1. I don't HAVE a heritage 2. I shouldn't be defending the way of life I so love and 3. I shouldn't object to my way of life and history be shat and spat upon by two-faced hypocrites like you.

Send back the 11 million Mexicans trying to use La Raza to declare the U.S. part of Mexico. Send back the 20 million Muslims in Europe to North Africa and the Middle East. Send back the 5 million jews more loyal to Israel than the U.S. and their overzealous lubavitcher rebbes and their JDL and their AIPAC back to Israel and let them deal with their 'international' problems on their own without sacrificing the blood and treasure of the U.S. and Europe. Do all these things, and then we'll talk.

Yours truly,
The Racist

Send back the 20 million Muslims in Europe to North Africa and the Middle East.

I just love how some of these people live in Australia, yet preach that Australia is evil and they should destroy the country. Down with Australia! Kill the infidels!

Uh, if you hate the country so much, why are you here? Ah, you want all the good things that come from our society, but without contributing anything in return. I see. Praise Allah and your fucking fantastic wannabe Caliphate you ran away from.

Go the fuck away.

>>38

At least you've clarified that white people are the only people not allowed to be 'priveleged,' even amongst themselves. Silly me.

You're forgiven for your silliness. It's all you have left to use in this debate.

By the way, I never said- nor implied that "whites" were the only people not allowed to be priveleged. Why do you assume that I'm for affrimative action? Is it possible for you to address me as an individual? I guess not, eh? ----What I am against is "racial privelge" and I've used that phrase multiple times throughout my last 2 replies. So it's funny that you keep trying to spin this back to me being anti-white. Because your entire argument hinges on me somehow being racist against white people. That way, anything I say, no matter how logical or how effective in clearing up your foggy world view-- will be dissonant.

Umm, maybe you live in a place where all the white people are rich?

In America, a vast majority of the government and the financially wealthy are, in fact, white.

Hi.

I live in America.

Jewish nepotism and private community funds and jewish groups and jew-only schools and communities abound, but it's WHITES that have the privlege.

But Jews aren't a race. You, yourself illustrated this by referecing other 'non-white' jews. Even so, Jews are only concerned with jewishness. Doesn't matter if the person is black, white, or whatever. If their mother is jewish- they are jewish. If they marry some Mexican guy (or girl) that's fine too...just as long as that person becomes Jewish. If you are perceived as "Brown" there's no ceremony to convert you to white.

Non-white people are apparently not responsible for their actions, like white people are.

Cite where I implied this please. Guess what? You can't because I never even said that. All races of all people are responsible for their actions.

Interesting, apparently you don't have any problems insulting my heritage or my people, which is precisely what you are doing.

Of course I don't. You don't have any problems insulting other people's heritages, so why it is pertinent when someone insults yours.

Apparently, unless I hate my 'white' heritage then I'm some backwards bigot? Uh, ok. Yes! Hating my own heritage and myself is the first step to enlightenment! Everybody else should hate themselves too! We should talk about black atrocities and Chinese atrocities and Japanese atrocities and jewish atrocities all day too! Never forgive, never forget! We only need one side to history!

Now you're getting it. If you identify yourself by race- as in- you feel that you have a "white brain" or a "white heart" that thinks and feels in a "white way"- then you should hate yourself for allowing yourself to define solely by the your race. The reason you don't have a problem with being called white is because you percieve whites to be at the top of the racial heirarchy. The reason you can't seem to handle it when someone slanders the white race is because you feel as a "superior race" you shouldn't be mocked, criticized or questioned.

Family too! We should wipe out this idea of family! It only divides people! If we didn't have the idea of family, we'd have world peace! We need more sterile faceless units for the global village!

This...just doesn't make sense.

Family isn't the same thing as race. Family isn't an "observation". Race is though. Family doesn't divide people- it brings them together. If one were to consider all people, reagardless of race to be "family" then maybe there would be world peace. I don't expect this to happen though and I'm not talking about world peace. That was another effort on your part to polarize the debate.

What I'm saying is- the concept of race is only good for those at the top of the racial heirarchy- those that benefit from being a certain race. The white racists knows that he you demantle race as a concept then you immediately dismantle white privalage. White privalage- which doesn't just work for whites country-to-country, but on a global scale.

Who are you to tell me that 1. I don't HAVE a heritage 2. I shouldn't be defending the way of life I so love and 3. I shouldn't object to my way of life and history be shat and spat upon by two-faced hypocrites like you.

What is your heritage then? Can you tell me? Can you tell me if your heritage dictates who you are down to every thought in your head? Do you realize that white you hold these beliefs now- they could change simply due to the growth of your personality? You can defend whatever you want- but what you're defending is wrong. I object to "your way of life" out of it's inherant wrongness and total lack of logical and applied scientific method.

You seem to be under the impression that the west got the way it did by being white. The truth is a different matter. The west got the way it did by embracing all races and cultures. The West you're rooting for is either dying or already dead. 

>>37
So how do you explain mass immigration if everything is owned by whites? Why would it be allowed if we are all racist and own everything? Why aren't you hounding the Japanese for not allowing millions of IQ 70 negroes to enter their country?

tl;dr

I see so many holes in both of your arguments I might as well call it swiss cheese... *sigh*

I guess this thread didn't accomplish much in creating some foundations and actions towards logical understanding of the Culture/Race Wars than back-and-forth arguing between them.

This thread will eventually die out, I guess, but I am still overall dissapointed.

I'll post another thread later on... but for now... I'm going to just chill. G'day.

When you say you 'see so many holes in both of your arguments,' it is customary to explain yourself.

So says The Racist (who is right now studying his ass off) and to whom nearly everything is tl;tr.

>>42

Mass immigration has little to due with the people immigrating and more to due with the (majority white) companies hiring them so that they don't have to play by American's human rights regulations and labor rules. This is the same case when they start sending our jobs to different countries who don't understand the concept of a union.

I'm unaware of Japanese not letting anyone (blacks) into their country. If you have an instance of this then please cite a reference. Secondly, I think it must be known that Africans- were brought to American via colonization and Modern Slavery. It must also be understood that we (America, The West) are no Japan (Technically the East).

We don't fear letting outsiders in because everyone in pretty much in the game of criticizing themselves, their society and looking to approve it. There are severe cultural differences between America and Japan. Why even try to compare the two?

I think this puts everything into perspective.

http//video.google.com/...

>>41


wow....so does this mean that anti-chan wins another debate?

>>48
That's pretty lame anti-chan.

>>41
America = 80% white

"Now you're getting it. If you identify yourself by race- as in- you feel that you have a "white brain" or a "white heart" that thinks and feels in a "white way"- then you should hate yourself for allowing yourself to define solely by the your race. The reason you don't have a problem with being called white is because you percieve whites to be at the top of the racial heirarchy. The reason you can't seem to handle it when someone slanders the white race is because you feel as a "superior race" you shouldn't be mocked, criticized or questioned."

So why do you attack white heritage if you don't think in terms of race? You must believe race exists, thus must be telling whites that race doesn't exist so they are more likely to be tolerant, of higher crime rates, affirmative action, schools dumbed down to make fools look smarter, because tolerance is strength, because it makes whites passive instead of assertive.

http://video.google.com/videoplay docid=1451035544403625746&q=October+Sun+Films&pl=true

http//video.google.com/...

What this proves to me is that shortly in the future white people are going to refuse to take this sort abuse from every non-white that has a stick shoved up their ass and has decided to take it out on us as a race, identity, and culture.

>>49

Uh, that wasn't anti-chan. I, however, am.

