I know what a strawman is. You were just openly asking for something other than our actual politic to debate. Maybe you didn’t recognize what you were doing since people normally make some effort to cleverly slip the strawman into the conversation.
I’m stating my opinion: This will happen with or without us. Your multicultural paradise is doomed.
All I’ll say to that is that I don’t believe the U.S. government is the great and everlasting empire that you do.
Cause, (economic or otherwise), was not relevant to my statement. So, here’s my (personal favorite) reference…
Loving the stated notion, btw, that anyone’s blood is pure. Hell, in the past hundred-odd years, I can think of select few groups that managed to keep their blood “pure” for any significant length of time, and in one case their skin turned blue as a result. Best of luck trying to find someone who’s pure any country … just out of curiosity, how do you test for that?
This predictiong I find interesting, and I’ve seen it a couple times now. It seems to me that historical trends have gradually led to greater liberalization and increased tolerance of those different from us. Why should these trends reverse themselves now?
Doomed to succeed? America may fall apart in a few hundred years, but if it does, it won’t be because we became “too multicultural”. It will be because people like you manage to seize power or obtain a nuke.
I imagine they’ll default to the ole “aryan” pseudoscience complete with calipers to measure skull sizes, eye color charts, and “in depth” family questionaires asking if one or more members of your extended ancestry consists of jews, blacks, asians, native americans, etc… Then the “subhumans” will be train bound for the ole’ chimney stack out in the forest somewhere. Except like the past there will be a great combined ass kicking for anyone who tries it.
Why can the separatists here not answer the simple questions?
[ul][li]What traits are universally attributable to “whites”?[/li][li]Do you admit that “white” is an arbitrary and scientifically useless taxon?[/ul] (I realise NotPicarddid admit this second point, ie. that there was no reasoning behind his choice of taxon, but I’d like to hear it from the rest.) [/li]
Also, if you set up your arbitrarily segregated community somewhere, I or others like me will lie my way in and attempt to end the segregation by any legal means (which will probably entail a simple appeal to the law, or simply selling my property to a dark family). Why would I do this?
To demonstrate that segregated communities are inherently less stable than unsegregated ones.
Why would people choose different associations? We already have some understanding of that, based on the clannish nature of people and our inherent xenophobia. Discussing the “why” is worth pursuing to discover the motivations that drive one person that seem to have no affect on the next person. Why would you not choose to discuss it, given that many people do not choose to put boundaries around themselves based on “white” or “black.” (For example, I never understand why Jews get a separate label, here, since they tend to be white, anyway. The two black kids a couple of houses away get along with my son a lot better than the two white kids he plays with whom he has known longer. Since we have never told him that he needs to associate with “his kind,” he does not set up his boundaries along those of race, preferring to divide kids among jocks and geeks and similar attributes.) If people actually chose segragation naturally, we would never have these discussions because they would all choose to be living in separate communities. But we do not all choose to live apart, so the notion that we will choose to group by the notions of race are clearly not universal. Some people prefer that separation; others do not care. For those of us who do not care, it is interesting to discover the motivation behind those who think it is a big deal.
Of course the discussion in the U.S. surrounding race is not centered on genetic minutiae. It is centered on the mistreatment of some groups by other groups. The genetic issue only comes up because the groups that wish to (continue to) harm the other groups continually makes odd and unsupportable claims that the differences among races have more meaning than mere appearance. The science is brought out to demonstrate that those claims are false.
The discussion is about power. People who perceive themselves to lack (enough) power seek to find ways to guarantee that they have more power and look for artificial methods to rationalize their desires for power. That is how the fairly uniform group of people in Northern Ireland find themselves in a simmering civil war. There is no genetic difference between the Protestants and Catholics, and throughout the last 50 years both sides have seen a serious falling off in people who actually pay attention to the theology in question. Religion is simply one way to define haves and have-nots in an otherwise fairly homogeneous population. Since the U.S. used perceived race to set up those haves/have-not power struggles hundreds of years ago, those are the boundaries that we fight along today. It has nothing to do with the innate qualities of any group. The genetic arguments arise when one group desiring more power pretends that there is more to the issue than power and xenophobia.
