Wow, this is astounding. I concede, oh wise one, bravo!
More seriously, someone suggested earlier either in this thread or another that you read Jared Diamond’s Pulitzer Price winning “Guns, Germs and Steel” to get an idea of why white people (to be fair, mainly West Europeans) invented and dominated. The answers will hopefully illuminate those dim clouds in your brain.
Also, in regards to Asians not being able to think in 3D - huh? Funny, my Asian girlfriend manages to navigate through our apartment without bumping into things all the time. Or do you mean just in art and so on? Ok, so I guess the Japanese must have imported a bunch of white folk to build all those skyscrapers I saw when I was in Nagoya. Or maybe the Forbidden City in Beijing was actually built by white folk? Can you give us a cite? (Look! A direct question, can you answer it? Please?)
Franklin’s gone; may I suggest we quit harping on his points? I’m interested whether Millen’s still around: as the first white separatist I’ve ever talked with who doesn’t pepper his comments with blatant lies, I find his comments very interesting. I strenuously disagree with his position, mind you, but at least I think a conversation with him can be productive.
I think there’s alot of Franklin Philly’s in America.
Just because you haven’t accessed the information he had, does not make what he said lies. And you call them White Separatists which is wrong, they are Whites period. They believe that Whites were the first ones (outside teh miniscule Hopi, Haida, and Navajo tribes) to permanently settle North America. Based upon the Pilgrims landing in Massachusetts.
And instead of debating and changing your minds you have just grown inward and refuse to develop your brains. Productive.
Ok, I’m a White Nationalist who’ll give this a shot…
Legal definitions of race are used all the time. How else could there exist anti-discrimination laws, hate laws, etc. All kinds of nit-picky laws exist. Why’s this particular one an insurmountable problem?
White Nationalists are, for all intents and purposes, a coalition. On a personal level some are Nordicists, others are accepting of Iranians and other semites.
Legally however, one just has to get in there and nit pick. Here’s the current most favored definition of white for the purposes of the StormFront.org user forum:
On a more general note:
Global corporatism desires a steady import of cheap labor. Ethnocentric or racist attitudes among the existing European descended population of the U.S. would have made this a disaster. That’s why the corporate sponsored media bombards you 24/7 with multicultural propaganda.
I believe it’s a simple and obvious thing to observe that ethnocentric and racist attitudes are normal and natural for all people. We are led to believe that it’s wrong and dangerous because our particular ethnocentricity is in the way of corporate profits.
You are taught that all racists believe they are superior to other races. They want to subjegate and enslave other races. They will always become violent because they are motivated by hate.
Images of the KKK and Nazi Germany are played for you in movies and television over and over and over. And when you see their images, the members of these groups are snarling, hate-filled little men who are every evil thing.
Every evil thing. Hateful, violent, ugly, out-of-fashion, humorless, rude, drunken, ignorant, you name it. Being religious and ethnocentric, one might at least expect that these Hollywood racist would be good family men. Nope. We all know they’re beating their wives and gawd knows what with the children.
So now, how would it be possible for me to come here and make a case for White Nationalism? Everything I say will be interpolated and extrapolated using the images I just described.
I’d refer anyone truly interested in the topic to Kevin MacDonalds “Culture of Critique”. It’s not only a book about Jewish activism. It also tells the story of how and why you have been led to believe that a normal ethnocentricity among European Americans is somehow psychopathic.
[QUOTE=Franklin Philly]
Ethnicity is specific to genetic pools and even cultural talents are written into specific DNA of the Human Genome.
[QUOTE]
I would really, really like to see a cite for this. Or at least some examples, supported by good analytical arguments. What cultural talents are characteristic to what gene pools? (You said you’re Jewish – what are the distinctive “cultural talents” of Jews?) Once some such are posited, we could test the assumption by looking at studies of children adopted and raised in a different cultural enviroment than that of their birth-parents.
This is actually a very old idea. In 19th-Century Britain, most people would have assumed, hardly even would have questioned, that if an Irish and an English baby boy were inadvertently switched in the cradle, the Irish boy would astonish his English family by growing up to the a passionate, violent, hard-drinking poet; and the English boy, despite his home environment, would grow up to be a cold-blooded, rigorously honest prig. But I’ve never heard any cases of such results happening in real life.
What’s more, there’s a cultural assumption that certain distinctive psychological characteristics inhere not only in races or nations, but in families. Remember the 1988 film Big Business? (Which I think is based on a plot much used in ancient Roman farces – e.g., a slave boy and a senator’s son are switched at birth.) In a small town in the Appalachians, a local woman and a superrich woman who is just passing through both give birth to twin girls at the same hospital on the same night. One girl of each pair is swapped into the other’s family by a nearsighted nurse. The Appalachian family produces one dark-haired woman (Lily Tomlin) who is honest, high-minded, and entirely at home in her world; and one red-haired woman (Bette Midler) who watches shows like Dynasty and dreams of wealth and power. The rich family in New York produces one woman (Midler again) who is a natural ruthless businesswoman, and one (Tomlin) who is sentimental and given over to fashionable causes.