In response to: >>50

So why do you attack white heritage if you don't think in terms of race? You must believe race exists, thus must be telling whites that race doesn't exist so they are more likely to be tolerant, of higher crime rates, affirmative action, schools dumbed down to make fools look smarter, because tolerance is strength, because it makes whites passive instead of assertive.

Again, I'm not attacking "white heritage" because the term is nebulous. What is your "white heritage" and why hasn't anyone been able to aptly express the term to me? I attack white racial privalege under the basis that *you* believe in it, to the point where you are willing to accept these privaleges that come from placing yourself high up on the racial heirarchy.

This shouldn't be too hard to understand. Atheists attack the concept of God and yet no one ever seems to claim they somehow still believe in God by virtue of the fact that they understand that everyone else believes in God solely to their benefit.

You seem to under the weird and almost bizzarro-world assumption that whites haven't been assertive about their racial privaleges and so-called "rights of reign" due to where they've placed themselves on the racial heirarchy. If whites were really so passive then this debate would have no ideological base to begin with.

I think someone hit the nail on the head where they said the oppressors new strategy is to claim that they are the ones being oppressed. These oppressors simply can not understand that it is their past "assertiveness" in regards to the racial caste that has led to "higher crime rates, affrimative action, schools dumbed down to make fools look smarter".

It's funny. First you liberally assert and are implictly complacent to a racial caste system where whites are at the top- supposely passive, docile and peace loving and at the lowest end are the "shiftless, uneducated" negroids...

...and then you fault blacks and other non-whites for it playing out?

It's white privalege that wrote the script and every non-white person is able to take an objective look at history and acknowledge this, so who exactly are you trying to fool? Yourselves? Because no non-white person seems convinced. No, white person who's stepped outside of his race seems convinced either.

To me, those whites who bask in their racial privalege and defend them to the teeth have become the new Jew. Or maybe they were always different sides of the same coin. Jews seem to set themselves up to be persecuted and secluded. They seem more than eager to place themselves on the subversive fringe of society and yet wail when they kicked out of a country every 500 years or "unexpectedly" end up the victim of a genocide.

That's why this debate has resorted to one guy posting videos. The whites who take part in the racial heirarchy know that it's a system that's inherantly wrong ethically and morally- but they just can't seem to pull themselves away because it's a system that works solely to their benefit.

This delusion of oppression stems from these whites realizing that no longer are there unwarranted privaleges to merely being white...and they are desperately trying to recover from losses tallied in the civil rights movements of the 60's.

1. There are no 'unwarrented' priveleges to being white! This is a frankly ludicrous idea. You get the same privelege of being white as you do with being black or Asian or Jewish or whatever, a higher rapport with other people of the same race.

2. I'm white. It's not nebulous. I'm white in the same way that anyone considers themselves a human being or a Greek or a or a  Zulu or a carpenter or whatever. I fit the bill and I have rapport with the hertiage. Benefits? Ok, white people have higher rapport with other white people because they have something in common. Pheh, please. Disadvantages? You become the target for nail-biters with a stick shoved up their ass.

3. Believe me, being white and being proud of white and standing up for white heritage and ethnic interest means becoming a sort of pariah or martyr. Other 'white' people will be terrified of association with you, non-whites will hate you and seek your destruction (especially the oh-so-harmless ethnocentric Jews), and in Europe they'll put you in jail. If you are 'pro-white' in a non-white country, they'll simply shoot you or kill you, unlike in the U.S. and Europe where non-white ethnics and races are expected to be flaming pro-themselves.

Please. 

>>54
Let me get this straight.

Your argument is...

"Because there is no such thing as race, lauding or condemning the actions of every person of that race is illogical."

If this is true, logically you must also disagree with affirmative action and other race based programs. You would also see reason to blame the justification of the black african-colonial slave trade and other atrocities on racism and not on the white race. Most fundamentally you would bother to provide proof that race is indeed irrelevant. You would acknowledge the fact that races have very distinct appearances, history and demographics and focus on proving that they are superficial in a rational manner and addressing all factors completely.


"It's funny. First you liberally assert and are implictly complacent to a racial caste system where whites are at the top- supposely passive, docile and peace loving and at the lowest end are the "shiftless, uneducated" negroids..."
Where?

White heritage is generally defined as the culture, technology and civilisation that has been built up by the efforts of white-caucasians. White heritage has been more extensive than other racial heritages due to technological progress that has only been matched recently by asian countries heavily influenced by western culture which is a majority white culture.

I recognise that racism takes place and that being white I am less likely to be a victim of discrimination, however I resent the accusation that I would or have knowingly benefitted from discrimination. Laws have been passed in many western countries which make it an offense not to employ a certain percentage of non-whites into businesses and institutions, this proves that white supremacism is no longer government policy, it does mean that institutional racism exists. Regardless of previous acts by whites or other whites, punishing innocent whites and supporting this is an act of discrimination.
"These oppressors simply can not understand that it is their past "assertiveness" in regards to the racial caste that has led to "higher crime rates, affrimative action, schools dumbed down to make fools look smarter"."

"Atheists attack the concept of God and yet no one ever seems to claim they somehow still believe in God by virtue of the fact that they understand that everyone else believes in God solely to their benefit."
This isn't a correct analogy. I claim you are trying to prove race doesn't exist to your opponents so they believe there is no point in standing up for themselves. I am claiming you benefit from whites not having a racial identity. In your analogy no one claims the atheists attack the idea of god because they have little reason to benefit from doing so.

There is however a need for proof, which you could have said, but for some reason you decided to come up with this quibble of an analogy instead. You show selective malicious bias against whites. If you were not racist you would concentrate on racism itself and claim that the success of people native to northern europe is not due to racial superiority. Instead you concentrate on atrocities committed by whites and claim the success of whites never happenned. Apologetic attacks against groups of white people in history, particularly colonialism and a general ignorance of similiar atrocities committed by other races and of the civilised and cultural progress europeans have made in the past 500 years. Whites were not the only ones to use slavery, but were the first to develop the democracies capable of making decisions that go against wealth and power in favour of conscience and thus were the first to make efforts to stop slavery.

I am sure many times in history an oppressor's strategy was to claim they are being oppressed and their actions against outsiders are justified. Don't forget that you don't have to be an oppressor to claim you are being oppressed and justify actions against ousiders. In fact there is a medical term for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

I don't really need to bother criticising the below 2 quotes since they speak for themselves.

"To me, those whites who bask in their racial privalege and defend them to the teeth have become the new Jew. Or maybe they were always different sides of the same coin. Jews seem to set themselves up to be persecuted and secluded. They seem more than eager to place themselves on the subversive fringe of society and yet wail when they kicked out of a country every 500 years or "unexpectedly" end up the victim of a genocide. "

"no longer are there unwarranted privaleges to merely being white"

Oh and I'm sorry. You see, you complain about me being racist because I don't want to become a MINORITY in my own homeland. I'm not talking world domination here. I'm talking about keeping the freaking status quo in my country.

>>57

To clarify the obvious, I was talking anti-white chan.

>>58

To clarify the previous sentence, I was talking "to" anti-white chan.

>>55

1. Wrong. Given what >>57 thinks apparently America is "the white homeland". Hahaha, keep telling yourselves this as Mestizos continue to make the same case the Jews made for "rights of return". That very deluded perception alone, coupled with this shallow and hallow perception of your own "whiteness" guantees you white privalege. Maintaining the status quo means maintaining white privalege. They are inseperatable ideas. There's no room for your status quo in a country that had ideologically committed itself to treating everyone equally. Your problem isn't with minorities. It's with democracy itself.

2. Strange. You claim it's not an nebulous idea and yet you still can't seem to express the exact guidelines for "Whiteness". Just like I can't express to you precisely what "Blackness" is. This is because the culture of whiteness or blackness isn't exclusive to whites or blacks alone. At least not in the west. However, a Zulu or a Greek can express to you exactly what it means to be Zulu or Greek- and you might even find similarities in the way they percieve their identities.