Open discussion is valuable and is valued here. Aside from a couple of hotheads on each side, this discussion has been open. If, by “frank,” you mean let’s all use insults and slurs in our descriptions, then I disagree that such a discussion is genuinely frank. As more people throw insults into the fray, the discussion degenrates to one of “who can come up with the nastiest insult?” Those are boring and no information is actually shared; no genuine viewpoints are explored.
I would certainly be able to explain why I am a White Nationalist, but it’s a rather long story. I used to be a “mainstream” liberal who tried to conform to the ways of Political Correctness, but I’ll say that I’m probably more of an anti-anti-racist than anything else. As I said, a lot of WN don’t necessarily feel compelled to “hate” anyone, but in the past few decades, I think that they have good reason to feel put upon, as if Whites of today are being told that they must pay for the sins of their fathers. Theoretically, I know that’s not how it’s supposed to be, but it often is in practice.
Oh, I do discuss it all the time at SF, but I also realize that for some people in the “mainstream,” the subject is taboo and very delicate.
Yes, such things are bound to happen, but that’s not the whole issue. It’s not a matter of whose kids play with whom, since black and white kids have played together even going back to the Antebellum period.
There are mixed views about Jews. There are some who consider themselves pro-White, but are in complete disagreement with the “Jewish Question.” Others, on the other hand, tend to think that Jews are harmful to White America. Some of this is not entirely unfounded, considering the amoral values propagated in the media, as well as the reckless activities of America’s financial elite. I think that it may also have something to do with historical circumstances, in that Jews have generally been considered outsiders in most European nations in which they resided, and as a result (perhaps a survival mechanism), they chose to identify as Jewish, as both an ethnic group and a religion. If they chose to identify as Germans, Poles, or Russians, then that might be a different story, but they still identify as Jewish, even in America where Jews really haven’t been considered outsiders. So, they may be “White,” but it seems that their identity as “Jewish” tends to overshadow that, and it may create conflicts of interest. In other words, White Americans, whether their ancestry is from Scandanavia, France, Holland, Germany, England, or wherever, there really are no significant racial/cultural divisions among us. We’re all in the same boat. Jews are in a separate boat, and part of that is their own choice as much as anything else.
I can appreciate this, but the problem is, people don’t really have any actual “right” to separate. Also, there really are people who choose to segregate wherever and whenever they can. In the decades since multiculturalism and anti-racism actually became official policies in the US, there have been observable phenomena such as “White flight,” gated communities, and a rise in private school attendance and homeschooling. So, it seems that there are some Whites who don’t appear to be all that enamored with multiculturalism or diversity, even if they may not take the extremist route that some White Nationalists have done. Racialism can be every bit as much a passive activity as it is an active one.
As I said, I don’t really go into the scientific debate that much, largely because I just don’t have the training or expertise that someone at the PhD level might have, so I defer to those with greater knowledge on the subject. Aside from that, I just don’t consider it to be a compelling enough reason to support WN, even I was convinced, scientifically, that Whites are superior. Some people might even believe that Whites are superior and take that as a justification for a kind of “White Man’s Burden.” Liberal policies such as Affirmative Action seemed to be rooted in that notion.
One might well wonder why White Europeans were able to gain the upper hand over the rest of the world if they didn’t have something going for them. Even if it was just a matter of geography and climate which caused our evolution to what we became, then that’s still something that should be noted for the record.
I agree, and what may be in America’s future might be a kind of racially-based “power struggle,” which seems to have elements of such even today. Racial/ethnic groups which have been historically on the outside of the power structure have formed and organized along racial lines, but rather than focus on “power” specifically, they go about it in a left-handed way, addressing “Whiteness” as the focus of their wrath. That’s why some WN refer to multiculturalists as “Cultural Marxists,” because they are similar to Marxists, except they substitute “race” in place of “class” in their ideal paradigm. Concepts of “race” and “class” become intimately linked with each other and somewhat blurred in the “mainstream” political consciousness.
