Defend white supremacy! I dare you!

Too low, I think: we can instead hope that no more socks appear, that the banned fellow realizes that we really do mean it when we talk about valuing honesty and decency and forthrightness in debates on this forum.

FWIW, I had a third-grade teacher who consistently left Mexico out of North America when talking about countries in the continent. I, smartass that I was, just as consistently corrected her in front of the class, and she always reluctantly agreed. At the time I thought it was because she was Irish, and figured maybe they divided continents up differently in Ireland (she also taught us that the vowels are A,E,I,O,U,Y, and sometimes W, and insisted that termites weren’t animals), but now I wonder if she had some ulterior motive.

Daniel

It wasn’t my intent to claim that corporate interests changed the immigration laws. They are certainly addicted to cheap labor in the present.

I’d agree that an Italian and Mexican that grew up together in inner-city New York would find someone from the rural South more alien than each other, yeah.

I don’t deny cultural and environmental influences, I just don’t deny genetic ones either.

Lind’s just another commie (zzzz)

Seriously, I’d agree that economic based “affirmative action” would be more sensible than race based, but I’m not very into - ahem - altruism by proxy. (Note that a lot of other WN’s are socialists).

Please, specify what you mean by genetic influences and how they manifest themselves.

What happened to Millen88 ? He seemed a degree more reasonable and able to answer questions on topic than the banees bubbling up to the surface of this thread.

Maybe we had the same teacher because I remember one of my elementary school teachers did the same thing. You have to remember that people in the U.S. and Canada are inherently eurocentric so when someone says “North America” they automatically default towards the idea of a country possessing anglo culture. Mexico is not included by some people because it doesn’t fit into the same culture. I’m not sure if leaving out Mexico is an ulterior motive or more of an subconscious eurocentric bias when grouping certain cultures, people, and continents together. Just like how some Russian friends of mine refuse to acknowledge that Russia is part of Europe. When I say “europe” they always say that Russia is Russia and “Europe” is really just western europe.

The context of my statement was ethnocentric and racial behaviour. Genetics result in visual markers that identify others as more closely related to ourselves.

Is that what you’re looking for?

Yes, I can understand. No hard feelings. I am considering changing my screen name again.

Marley You are correct regarding the Vikings. I didn’t include them because there is no surviving settlement of theirs. Apparently Native Americans don’t count according to some folks here.

I’m not one to feed trolls and such, but I think maybe this is information somebody really needs to see.

http://www.santafe.org/Visiting_Santa_Fe/History/
The “Kingdom of New Mexico” was first claimed for the Spanish Crown by the conquistador Don Francisco Vasques de Coronado in 1540, 67 years before the founding of Santa Fe.
Thirteen years before Plymouth Colony was settled by the Mayflower Pilgrims, Santa Fe, New Mexico, was established with a small cluster of European type dwellings.
While Santa Fe was inhabited on a very small scale in 1607, it was truly settled by the conquistador Don Pedro de Peralta in 1609-1610.

IIRC Santa Fe still exists and is definitely NOT in Central America.
and BTW if whoever :rolleyes: thinks the Spanish left North America after getting a bunch of gold…they haven’t been to the southwest apparently.

Unbelievable how ignorance has such a grip on some folks. Try to educate them, not berate them. Yeah, I know it’s tough but hang in there. If these guys don’t learn, maybe someone else reading this thread will.

Did I read some poster use the phrase Just think back there somewhere? :wink:

I’m kinda surprised this thread hasn’t been closed or moved to the pit by now.