3. But I don't believe you. Again, history paints a very different picture than the one you're dogmatically pontificating upon. Maybe these other whites are so horrified because your white nationalist fervor stem from flaw logic and fundamental hazy notions of "whiteness". Your ideals are not acceptable nor compatable to western values because they implictly deny any avenue of a change in the status quo. The west is about the constant reshaping of status quo. That's why we're stronger than the east.

Or have you forgotten?

If there is no race why cant we just kill the illegal whitout beeing labled racists?

Because anti-racism means anti-white, and stopping illegal immigrations helps whie people, and it therefore racist.

"If there is no race why can't we just kill the illegal aliens without being labeled racists?"

Because race goes into and out of existence whenever someone who is anti-white decides that race is a going to be useful to their agenda or not. Also, only the races that anti-white people think exist, exist. Otherwise, race is just a figment of the imagination no matter how much a people have in common genetically and culturally, and no matter how much they consider themselves a race. You see, if you consider white people to be a race, then all of this 'oh let's let people migrate into white countries, i.e. white majority countries, until white people are a minority, everywhere in the world and people with hostile intentions take over and white people are subsequently wiped out.' would be the genocide of white people by destroying their living space. Usually, when you drive a species in the wild to extinction, they go extinct by this method. You destroy their living space; you crowd them, and then you hunt them to extinction or starve them, etc etc etc.

"Anti-racism means anti-white, and stopping illegal immigrants helps white people, and it is therefore racist."

Yes. Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white. The word racialist means somebody that is driven politically by race. The word racist means anyone who worries about white peope as a group, whether it be racially, culturally, politically, 'heritage'ly, or otherwise. There are plenty of racists that are not racialists, and racialists that are not racist.

Watch this movie, and watch the La Raza members (meaning the race in Spanish, an organization for the eventual domination of the Meztizo race, calling the people holding the American flag 'racists' over and over again. Yes, those people counterprotesting La Raza aren't racialist per say, but they are racist because stopping illegal immigration is good for white people. La Raza is not racist, but they are racialists. La Raza is a good upstanding organization that attacks and does harm to white people. Therefore, they are universally good and anti-racist. The people fighting for the United States to apply its law and for others to respect its national soveriegnty are racist, because what they are doing is helping white people, albeit indirectly. In fact, a lot of white people are concerned about this issue because deep down they understand that this issue is one that affects white people. There you go. Here is the video so you can watch it.)

http//video.google.com/...

Also, Bob's Mantra for your reading pleasure.
-----------------------------
BOB'S MANTRA
"Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries."


"The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them."


"Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites."


"What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?"


"How long would it take anyone to realize I'm not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?"


"And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn't object to this?"


"But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews."


"They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white."


"Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white."
 

Bob Whitaker


--------------------

Cut it out with the Bob's Mantra's already and respond to >>60. Why is it that you guys are finding it so hard to debate with me line-by-line, ideal by ideal?

In repsonse to >>56

Your argument is..."Because there is no such thing as race, lauding or condemning the actions of every person of that race is illogical."

If this is true, logically you must also disagree with affirmative action and other race based programs. You would also see reason to blame the justification of the black african-colonial slave trade and other atrocities on racism and not on the white race. Most fundamentally you would bother to provide proof that race is indeed irrelevant. You would acknowledge the fact that races have very distinct appearances, history and demographics and focus on proving that they are superficial in a rational manner and addressing all factors completely.



No. Why do you keep trying to rephrase my argument to suit your ability to only give limited responses? "There's no such thing as race" is a diluded way of interpeting what I'm saying. Is it your limited capcity to understand these very simple concepts that keeps leading you back to this phrasing or is it something else?

I think it's the "something else" category. You know you're losing, so you're changing my argument from "Race is irrelevant and superficial, so there should be an end to racial privalege, racial responsibility and racial group-think." to "Race doesn't exist."

In fact, I have addressed the superfical nature of race. You just took the cognitive dissanance route and chose to ignore it when you realized you couldn't get what you wanted from me. Some loose, half-baked confession that I'm "trying to wipe out the white race." How ridiculous. I'm just trying to defend democracy and western values. It just so happens that most (See: All) forms of race-based nationalism move against democracy and the critism/changed-based ideas of the west.




White heritage is generally defined as the culture, technology and civilisation that has been built up by the efforts of white-caucasians. White heritage has been more extensive than other racial heritages due to technological progress that has only been matched recently by asian countries heavily influenced by western culture which is a majority white culture.

I recognise that racism takes place and that being white I am less likely to be a victim of discrimination, however I resent the accusation that I would or have knowingly benefitted from discrimination. [...] Regardless of previous acts by whites or other whites, punishing innocent whites and supporting this is an act of discrimination.




Your crime is complacency. I keep repeating this over and over and over and somehow you keep dodging the idea that being complacent to the fact that "racism takes place and that being white I am less likely to be a victim of discrimination" [b]is[/i], in fact, what I am speaking of when I refer to "white privalege". Your complancency voids you of innocence.




This isn't a correct analogy. I claim you are trying to prove race doesn't exist to your opponents so they believe there is no point in standing up for themselves. I am claiming you benefit from whites not having a racial identity. In your analogy no one claims the atheists attack the idea of god because they have little reason to benefit from doing so.




Right. You are making "a claim." I understand that. But you are completely incorrect. I'm not overtly or concretely stating that "race doesn't exist". Though, obviously I have my reservations and doubts. But, I am exposing the superfical trappings of race and how race has been used to basically get people to commit to the most henious acts in all of history. Meanwhile, your defintion of "white heritage" still lacks fundamental specifics and most of all- a objective look at all of history. What is "white culture, techonology and civilisation" and on what basis do you believe that these things are "purely white" - completely devoid of contributions from other cultures and races?




There is however a need for proof, which you could have said, but for some reason you decided to come up with this quibble of an analogy instead. You show selective malicious bias against whites. If you were not racist you would concentrate on racism itself and claim that the success of people native to northern europe is not due to racial superiority. Instead you concentrate on atrocities committed by whites and claim the success of whites never happenned. Apologetic attacks against groups of white people in history, particularly colonialism and a general ignorance of similiar atrocities committed by other races and of the civilised and cultural progress europeans have made in the past 500 years. Whites were not the only ones to use slavery, but were the first to develop the democracies capable of making decisions that go against wealth and power in favour of conscience and thus were the first to make efforts to stop slavery.





Oh ho ho, The analogy is apt. If it wasn't it really would not have taken a whole paragraph to address the holes in it. It's apt in that, you continue to assert something is absolutely true, when it isn't. You're the preacher with the bible, I'm the nigger standing off to the side- on the other end of your accustatory finger and I suppose that every other white person here are the sheep down in the pulpit. You need mantras and prayers and entire groups of people to persecute in order to give your nebulous ideals of white nationalism some ground to stand on.

The problem is- the fundamental basis for your arguments is the maintence of the status quo, white privelege and overall- hate. I'm not arguing the way you want me to- so you're gonna drape the cloth of "selective malicious bias against whites" on me no matter what I say. You don't seem to understand that there is a fundamental difference between "the entire white race" and "white privalege". The reason is that for you- they are one in the same and you've implictly said so earlier in this points.

As follows: I recognise that racism takes place and that being white I am less likely to be a victim of discrimination, however I resent the accusation that I would or have knowingly benefitted from discrimination. [...] Regardless of previous acts by whites or other whites, punishing innocent whites and supporting this is an act of discrimination

You can psuedo-rationalize and pigeon hole my statements in the most intricate ways imaginable. But overall, your argument will continously fail because you know, as well as I know, that everything you're saying-- the policies you wish to see in place that would "support the status quo" are adverse to the spirit of democracy and the spirit of this new West.