But, again, I’ve never heard of this happening in real life.
[QUOTE=Franklin Philly]
Ethnicity is specific to genetic pools and even cultural talents are written into specific DNA of the Human Genome.
You make a point about Franklin Philly saying he was Jewish, are you sure he was not saying that just to get away with talking about how the Talmud is a book of Hate?
In the Jewish Supremacist Talmud, it says Hateful things about Jewish women who race-mix. It talks about stoning them to death and burying them alive.
Aren’t Jewish Terrorist Supremacists older than Arab Terrorist Supremacists?
…and Iroquois, Huron, Cree, Inuit, Mayans, Aztecs, and others I’ve probably never heard of. Oh, and the Spanish had settlements in North America in the late sixteenth century; Jamestown wasn’t settled until the early seventeenth. Also, Samuel de Champlain was in North America before the Pilgrims, although he didn’t manage to settle Quebec City until 1608, one year after Jamestown was founded. And of course there were the Vikings in Newfoundland, but their settlement didn’t last.
Also, the first English settlements in North America weren’t in Massachusetts anyway; they were in Newfoundland as well.
So except for the fact that you’re completely wrong…well, no, you’re just wrong.
The Mayans and Aztecs were in Mexico. That is Central America.
The Spanish did not cross the Rio Grande till 1622, 19 months after the Pilgrims landed.
Outside a few small villages, the Indians were Nomads, going south in winter and north to hunting grounds in summer. Nomads don’t qualify as Settlers. You can’t fly around the world in a 747 and claim it as your own, or ride a pony around and wave your arm and say it all belongs to you. You have to fence it, defend it and claim it. That’s settlement.
Spanish missions were not settlements because they were shifting soldiers in and out from Spain, for the gold. No Spaniard wanted to stay in the New World, and they didn’t.
The Spanish founded San Augustin, now called St. Augustine, in Florida in 1565. Now technically they didn’t have to cross the Rio Grande to do that, so I suppose your statement above may be correct. But there were definitely Spanish settlers in what is now the United States long before Plymouth Rock.
Of course there were English settlers in what is now the United States before Plymouth Rock, and English settlers in North America before there were English settlers in what is now the United States. But hey, as long as we’re ignoring facts let’s go whole hog.
And yet the people in villages do count. How large do you think the Plymouth Rock settlement was anyway? Not that it matters; Saying “The English were first except for all the people who were there before them” is a pretty pathetic statement.
No Spanish people stayed in the New World? You know, I’m pretty sure present-day Mexicans didn’t just sprout from the ground. Or is Mexico not part of the New World either in your bizarre little geography?
Only if we redefine North America (and apparently, the entire New World) to exclude that pesky Mexico, and ignore all the actual villages settled by Hopi and Navaho and Haida and Spanish that were actually there before the English set foot in Massachusetts. Oh yeah, you’ve got an airtight case there.
Juan de Oñate (who was born at Zacatecas, Mexico, the son of two Spaniards who did stay in the New World) crossed the Rio Grande at El Paso del Norte and established the town of San Juan, in what’s now New Mexico. He also built missions in San Francisco and San Juan, and put down revolts by the Acoma, Hopi, and Zumi Indians. The settlement at San Juan didn’t survive, but the Spanish were crossing the Rio Grande before the Pilgrims landed.
And actually, the first Spaniard to cross the Rio Grande was crossing it from Texas into Mexico…in 1528, Alvar Cabeza de Vaca was part of an expedition that shipwrecked near Gavleston, and he and three companions survived for 7 years, facing slavery by the local Indians and near starvation until they were able, in 1536, to get to Mexico City.
You and Frankly Philly must have attended the same fucked up school system, because you both have the mistaken idea that Mexico is not a part of North America.
This is factually incorrect. It’s the second time one of you has gotten this wrong in this thread. The continent of North America extends to the eastern border of Panama. There does exist a subdivision of the continent commonly known as Central America, but Mexico is not included in this subdivision.
Factually incorrect. Already disproved at least twice in this thread.
Factually incorrect, as even the most dilletantish reading on the subject would demonstrate.
Factually incorrect. The native population of the Americas did all three. They just lost, that’s all.
You know, this one has a grain of truth in the first sentence. Of course, it is being used to bolster the second sentence which is, well, you know.