What, you mean, because he talks about class? Look, it should be fairly obvious, even to right-wingers, that different socioeconomic classes exist in practically every society, and that they sometimes have divergent and conflicting interests, and that when class interests conflict it is usually the richest and best-connected class that gets its way; and that all of this is a very important thing and it is in some ways a very bad thing. Not every political commentator who pays attention to these facts is therefore a Marxist, a Communist, or a socialist of any kind. Lind is none of these although he has supported some specific proposals which might rank as “socialistic” by American standards. In fact, he started his career writing for The National Review, and by his own account (which you can read in Up From Conservatism: Why the Right is Wrong for America (Free Press, 1996)), he never drifted very far left – it was the center of gravity of American politics that moved while he remained in more or less the same place. Throughout TNAN Lind speaks of the need for a “post-Marxist egalitarianism”. He also calls democratic socialism “a contradiction in terms,” on the grounds that any form of socialism widens the potential scope of government tyranny. In his analysis of the American class system, he expressly distances himself from Marxism:

Whatever you call this, it ain’t Marxism. Even if Lind is aiming at what might be called a “classless society”.

Deporting non-Whites from Europe is the one thing about my ideology that makes me uneasy. It’s not something I would enjoy seeing, and I would insist that it be done in the most humane way possible. Your not going to force me to name all of the White European nations, are you?

I don’t want segregation. I want to live in a separate nation; that’s a big difference for me.

North America is not a traditional White homeland; the land was stolen from Native Americans. Most of Europe is a traditional White homeland. That’s the difference for me.

Apparently I’ve opened a bigger can of worms than I anticipated. Just today, the following threads have appeared in GD:

“ORWELL: LOVE is HATE. What is a Love Group?”
started by Since1973

“ETA or MOSSAD?: ABC News Poll”
started by Franklin Philly
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=4634047

“Anti-Semitism: What is it?”
started by Franklin Philly

www.Stormfront.org and Free Your MInd”
started by Franklin Philly
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=244607

– And every single one of them has been promptly closed by the mods. But this thread has not. Wonder why?

I was hoping to post the following on Franklin Philly’s thread on antisemitism; but I guess this is as good a place for it. Antisemitism is, of course, a word, and it happens to be a word with a well-known history. From Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where It Comes From, by Daniel Pipes (The Free Press, 1997), pp. 27:

Now, in posts above, Franklin Philly and Since1973 have expressed resentment that the Jews consider themselves a “chosen people,” but they have not actually expressed any conspiratorial antisemitism. I think this is actually a very different phenomenon than the traditional anti-black racism of white America, even though both viewpoints are often found in the same person, and often synergized. I’ve encountered several racist books and websites in which the Jews are essentially blamed for spearheading integration and the civil rights movement; and it is certainly true that many Jews were leaders of the movement – Jews having been treated as an oppressed minority in Europe, they feel a certain sympathy with oppressed minorities anywhere. For the same reason, the old Nazi canard about the “Jewish-Communist conspiracy” is wrapped around a kernel of truth, that many leading communists and socialists, from Marx to Trotsky, have been ethnic Jews – because the Jews, thrust to bottom of the social scale in Eastern Europe, were ready to grab on to any ideology which promised social equality.

So, instead of living in a society where non-whites are placed under legal and social disabilities, you want to live in a society where there are no non-whites at all, except perhaps as tourists? Yes, that is a big difference. But I’m not sure it’s an improvement.

So that Whites can live in a country where they are not discriminated against. So that Whites can survive as a distinct racial/ethnic group for all time.

I wouldn’t call it elimination; that sounds like killing people to me. Deportation is something entirely different. Most of Europe is a traditional White homeland; it should remain White. North America is not a traditional White homeland, but I think that Whites have been in North America long enough to warrant a small White homeland.

Yes, I do favor the deportation of Whites from Africa and Asia, if that’s what the majority of the people in those two continents want and it is done humanely.

All right! This is what I’ve been waiting for! Now we’re getting to the heart of the matter!

Please tell us: Why is it important that whites (or any other group) should survive as a distinct racial/ethnic group for all time? Why would it bother you to contemplate that some (or even most) of your great-grandchildren might have the blood of other races in them? (As they will, they will.)

I don’t think a lot of non-Whites would try to sabotage a White homeland in North America by falsely declaring themselves White.