I am sure many times in history an oppressor's strategy was to claim they are being oppressed and their actions against outsiders are justified. Don't forget that you don't have to be an oppressor to claim you are being oppressed and justify actions against ousiders. In fact there is a medical term for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder



Precisely and this is the disorder afflicting you and other white nationalists. Not- "the entire white race" as you continue to assert and I continue to prove otherwise.

>>60

1. This is ridiculous. Mexicans don't have any right to the United States. Give me a break. Go home traitor.

2. I can't express to you a unique Greek culture either. It changes, and it's different for certain levels of SES and parts of the country. Yet all Greeks know they are Greek, and white people know they are white people, even if they are still evolving culturally and genetically. You want a deductive proof for something inductive. Considering the fact that now our physics necessarily relies on probability, i.e. quantum physics, I can't give you a newtonian model of race, just as I can't give you a newtonian model of the universe. But, I don't say the universe doesn't exist. I don't say that Greeks don't exist either. What does white mean? Well, here is the definition of white.

Who may be a member: Due to the generally deplorable understanding of race, it is necessary for us to emphasize that White people are the descendants of all historically European peoples, including the Irish, Slavs, Spaniards, Italians, Greeks, as well as the Germanic, Scandinavian, and Anglo-Saxon peoples, etc., so long as there is no discernible trace of non-White admixture. National Vanguard celebrates the cultural diversity of the White race. Our beautiful languages, traditions, and cultures are a strength. We are pan-European in our views and stand unconditionally opposed to conflicts between White peoples. Outside forces often exploit one White ethnicity against another. We do not excuse anti-White hatreds or historical "scores", and will consistently work towards reconciliation and unity in places such as the Balkans and Northern Ireland. Our watchword is no more brothers' wars.

Ok, there's a definition of white for you. Pretty clear cut.

3.
ok.
a. Ok, I've taken two years of logic. I'm taken 5 years of philosophy, math, and computer science. I get A's and B's and I'm hoping one day to get my doctor. I'm sorry, I don't sense any logical inconsistency here. You merely want to disagree with any definitions you don't like. You also want to ignore common sense; I guess it's just too common for anti-whites, excuse me, anti-'racists' with a stick shoved up their ass. If Godel's incompleteness theorem is taken into account, any axiomatic system cannot be proven within that system, instead it requires another system to prove it and so on and so on. Also, if you take a postmodernist view into account combined with sociology, everything is either a social construct or a myth, even science according to the strong program, so there's no objective knowledge there either. I've always considered it funny that sociologists claim to be objective, when they themselves claim there is no real objective thing, just fads really.

As for me, I think that is total hogwash. I've got a definition of white. I use it. It works. When you set out the definition of white to white people, from anywhere in the world, they seem to understand that they are white, sort of like people understand that they are Greek when they know what the definition of greek is.

b. Holy crap. Not again with the anti-white bias. This is positively nuts. Look, minorities in ANY country are mistreated by majorities. But, you're going to have minorities and majorities. Minorities live off the good will of majorities. White people have been pretty darn benelovent, and recently they have been benevolent to the point where they are self destructive. This is not healthy. I want to retain the character of my nation, and the set of culture that goes with it. Sorry, if that was not included in your invasion plans, and you just decided that I should lay down and die because I have a conflict of interest with you. Quite frankly, you should go live somewhere else if you are so hostile to the natives of white countries. It would be much better for you, and it would be much better for us. There is no reason for you to spend time around us if you have such hostility, arrogance, and negative attitude towards us. I'm certain you could go somewhere in this world and have peace of mind, but it's not going to be in a white country. No matter how much you go on about how evil we are, we're not going to take it forever, and you will become very unpopular at that point, and I have a distinct feeling that there are going to be quite a few that remember your attitude, behavior, and words. So, either get that stick out of your ass, and get off your high horse, or leave and go somewhere where you do not have to attack the interests of white people. If you feel so conflicted by white people, avoid us, please.

I'm not interested in world domination here. I'm interested in keeping my country, my country. I'm interested in preserving the culture and the ideas of my forefathers. I'm interested in making sure, the native people of this country, which are white since it is a country that was founded by white people for white people, relatively native. There is plenty of space on this world. White people are relatively few in number. If you want to go somewhere, where there are no white people it is quite easy. I would suggest you do so.

>>66

1. I never said they did, dummy. I'm saying that whites aren't indigenous to the Americas and to protect the status quo based "indigenous rights" is fairly rediculous. Especially given that you deny these same rights to Mexicans. Don't misunderstand. I agree, Mexicans don't have "rights" to the US. Ah, but neither do whites. You handed over the keys with "all men were created equal"

Tell me something, were you for or against the creation of Israel?

2. Your definition is insufficent and nebulous in nature- and that's just a gross understatement. The problem with your definition of "white" is that it works for everyone who wants to be "white" and partake in white privalege. Do you really think the Greeks think they are one in the same with the Italians? Do you really think the Spainards consider themselves the same as the Germans? Your definition is loosely thrown together at best and it shows.

3b. Your ideal of what "character" "your nation" possesses is long dead and idealogically incapable with democracy's notions of equality, criticism and constant self-improvement. If you've really devoted yourself to these ideals- then it race or culture shouldn't make much of a difference if any.

The world is growing smaller by the day and the idea that any one race can have- ideologically, culturally and socially "a spae to themselves" is dead by virtue of the fact that I'm able to have this debate while miles away from each other. I can understand you feeling the way you do if you were Finnish or something. But you're Western and American, just like me.

Holy shit, the obsessive-compulsive antichan's on the beat. Halt the train, before we get another 1000-post thread.

1."Ah, but neither do whites. You handed over the keys with "all men were created equal""

No. All men aren't created equal. There were political reasons for writing that. Read the preamble to the consitution. Then, read up on crazy French liberalism in that period, and how much we desperately wanted/needed their help.

"Tell me something, were you for or against the creation of Israel?"

I don't really care about Israel. I just want to stop fighting wars for that twisted country. I don't want to send any more money towards their holocaust museums. I don't want to give them more free cash so that their backwards economy doesn't flop over. I don't want to indirectly help them with their drug and slave trade. I don't want to give them weapons to kill the Palestinians anymore. Other than that, it's really none of my business what they do. However, Israel, like most jewish people and jewish organizations, doesn't know when to just leave things well enough alone. So, I've of the opinion that western civilization is going to be at war with Israel eventually. And we'll win. Handily. It will not be the first time that jews have taken on far more than they could handle, and ran into a fight when they didn't have a dog in the fight in the first place. They simply can't control themselves. They've never been able to.

2. It is not nebulous. Read again. Nation - Culture - Ethnicity, - Race - are related but not the same thing. I laid things out in pretty certain terms. Oh yes, I know quite a few Britons, Americans, French, Germans, Swedes, Ukrainians, and Russians that consider themselves white. In fact, they're white nationalists and they totally agree that we should work together and that we have a shared racial and cultural bond. Sorry, I guess we left you our of the loop. Too bad, huh?

3. Democracy? Where? Republics aren't democracies, and if you want to take a good hard look at progress in a Republic, look at good ol' Mexicano Lovin' El Presidente Bush or look at the history of the Roman Empire.

That equality thing.. Huh.. Here's a good quote for you.

Richard Berkeley Cotten: Freedom is not free; free men are not equal; and equal men are not free.

