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.

>>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?