Even though WN sometimes get tarred as “rednecks” and “trailer trash,” it’s more than a coincidence that in today’s multiculturalist paradigm, there is a lot of resistance from the White working classes. The WN support base will probably never come from the “powerful,” but from the “powerless.” It does seem a bit incongruous when black intellectuals claim that Whites are “oppressors” when one is just an average White guy trying to make ends meet and often feels “oppressed” himself. If I am to be attacked for historical events I have no control over, then that leaves us in a position to either defend ourselves or die.
**
Northern Ireland is a troubling situation, I’ll admit. On Stormfront, we have both nationalists from the UK and nationalists from Ireland, and sometimes they go at it against each other in the forum. It’s a very delicate issue that I, as an American, tend to avoid, since I don’t really have a dog in that fight.
It does seem that religion is the issue of dispute, but on the other hand, there also is an ethnic and cultural element which is hard to ignore. I think that the consensus of opinion which I’m able to gather from nationalists is that Ireland should have the right to secede from the UK, just as the Ulster Protestants should have the right to secede from Ireland. That would fall in line with the principles of nationalism, in my opinion.
This should also serve as an example that when outsiders try to impose their will on groups to try to force them to “get along,” it often has the opposite effect.
Yes, as I mentioned, race and class have become intimately linked with each other, but in all honesty, that has less of a justification than the standard genetic arguments. This is because class is not always defined along racial or religious lines. In Ireland, there are rich Catholics and working-class Protestants. In the USA, there are rich non-whites, as well as poor Whites. To say that Whites are “privileged” when there are obviously so many who are definitely not “privileged,” it flies in the face of all reality.
For me, it’s not so much about “power,” as it is a matter of sovereignty and self-determination. I think that “separate but equal” was a failed policy in America not because of separation itself, but because blacks were not given autonomy and self-determination to go along with it. They were not given independence and sovereignty, and that was the mistake. I don’t think that WN is a matter of wanting “power” over all of society, but just power over our own lives and communities.
A lot of what White racialists are tarred with, at least in the historical sense (i.e. slavery, colonialism, etc.), has more to do with conflicts between capitalism and nationalism. A true racial nationalist would never have allowed slavery or felt compelled to colonize or exploit non-whites. Those phenomena are rooted in an ideology different from nationalism. Trouble is, one can’t make criticisms of capitalism in this country, lest they end up sounding like “reds,” so race becomes the major issue of dispute, not class or even “power” as such.
Not necessarily to be insulting, but race is an issue which cuts deep for a lot of people on all sides of the matter. I agree that racial slurs are unnecessary and don’t bring anything to the discussion, but in public discourse, the general restrictions go far beyond that as you should well know.
But I also don’t believe in lying either. There are some White Nationalists who favor a somewhat deceptive “stealth” agenda, which has a certain Machiavellian appeal about it, but it just doesn’t set right with me personally.
I agree. I’m a moderator over at Stormfront, and you should see some of the posts which don’t make it to the board. We receive constant threats all the time, both from anti-racists as well as from WN who are more extreme than the board guidelines will allow. In fact, some WN think that Stormfront is all run by a bunch of PC Jews. There are also inter-organizational rivalries and ideological disputes which can get a bit trying.
But I think that there is something to it all. I look at it as a work in progress, not the finished product. Passions run high, and I’ve always tried to discourage that, since overemotionalism can be detrimental.
But in case you don’t want to spend all the time doing it, I’ll tell you. The Zionist Occupied Government. The ZOG machine. They control america, and there’s plenty of proof. The Government is trying to smash all of us. I can’t count how many times I’ve had SOMETHING happen to me that wouldn’t happen to anyone else, just because that day I happened to be wearing a WP t-shirt or something.
But seriously, if you are interested in debating us, read the Turner Diaries, and maybe you will discover exactly what is going on here.
They’ve grown less tolerant of ALL whites, unless they bow to their negro and jewish masters. </sarcasm>
It’s all this propaganda spread around, “IF SOMEONE IS WHITE AND PROUD OF IT THEY ARE TRYING TO OPPRESS JEWS AND BLACKS.”