I don't believe people are equal. Even better, I KNOW people aren't equal. Sociologists don't believe people are equal. Geneticists know that people aren't equal. Physicists know that people aren't equal. Anthropologists don't believe people are equal. Really, anybody with two brain cells to rub together knows that there are similarities between things, but equality is an abstract concept that you use in a priori constructs like math, not something that 'exists.' If you want some sort of equality from me, then you'll get equality of opportunity. Which, ironically, was what this silly capitalistic system was founded on. So, before you say that we here in the U.S. believe in equality, then take a good hard look at what we do and think pragmatically. We believe in a system that is based on people being unequal and some people, unequal people, being able to perform better than others or do things that other people simply can't do, for various reasons. So, please, humor me. Look a little deeper than your own rhetoric for a little while.

Next. Why were Americans so successful.. Hmm... Probably for the same reason that Russia and Europe were really successful. As if we aren't the only successful white country? Seriously. We also have some pretty nice natural resources and no wars to worry about. That helps too. Sorry, we're not the first republic and politics is still politics as usual. Stalin preached freedom when he had the collar around everybody's neck. Please.

3. The world is not growing smaller; I'm afraid. Only, non-whites can't seem to control themselves when it comes to not having children. White people don't seem to overcrowd themselves too much, because they just tend to replenish their population. Black people have a bazillion children. They starve to death, in resource rich Africa, with distended bellies because they control themselves sexually or, heck, even 'appetite'tically. You should really read up on the huge slaughters and one day feasts some of these tribes have. They could eat for a year, and they waste it in a day. And then they starve! Whee! Could this be because of their lack of foresight, and not because of oppressive white privelege on the other side of the world? Who knows? Wait, sorry, I forgot. It's our fault everybody hasn't got their act together, because WE got our act together. Wait.. No... That doesn't make any sense. Oh well, it didn't have to in the first place. Whiteness is universal evil.

Mexico is popping out babies like a baby making machine'. La Raza is happily calling anybody who holds up an American flag to their protest a racist, while they contend that the entire north american continent is the property of Mexican people, and that we should all move back to Europe. They've picked up too many tricks from the jews... Screaming, you're the invaders, while invading. Here's how you spell hypocrisy. H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y

So, they starve and eventually they say to yourselves, "Man! It's not fair! Those white people have plenty of resources, and they aren't overcrowded. It's not because they didn't overpopulate their areas by having a bazillion children; it's because of invisible white privelge that white people have, in their own isolated countries!!" So, bazillions of third worlders HAVE to move to our countrie because white countries tend to be really nice, and then our country becomes an overpopulated third world (just like where they came from) country and white people  pop out of existence, because somebody else comes here and has more babies than we do, by several orders of magnitude! Eventually, this leads to the genocide of our entire race, heritage, and culture. Well, I guess that means that the 'race' problem is solved. Strangely enough, this sequence of events is starting to concern some white people, who have this (I know, I know) insane notion that they are white and might share some common interest here. I know, insane! But, somehow, we keep on coming to this conclusion naturally? Maybe it's genetic? I mean I can't really help feeling empathy for the Boers in South Africa, when thousands lost their farms or were raped or tortured to death in the most horrible ways by a bunch of (yes, I'm racist) complete savages. I even felt more sympathy when I got the chance to listen to a heartfelt speech from a woman that barely managed to escape that mess with her sanity, who is very very white and can speak three languages fluently.

Oh sorry. Forgot it again. They deserved it didn't they? They were white. Lived there for longer than my country has existed, but they too were evil invaders. That's why the invasion and torture of them, was ultimate justice, especially when it was done by a people that didn't even inhabit that part of Africa until they overpopulated themselves and moved south, and were a people, aggressive, cruel, brutal, warlike, and fantastically superstitious (even believing that the only way to cure aids was to literally rape white babies. Yes, rape babies, and possibly toddlers.)


 
Getting back to my point, for some odd reason, white people seem to be preoccupied with other things than filling every inch of this world with human flesh.

And, viola! Immigration! The hostile immigrants from everywhere to muslim-land to mexico overcrowd us, like they overcrowded themselves! So, we get to suffer as well. We all get to starve, and live in incredible conflict and violence over scare resources... Together! Ahh, the bloody brotherhood of humanity and allowing ANYONE into your community, in ANY number! Even if you have absolutely nothing in common, and you didn't really want immigrants from ANYWHERE in the first place.

Whee!

Look, watch this video. It's been posted quite a few times. Watch it all the way through.

http//video.google.com/...

If it doesn't clarify things for you a little, then I suggest you go to http://www.nationalvanguard.org/

If that does't clarify things for you a little, then I suggest that you go to http://www.stormfront.org/ and yell and scream in the opposing views section. I'm sure your inexhaustible energy will go to fantastic use there.

As for me, I'm going to take a short break. Have fun, I'm sure you'll type the same arguments over and over again until your fingers bleed.

"They starve to death, in resource rich Africa, with distended bellies because they control themselves sexually or, heck, even 'appetite'tically."

Should be, 'they cannot control'

"Oh sorry. Forgot it again. They deserved it didn't they? They were white. Lived there for longer than my country has existed, but they too were evil invaders. That's why the invasion and torture of them, was ultimate justice, especially when it was done by a people that didn't even inhabit that part of Africa until they overpopulated themselves and moved south, and were a people, aggressive, cruel, brutal, warlike, and fantastically superstitious (even believing that the only way to cure aids was to literally rape white babies. Yes, rape babies, and possibly toddlers.)"

I'm also going to mention, that the Boers saved the Hottentots from extinction. Whee! White people save somebody from extinction? How is this possible? Oh well. And those savages from northern Africa, starting migrating down after the Boers had been there for a long time. Oh well.

"No. Why do you keep trying to rephrase my argument to suit your ability to only give limited responses? "There's no such thing as race" is a diluded way of interpeting what I'm saying. Is it your limited capcity to understand these very simple concepts that keeps leading you back to this phrasing or is it something else?"

Sorry, you nitpick and quibble so much I have no idea what exactly your argument is, so why not simply tell me? I fail to see what is so difficult with defining your argument. What is so hard? Maybe you see that race exists only in a social perspective, but isn't genetically viable. Maybe you believe whites are a race apart from the rest of the world. Maybe you believe races are more malleable than contemporary ideas and that there are many half caucasian half negroes and that the differences that evolved are very minor. It's much easier to persuade someone to agree with you if they know exactly what you are trying to prove. If everything you say is indeed true, that racism is still at large and ruining people's lives and there is a logical reason for me not to think of myself as part of a racial group, but think of blacks, hispanics and asians as part of a racial group, then it should be easy to compose and argument so we can find out what we disagree apon and look at the facts.


"Your crime is complacency. I keep repeating this over and over and over and somehow you keep dodging the idea that being complacent to the fact that "racism takes place and that being white I am less likely to be a victim of discrimination" [b]is[/i], in fact, what I am speaking of when I refer to "white privalege". Your complancency voids you of innocence."

You haven't even given me an example of how I am benefitting from white priviledge, many other people here are asking that same question. Am I doing something wrong? Am I not doing something right? What do you want me to do? If I were given priviledges for being white I would ask that they be given to non-whites aswell or I wouldn't have anything to do with whoever is offerring me those priviledges. If someone discriminates against non-whites I won't particularly like that person, won't put him in a position of authority and would oppose strongly any authority he/she has. I find racists to be very immature and dim, though luckily they weren't in any position of authority so unless you want me to attack their right to the freedom of speech or there is discrimination occurring that I am unaware of and not helping to eliminate, there is nothing else I can do.


"Right. You are making "a claim." I understand that."

I could write about how everything you say is a claim aswell and imply it is wrong simply because you said it. I don't because that is plain silly. All you have done is make yourself sound like an idiot.