Millen88

I assume you know this is exactly what Adolph Eichmann’s first order of business was. To remove the Jews from Germany, NOT to kill them. When he had exhausted all of his options, he asked every nation to take the Jews and was refused. The Final Solution was the answer to Hitler’s request.
You are saying exactly the same thing. We can’t allow the majority of a population to dictate suffering upon a minority. Besides, the MAJORITY of Americans don’t want to export the others AFAIK.

If you don’t mind saying, where are your ancestors from?

:smiley: and what kind of blood is that B/G A, B, O, or AB +/-

I wasn’t aware of any other types…(black)(yellow)(red)(white)(brown) or even (blue).

I know what you mean, I’m just making the point for ya.

I don’t see much point in the second statement, given that we cannot even identify who whites are other than to claim that we “know it when” we “see it.” Different groups claim that people from Iceland to India are “white” while others will draw a whole series of imaginary lines to exclude Indians, Persians, Arabs, Turks, Libyans, Algerians and Morroccans, Egyptians, Greeks and Italians, (I am always amused by some folks who exclude the Greeks and Italians while trying to lay claim to the heritages of Greece and Rome for their whiteness), Slavs, and sometimes the French and, too often, Jews. Given that “white” people can’t agree who is “white,” I find the whole notion absurd.

The first sentence is simply silly. There are no laws that discriminate against whites. There are a rather small number of policies instituted by a small number of institutions that have occasionally demonstrated a bias against a tiny number of white people–and the courts have been chipping away at those places since 1979–while the overwhelming number of laws (as they are enforced) and public, private, and corporate policies place whites in a secure position that allows them to dominate U.S. society without challenge. At the same time, the courts and Congress have made it increasingly more difficult for a non-white person who has suffered genuine discrimination to seek restitution.

This argument that’s getting made here quite a bit about the difficulty of defining “white” is really not so useful for you.

There exists red and blue. The fact that there also exists purple and an infinite gradiant between doesn’t negate the usefulness of those descriptions.

We all know, everyone reading this, that there’s such a thing as a “white guy” and such a thing as a “black guy”. The point being made is that when it comes to the nuts and bolts of building a system around that classification it’s unworkable.

I don’t agree.

I discussed this in my first post here. What’s required is a personal definition of race and a distinct political definition. Personally, you may be happy to know a race when you see it, or you may demand scientific proof. Politically, you define it to include the obvious and then go about handling the squishy business of the exceptions. It’s doable.

A WN who goes on the internet by the name of Yggdrasil, (and is a lot more articulate than I am), has a good essay on the topic:

http://home.ddc.net/ygg/ls/ls-06.htm

Here’s a quote from it:

I was born in a city, and at age seven my family moved to the suburbs. At the time, I had no idea why we were moving; I later found out that it was a case of White flight. In my new all-White suburb, I became a Multiculturalist. I believed that America’s great strength came from its racial and cultural diversity, immigrants came to the United States to become Americans and everyone should be treated equally regardless of race. This is what I was taught in school and as a trusting person, I believed it.

My first experience with non-Whites was in college. For some reason, I was required to take a lot of Sociology classes, even though it had very little to do with my major. In these classes, I began to notice that my teachers and several non-Whites were hostile to me. They would constantly vilify Whites; it began to become so repetitive that it began to resemble propaganda. Despite these negative experiences, I still considered myself a Multiculturalist when I graduated from college in 1989.

After graduation, several things began to weaken my belief in Multiculturalism; they included:
 The LA Riots
 Affirmative Action
 Black people’s reaction to the O.J. verdict
 Hate Speech Codes
 The double standard of how a White can lose their job for even the
perception of making a racially insensitive remark while non-Whites can say
whatever they like without fear.
 My contact with arrogant non-White immigrants who demand that the U.S.
open its borders to everyone in the world but scoff at the suggestion that
their “home country” should do the same.
 The birth of my first daughter.

About two years ago the following thought entered my head:
If Whites are treated this poorly as the majority then how will we be treated when we are the minority?
That was it for me.

IMO, you’re not a traitor. I’m not in the business of telling other people how to live their lives.