And what is the obsession with the Pilgrims? Even limiting “settlement” to the English, and to what is now the United States, Jamestown preceded Massachusetts by 13 years. That’s been mentioned in this thread at least twice too. Reading comprehend, much?
[g]Gaudere** just banned since1973 in another thread for being a sock for franklin. May I gently suggest that if a new member pops up again in this or a similar thread espousing identical views, you give them a few hours before responding to them? This’ll give the mods a chance to clear out the folks (or, rather, one person) who refuses to obey the board’s simple rules of honesty and decency without giving them the attention they crave.
History is littered with fantastic examples of what happens when we let “nature” take its course and run amok. Corporate profits my ass. The anti-racism movement has been around a lot longer than outsourcing has. Furthermore, racism may be natural, but presumable so is rape and murder. Can we blame society’s villification of those things on some corporate conspiracy, too? Not everything that comes naturally (to some of us) should be put into practice.
Well, if you have a cause, you should not be afraid to stand up for it. Even if you know deep down inside that it is a losing one.
I hope the OP, having read over the last few dozen posts, is now getting a better idea why this sort of thread is probably not a good idea. Unfortunately for them, the sort of persons who would argue in favor of “white supremacism”, separatism or whatever, are more often than not rather impatient with the constraints of formal debate. At the core, it seems, one often finds a fundamental belief that anyone who disagrees with, or even questions their political views is in fact a race traitor and worthy of little but scorn. In addition, the ability to willfully discard any facts which fail to support the notion of apocalyptic combat among races, which is fundamental to accepting the notion of white separatism to begin with, is not conducive to debating in a logical, structured manner.
I think I know what the OP was trying to accomplish, but I fail to see where anything useful has been done here so far. I wish he’d ask that the thread be closed, but it’s up to him.
Well, OK, I guess I agree with you, but I sure hope the next sock fills me in on the Pilgrim thing before he gets banned again. And dispenses with the assertion that Mexico is in Central America. And actually debates. I’m setting my sights too high there, aren’t I?
Too, too true! In the OP I pointed out that some non-racists are opposed to race-based affirmative action – because, among other things, it attempts to change the traditional American hierarchy of the races while still clinging to the old definitions of the races.
In his book The Next American Nation (Free Press, 1995), Michael Lind (you just new I was going to bring him up, didn’t you?) argues forcefully that race-based affirmative action should be – (as I read the book) not simply abolished, but replaced with an even more vigorous regime of color-blind, **class-**based affirmative action. Makes sense, doesn’t it? Why should a black whose family attained solid middle-class status one or two generations ago, and who was raised in a nice suburban neighborhood and educated at private schools or well-funded suburban public schools, benefit from any policy designed to correct the racial injustices of the past? Wouldn’t it make more sense to give a leg up to the semiliterate white kid from the trailer park?
Yet no one could accuse Lind of being blind to racial injustice. Here are a couple of telling quotes. First, from p. 216, the end of Chapter 5, “The Revolution of the Rich”:
And, from p. 308, Chapter 8, “National Democracy and the Fourth Republic of the United States”:
I love ideas that take the dominant paradigm and give it a sharp quarter-turn!
Yeah, I know, I know . . . but it’s my thread and I’ll hijack it if I want to. And this is at least tangentially relevant to the questions raised in the OP. Maybe if we eliminated legally defined racial categories, and everything that depends on them, people like NotPicard and the StormFronters would stop thinking of themselves as “the ‘residual’ disfavored group” and “those being discriminated against under U.S. laws based on their descent” – and then maybe some of them would lose interest in “White Nationalism”.
From the 1920s to the 1960s the U.S. had an immigration “quota” system which was explicitly designed to preserve America’s character as a white man’s country; European immigrants were strongly favored over others. Since we abolished that system, we’ve had a flood of immigrants, mostly non-European. From what I know of history, the reforms were intended to correct an unpalatable expression of racism in public policy, and were not rammed through by corporate interests who wanted cheap labor. I could be wrong – but if I am, please provide a cite. (Nowadays, of course, if an American corporation wants cheap labor it’s easier to set up shop in a Third World countries than to bring the Third Worlders here.)
Lind touches on this too – he supports restrictions on immigration to the U.S., because massive immigration, mostly of unskilled immigrants, depresses wages here (while providing the rich with cheap nannies, etc.). But I’m sure he would want any immigration policy to be color-blind, although it might discriminate in favor of educated or skilled immigrants.
Are “ethnocentric and racist attitudes” really “normal and natural for all people”? What about people raised in a visibly multiracial environments, like New York or San Francisco? (Or would you dismiss such environments as not being “normal” or “natural”? If so, you would have plenty of company . . .)