"But, I am exposing the superfical trappings of race and how race has been used to basically get people to commit to the most henious acts in all of history. Meanwhile, your defintion of "white heritage" still lacks fundamental specifics and most of all- a objective look at all of history. What is "white culture, techonology and civilisation" and on what basis do you believe that these things are "purely white" - completely devoid of contributions from other cultures and races?"

It would be a lot easier if you didn't discriminate against whites, just because I said white heritage and not some other ethnic group's heritage all of a sudden heritage is an ambiguous term. Contributions by whites are part of white heritage and contributions by non-whites are part of non-white heritage I also fail to see how this makes your analogy apt, since you have decided to fillibuster on the definition of heritage instead of actually disproving a point in my argument or indicating why it is logically wrong.


"Oh ho ho, The analogy is apt."

Once again, your analogy doesn't apply in this situation since you benefit from whites thinking race doesn't exist, thus you have an incentive to do so. There is also proof of this as indicated by your obvious spite towards anything which is white heritage. I don't go out of my way to attack the heritage of other races or nations, Blacks have their fair share of geniuses like emeagwali, Chinese civilisation was the peak of human civilisation until the rennaissance in europe kicked off, civilisation started in the fertilce crescent, not in northern europe. You see, I acknowledge these heritages as you do, but when it comes to discussing white heritage with you there is a stunned silence followed by rants about atrocities by whites directed at why innocent whites living today must be discriminated against and non-whites given priviledges.


"If it wasn't it really would not have taken a whole paragraph to address the holes in it."

That isn't a very compelling argument, besides my response took up 2 lines and a bit and your analogy took 1 line and a bit.

""Atheists attack the concept of God and yet no one ever seems to claim they somehow still believe in God by virtue of the fact that they understand that everyone else believes in God solely to their benefit."
This isn't a correct analogy. I claim you are trying to prove race doesn't exist to your opponents so they believe there is no point in standing up for themselves. I am claiming you benefit from whites not having a racial identity. In your analogy no one claims the atheists attack the idea of god because they have little reason to benefit from doing so."

Paragraph? Stop blowing things out of proportion. You know very well what is meant by heritage, 2 lines and a bit is hardly a paragraph and every argument needs to be defined and given proof to back it up.


You haven't defined your argument, if you were not racist you would be attacking racism and discrimination instead of the white race. However you seem to think that racism is synonymous with whites, which is in itself a racist point of view and stupidly hypocritical. My argument is that "white priviledge" only occurs when a white person exploits a non-white person or participates in acts of discrimination and since the majority of whites oppose discrimination, including myself, they do not gain from racism. I argue that you are attempting to label all whites as unknowingly receiving "white priviledge" and thus are racist and that it is justified to discriminate against them as a result.


"Precisely and this is the disorder afflicting you and other white nationalists. Not- "the entire white race" as you continue to assert and I continue to prove otherwise. "

What? You haven't proved a thing. You haven't even outlined what you are trying to prove. Clearly you have a problem. Admitting you have a problem is the first step to solving it. Come on, here is a list of symptoms.

*is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
Glamorisation of crime, belief in moral superiority and conspiracies in which you play a major role.

*believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by other special people
Cult-like attitude to politics, belief that anyone with a different opinion is out to get you and the only people you can trust are those who are part of your group (Usually the opposite).

*requires excessive admiration
Refusal to accept criticism, belief that all criticism is an insult and to be ignored. Belief that anyone who doesn't flatter you must hate you.

*strong sense of entitlement
Belief that you have been wronged and that it is ok to take back what is owed by a skapegoat or invisible enemy.

*takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
*lacks empathy
I take it you are not very nice to white people.

*is often envious or believes others are envious of him or her
You are envious of the success of others and harbour the socialist belief that anyone who outcompetes you has stolen from you what you never earned in the first place. I don't give a flying fuck about heritage, I am an individualist and believe, that success and opportunity should be earned through merit. Thus why I oppose discrimination. You believe whites are envious of you and you are envious of the achievements of whites. Whites of course being your skapegoat.

*arrogant affect
Belief in the infallibilty and superiority of those in your group, thus anyone who disagrees must be wrong, even if they tear apart your argument in debate and anyone who has done better than you must have done it through crime, crimes which must be found out even if the proof of the crimes go against reason. Everyone makes mistakes, all it takes is for you to admit you are wrong.

>>69



No. All men aren't created equal. There were political reasons for writing that. Read the preamble to the consitution. Then, read up on crazy French liberalism in that period, and how much we desperately wanted/needed their help.

So what? You attribute whites to creating "human rights" and you consider this a positive thing. Then, you turn around and say they're wrong? It really doesn't matter how you believe the concept of natural rights and equal treatment among human beings came about. We, the west, adhere to it now as fact and using it we have made the world the better place.



In response to: "Tell me something, were you for or against the creation of Israel?"

I don't really care about Israel. ETC. ETC.



Wow. What a really long way of not answering my question. Here, I'll ask you again. "Were you for or against the creation of Israel?" --- Are you against or for people being displace from their land?



In fact, they're white nationalists and they totally agree that we should work together and that we have a shared racial and cultural bond. Sorry, I guess we left you our of the loop. Too bad, huh?



Not really. White nationalists don't hold steady to western values- so what you do or say has very little sway and you've been led to believe "your loop" is the "oncoming status quo" every since WW2-germany. Why is it when white nationalism rears it's ugly head in those countries that America is usually the first to quash it? LOL, izzit "Da Jews"? Or that MAYBE, just MAYBE there are greater ideals than "racial responsibility" at stake? MAYBE, just MAYBE some *GASP* criticised White Nationalism at some point?



Democracy? Where? Republics aren't democracies, and if you want to take a good hard look at progress in a Republic, look at good ol' Mexicano Lovin' El Presidente Bush or look at the history of the Roman Empire.



I'm sorry, that this obviously flawed system has left you feeling so disenfranchised that you've given up on it. It's alright, I know serveral poor, "persecuted" blacks who feel the same way.




If you want some sort of equality from me, then you'll get equality of opportunity. Which, ironically, was what this silly capitalistic system was founded on. So, before you say that we here in the U.S. believe in equality, then take a good hard look at what we do and think pragmatically. We believe in a system that is based on people being unequal and some people, unequal people, being able to perform better than others or do things that other people simply can't do, for various reasons. So, please, humor me. Look a little deeper than your own rhetoric for a little while.



Why were Americans so successful.. Hmm... Probably for the same reason that Russia and Europe were really successful. As if we aren't the only successful white country? Seriously. We also have some pretty nice natural resources and no wars to worry about. That helps too. Sorry, we're not the first republic and politics is still politics as usual. Stalin preached freedom when he had the collar around everybody's neck. Please.



"Please." - you use this phrase alot. It sounds alot like begging. Sad boy, your assertion that America is "a white country" is ridiculous given your constant comparisons of the U.S and the Roman Empire or any other Multi-cultural dominant force in the world.



The world is not growing smaller; I'm afraid. Only, non-whites can't seem to control themselves when it comes to not having children.



That's nice, Mr. Bigot. But I'm not talking about birthrates, even though Catholicism has pretty much ensured that the world is stocked up on "white" for the next hundred years. I'm talking about information. The rest of your diatribes are silly at his point- as I'm convinced you're not actually arguing with me- but- what? The spirit of what you think my argument may or may not be?


Getting back to my point, for some odd reason, white people seem to be preoccupied with other things than filling every inch of this world with human flesh.


*yawn*...oh you're back?

Oh ok: I'll take Colonialism and Imperialism for the win. :)

And gee, what's this? Is dat sum pure inability for the white nationalist to argue logically without throwing Hitler's pamplets in our faces and whining "Just read it, it'll make sense."