I’ve actually sat around watching the news trying to find how many references I could find that say just about that sentance. You would be surprised, try it some time.
I have lived in Germany, and it is a wonderful place. Ever been there? I was part of one of the largest skinhead groups in my area. I got in alot of trouble for saying “ich bin weiss und stolz.”
The Aryan concept is very much alive, however somewhat tainted, but all the more reason to fight for it. We need to preserve what we have left before the propaganda spewing liberals and communists convince more and more of our people to embrace their negro neighbor, even while the negro steals his TV.
We need to fight against interracial breeding and relationships, this is our biggest threat. Go ask some white women how they feel about black guys, they’re probably already dating one.
I apologize for my poor rebuttle, but it’s late and i am very tired.
But no one in this thread is saying it. What I’ve said is that if someone is trying to forcibly remove one group from a state they are living in legally, then that person is “oppressing” that group.
[QUOTE=SentientMeat]
Why can the separatists here not answer the simple questions?
[ul][li]What traits are universally attributable to “whites”?[/li][li]Do you admit that “white” is an arbitrary and scientifically useless taxon?[/ul] (I realise NotPicarddid admit this second point, ie. that there was no reasoning behind his choice of taxon, but I’d like to hear it from the rest.)[/li][/QUOTE]
Mr. Meat sir, just because you either don’t like my reasoning, or aren’t interested in pursuing my reasoning, doesn’t mean it didn’t exist.
(If I’m thinking of the right post), my purpose wasn’t to choose my own taxon. My purpose was to address your argument. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the argument is:
There’s no taxonomy by which to genetically define a “white” race, so all claims of inherited superiority or even distinctiveness, (other than the skin tone used to define the group), are flawed.
Racists are such because they believe “whites” are superior, or at the least, distinct biologically from other races.
Therefore, the premise of a racists entire philosophy is scientifically proven incorrect.
I was intending only to illustrate that the usefulness of white as a scientific taxon isn’t required by a racist in the first place.
Most racists who are concerned about genetic superiority or purity are talking about goals.
I was only bothering because I’ve explained here repeatedly that as a political movement White Nationalism does not define race scientifically anyway, but nobody will be corrected on the matter. We use a political definition, which, as you could probably demonstrate better than I is the only possible way to go about things.
So we agree. A biological definition of white is no way to define an exclusive group.
This isn’t just me being one weirdo WN who should be ignored while you wait to hear from a real WN. What follows is the most “official” definition of white taken directly from the largest and most definitive White Nationalist web site:
[Note: European White Nationalists have generally agreed, (to the extent such a thing is possible to formalize), with using current U.S. laws].
You’ll be waiting quite a while for very many people who will come here and defend a definition of white like that as a valid taxon in pure scientific terms. Some might try it. You’ll win the argument and feel good, but it won’t have relevance to any large racial movement.
So, NotPicard, you admit that advocating that “white” people segregate in order to have “white” children so that “whiteness” doesn’t die is as arbitrary as advocating that people called Pat get together and call their children Pat so that the name Pat does not die?
I don’t think you want, as a supporter of the current system, to take the position that enforcing the law is violence. That would mean that multicultualism is currently being maintained by violence.
You lost me on that. My point is that to **create ** the system you are advocating requires violence. And how is “multiculturalism” being enforced by law? If you mean something like Affirmative Action, I can agree with you. But just allowing people who are here legally to stay cannot be considered violence. It’s possible to eliminate racially motivated laws (like AA) without eliminating the people of different races.
I can’t agree with that because there are massive differences between these groups as a simple glance at statistics will validate. We’re only discussing cause really.
I’m saying that a biologists usefulness for white as a taxon is not relevant to my politic. I am not a biologist. Since it’s not relevant I’m happy to defer to your expertise. If the issue was vital to my beliefs I guess I’d have to crack some books and really get to the bottom of this.
Given differences in the states of racially defined groups, you must believe very strongly in the affect of culture, upbringing, and other things that can be associated with a persons ethnicity. Then why would you not care about a folk?