Yeah, ok. You just keep throwing weblinks at all debates in life- let's see how far that gets you.

Oh wait: There's not white nationalist party.

There's no white nationalist president up for election.

I mean, if America is such a white country--- then Americans should have no problem voting for "white interests". (Whatever that means.) Oh lawd, is it dat America isn't white? Mebbe, massa. Mebbe.

>>72



Sorry, you nitpick and quibble so much I have no idea what exactly your argument is, so why not simply tell me?

Ok. I'll just copy/paste what I've been repeating over and over all along.


---"Race is irrelevant and superficial, so there should be an end to racial privalege, racial responsibility and racial group-think."

---"My self-interest lies fundamentally in the fostering of the individual spirt of human kind as a whole. My motivations are selfish in that I wish to be treated as an individual and not as a member of a group of people- whatever the commonality might appear to be. White privalage is an extention of the concept of race and has done far more harm to humanity than good. And what little good it does is frivilous. Race has become a burden and an obstuction to the individual. Only a madman can believe he has "a white heart" or "a black mind". The individual is greater than the sum of it's socially (or genetically) re-enforced parts.

In short: You, to me, represent everything adverse to the progression of my individual self. Racial privalage- white, black, whatever...must be stopped for the sake of a human kind that wants individuality.

---"My basis for saying that the white race is a fabrication is based on the fact the root of the word was used to define nations of people. The only benefit from realizing race is "support", support that frankly should be aptly filled by family and friends. Just because someone is the same race as you doesn't make them your family. It is in this way that race becomes a strong social force based on the priveleges of being a certain race. The racial heirarchy exist for this reason alone. Not as a mere classification."
 

Shall I continue? The first statement pretty much covers it, but I can post more if you wish.


You haven't even given me an example of how I am benefitting from white priviledge, many other people here are asking that same question. Am I doing something wrong? Am I not doing something right? What do you want me to do?



Everything you wrote after this is just fine, actually. Everything *except* eliminate their freedom of speech.

Just remember "that being complacent to the fact that "racism takes place and that being white I am less likely to be a victim of discrimination" is, in fact, what I am speaking of when I refer to "white privalege". Your complancency voids you of innocence."


I could write about how everything you say is a claim aswell and imply it is wrong simply because you said it. I don't because that is plain silly. All you have done is make yourself sound like an idiot.



I'm sorry, but you're claiming I'm saying something that I'm not. I am not doing the same to you because I understand your argument. What exactly am I supposed to do when you pidgeonhole me and my argument? Let you?



It would be a lot easier if you didn't discriminate against whites, just because I said white heritage and not some other ethnic group's heritage all of a sudden heritage is an ambiguous term.



Case in point.

You see, you simply refuse to understand that "white privalege" isn't the same thing as "white people" because being white means being privaleged to you.


Once again, your analogy doesn't apply in this situation since you benefit from whites thinking race doesn't exist, thus you have an incentive to do so. There is also proof of this as indicated by your obvious spite towards anything which is white heritage. I don't go out of my way to attack the heritage of other races or nations, Blacks have their fair share of geniuses like emeagwali, Chinese civilisation was the peak of human civilisation until the rennaissance in europe kicked off, civilisation started in the fertilce crescent, not in northern europe. You see, I acknowledge these heritages as you do, but when it comes to discussing white heritage with you there is a stunned silence followed by rants about atrocities by whites directed at why innocent whites living today must be discriminated against and non-whites given priviledges.



That's nice. But I'm not talking about race not existing. I'm refering to it's superficial nature and how race exists to prop up the race you're in and to hell with everyone else- if you're black, white, meximoot or whatever. You're trying to impress upon me a racial responsibility or racial indentity, I myself don't really adhere to. Though, who can blame you? It's pretty impossible to remain objective given the subject matter. But that alone- just proves my point. Race is insidious in that in permiates into every debate- effectively ruining chances for compromise or understanding. It is the ultimate "us/them", right up there with gender and if you're not already playing by the rules then somehow you're not even in the debate.

73, I love you.

anti-chan is gay that goes without saying
but why is it so difficult to win an argument with him? why aren't the white nationalists on these boards beating the fuck out him debate wise? i don't get it. that makes you blokes much worse doesn't it?

Have you looked at that 1000-post thread? 1/3 of the posts were by antichan. There's something weird about that kind of stamina.

>>77

What stamina? All I have to do is repeat myself over and over, especially when it's 100% clear that the opposition isn't actually trying to have a debate. Case in point: Claiming that "I never made my arugment clear" is pure bullshit.

Well, I outlined it and there's still no reply- what does that tell you? The people on these forums just aren't even close to being at a college level when it comes to discussing issues. It doesn't take long to type or read any of the shit on these forums- including my own.

Of course a success like myself is going to seem "weird" to a group of proven failures.

non-white: do you acknowledge that in the past, self-reighteous white supremists, claiming to "enlighten" the backwards peoples of the world, colonise, murder, exploit and ruin them?

white: yes, but it's all history now. we've changed and would like to move on, but it's you non-whites that are so hard to deal with. if you want us to help you, you need to put the past behind.

non-white: you must understand that when you were conquering the world you claimed to help us too. we don't trust you just because you say some words. it needs to be backed up with many good actions over lots of time.

white: see this is what you get when you try to help others. every race for itself.

non-white: typical white supremist bastard

>>79

seriously: the world has had enough of whities help. and sitting here having the fucking audcity to fault people for being against "white interest" is fucking nuts. why would any non-white person be for "white interest" in the first place?

>>78
All I have to do is repeat myself over and over, especially when it's 100% clear that the opposition isn't actually trying to have a debate

That's the point. A normal person would throw up their hands, walk away, and get on with their life. You're a little different, you just keep going, and going, and going, and going, and...

That's abnormal. Borderline, or some other cluster B.

>>77
It's pretty obvious anti-chan's problems are pathological, this is a text book case of someone sufferring from both anti-social PD and narcissistic PD.

>>81
>>82

Or maybe it's just that- "The people on these forums just aren't even close to being at a college level when it comes to discussing issues. It doesn't take long to type or read any of the shit on these forums- including my own. Of course a success like myself is going to seem "weird" to a group of proven failures."

See what I mean? All I really have to do is find different ways of repeating myself. I'm dealing with pre-tarded thalidomide babies with some twisted form of ADD that causes them believe that their bahavior is normal.

Pretty contemptible reaction given >>81's and >>82's ability to fail during any debate.

Congratulations on proving >>81,82. You just can't help it.

>>83 is right. all of this shite sounds like the words of sore losers

Because on the Internet, your opinion Matters.

Only the loser of the argument tries to trivialize the argument after numerous failures of controlling said arguement.

Because, with a loon at the other end, you can't "win".

Don't worry, you'll figure it out yourself eventually.

>>87

i guess if you can't beat your opponent with superior logic, you always claim he's insane.

But what if he is insane? Flawless logic won't help you there.

>>91
like the man said, if superior logic doesn't win...then you can always (A) trivialize the argument or (B) resort to a character attack (he's crazy!)

there's nothing "crazy" about tanacity. don't throw a bitch fit because you lack intellectual stamina

Wait... wait.... I'm sorry, I lost track.

The white supremacist lost, right?

>>93
yes.

there's nothing "crazy" about tanacity.

a) "tenacity"
b) obsession

This is the saddest board on the internet.  Seriously, all of you please stab yourself in the face.  Rid the world of this pathetic, puerile squabbling.

>>95

Refer to: >>92

Where did the white supremacist lose? I still believe that anti-chan believes whites are evil, despite being the only race to develop democracy and ban slavery (even fighting a bloody war over it).

I don't think any races can be said to be inherantly good or evil, just that when the smart ones do good the world progresses and there is less evil.

>>98

Cite where I said "whites are evil". Why is it so hard for you to differenciate between racial privelege, in this case- 'white privelege' and the entire white race?

"Despite being the only race to develop democracy"

That's a laugh. Greeks aren't white, no matter how much you wish them to be. And they weren't the only race to ban slavery or consider democracy, either. Plus: The civil war wasn't over slavery, it was a fight for the union. So, pretty much you fail across the board.

Read more history and less white nationalist rantings, plz.

Greeks aren't white

That's news to me.

>>99 thats some fucked up knowledge.

Greek =/= Black, Spanish, or AZN

Greek = WHITE

Because WHITE is a blanket term for all people of european decent; you really cant specify anymore what with the intermixing.

Greeks are gray. They also have the haircolor of Satan, black, I think.

ENVY OF BLACK PEOPLE ( THE GODS OF THE EARTH, THE 'NET-GER' WILL LEAD TO THE DESTRUCTION OF THE ENVIOUS (LUCIFITES, THOSE WHO FEEL INFERIOR AND MUST PUT OTHERS DOWN TO FEEL SUPERIOR )
http://www.stewartsynopsis.com
http://www.suzar.com

http://www.sudanforum.com

SATEN IS WHITE, HE IS CALLED 'LUCIFER' THE TERM 'LUCID' MEANS 'WHITE/PALE/'  HENCE LUCIFER MEANS 'THE WHITE ONE' 

GOD THE 'DIVINE THOUGHT' IS BLACK, THE TERM FOR GOD IS 'NET-GER' (NATURE) AND NATURE WAS CREATED BY THE DIVINE BLACK THOUGHT.

White represents purity

Black represents flith

Europeans are 'pink' like worms.  MILK IS WHITE.

Blacks are AS BLACK AS GOD.  BLACK STANDS FOR POWER, FOR HOLYNESS FOR GODLINESS...WHITE STANDS FOR EVIL, DEATH, DISEASE, PLAGUE, FILTH.

BLACKNESS IS NEXT TO GODLINESS.

>>106
Watch it or I'll conjure a rather nasty beast from the darkest depths of Usenet and lock you in a room with it.  I will not open the door until you both have died.

WHAT A TERRIBLE THING TO SAY ABOUT...
http://www.sudanforum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34422

LOL @ Nigger racists.

Poor sods don't understand that they are inferior.

What a bunch of noobs. Everone knows that niggers are inferior.

THEY DON'T THINK SO...THEY THINK WORMS ARE THE INFERIORS.  TEN MINUTES IN THE HOT SUN PROVES IT.

There's such a mindnumbing confusion going on that you idiots are comparing my statement with obvious racist shit like stuart synopsis or sudanforum (mind, I didn't actually click on the links just going by what been said) when what they think isn't even close to what I've implictly said.

I keep saying: "I don't hate the white race. I just don't think there's should be priveleges to being a certain race. (such as white) Race is a concept that only used to benefit a certain portion of mankind and is therefore an inferior way of thought because it is insular and doesn't address the existental problems mankind (black or white) are going to be coming to terms with in the 22nd century."

And you idiots keep coming back with: "He hates whites, he think blacks are superior."

Given what I've witnessed of history and of everyday human interaction...for me...there's no such thing as a people being "generally superior". It's basically groups of truly inferior human specimens trying to take credit for things they've had no part in. Truly superior human beings can be counted by the handful and to dice them up into race is complete subjective and does nothing but to furthe the cause of race and racial privalege.

When Greece began there was no Europe and furthering that Europeans are an indiginous people in their own right. The way you people think, act and react is dictated by this flimsy notion of race, so you're unable to see that the Greeks for all their apparent "whiteness" were a collection of peoples that mirgrated out of Africa and the far east. 

The fact that one would continue to asscioate the greeks with a *very* recent racial term like "white" is greatly downplaying what the greeks learned from other cultures and used in their own. And these orgins are "non-white" because in those days...THERE WERE NO "WHITE PEOPLE".

 

>>112
"Greeks for all their apparent "whiteness" were a collection of peoples that mirgrated out of Africa and the far east."
Our belief that the humanity has branched out into different races has little to do with proving that the ancient greeks were negro. Unless of course you think that the migration out of africa makes everyone negro, which is absurd since evolution is occurring. However you would be right in saying that negros share many of the same characteristics of humans 70000 years ago before they left africa and evolved into the different races. No one is saying Greece created all it's technology and culture on it's own either, they are saying it did things the fertile crescent civilisations had never done before and that's what makes it special.

What are you saying and before you go on I am not saying I don't understand your argument, I am saying I have no idea where your facts are coming from. Claiming that because whites are succesful and the winners write history and that some elements of history may not be true is fair enough, but you have to prove something before it is true, not say "something else may not be true, therefore what I say is true".

On a personal note, back up your argumetns with facts or do yourself a favour and fuck off before you humiliate yourself further.

>>111
An avarege IQ of 80 proves you wrong.

there's no such thing as a people being "generally superior". It's basically groups of truly inferior human specimens

There's no such thing as "generally superior", but there is "truly inferior"?

I'm trying to understand that bizarre piece of logic, but I'm failing. Someone help me here.

>>113

First of all, I'm not saying the greeks were negro. Why do you automatically assume I'm trying afrocentrize the debate? Ask yourself that. Is it at all possible for you get past race as an argumentitive device? Non-white, is just that. Non-white. Greeks are non-white. As in, NOT indigenous to Europe.

Secondly, "evolution is occuring" is a pretty bold statement given that the scientific community has failed at producing evidence that mankind has *recently* evolved in the last 3,000 years. Evolution takes a long time and as such we can't really recognise an evolutionary pattern until after the fact. If you have concrete, absolute proof stating otherwise...then by all means.

Don't know where you're getting the idea that race is a form of evolution, but I would like to see evidence that explictly says this. According to your logic, eye color is evolution, rock n' roll is a form of evolution, gender is evolution. And that...just doesn't make sense.

I'm not saying I don't understand your argument, but you have to prove something before it is true.

>>115

Huh? What is so hard to understand? I'm saying that superiority doesn't work on general levels. It works on individual levels. People are generally (truly) inferior to a small, tiny percentile of superior individuals. Period. One in a billion people come up with innovative ideas, the rest simply follow. Mankind is mediocre. The likihood that any of you are "superior" in that sense to someone else depsite race, culture or whatever is without merit and entirely subjective.

>>114
The average IQ in any group is 100.

Like Sidhartha Gautama, KungFu Tse, Lao Tse, Leonardo da Vinci, Alexander the Great, Thomas Edison, they are superior the rest just follows amirite?.

>>118
In that group, the average IQ is 100.

>>116
Greece is in europe you fucking idiot. Holy fuck!

>>116
OK seriously, what the fuck, Greece is in europe. Lol what the fuck? It's right there, get a fucking map, Greece is in europe.

Lol?? Are you kidding me?

>>120,121
It's next to the sea, sharing it with other retarded countries like Turkey, Italy, Spain, France, etc.  Neither of which I would consider truly white or European.  Especially not the Turks.

>>122
It's between the mediteranean and europe. Turkey is considerred between the mediteranean and middle east.

HAY GUYZ, I'M GONNA ARBITRARILY REDEFINE WHITE AS A TINY BUNCH OF PEOPLE LIVING IN NORWAY. WHO CARES WHAT EVERYONE ELSE THINKS WHEN THEY SAY "WHITE".

>>124
EVERYONE IS WHITE EXCEPT THE DAMN IRISH