Hey, just becuase you have a little pale-people-who-sunburn-easily blood, it doesn’t mean you can pretend your pale-people-who-can-tan blood doesn’t matter. You lazy shiftless tanner, go live off welfare or bring property values down or flaunt your tans at us poor maligned sunburnable people or whatever it is you tanners do. Just leave me and my pure sunburnable skin alone and I won’t bother you as long as you know your place.
Questions for Sionnach:
- As mentioned elsewhere, there seems to be a great variety of perspectives amongs the members of the WN movement, at least as represented at SF. On the one hand there is a plethora of hate-filled bigots, Nazis & holocoust deniers and promulgators of bizzare race/genetic theories. And on the other hand, you have the more thoughtful WNs who (it would seem to me) tend to take more moderate positions. But they are all united in one movement, and see themselves as brothers-in-arms in the White struggle. This makes debating WN issues rather difficult. From my observations, one problem people seemed to have in debating WN issues is that they tend expect to debate the full range of radical WN positions, only to be parried by WNs who persisted in defending only such notions as that Whites share a common heritage and that affirmative action is a bad idea - both reasonable if debatable positions.
My questions here are if the fact that you are making common cause with positions brings with it some responsiblity to actually defend them, at least to a certain level? (IOW, if you personally don’t have pictures of Dr. Mengele attached to your posts - for example - at least you find this unobjectionable enough to participate in a movement in which this type of thing is common). And further, if there is an element of dishonesty in coming to a debate in the guise of defending the WN movement while actually defending a sliver of the movement that actually consists of your own personal positions and does not accurately reflect the complete picture of the movement as a whole.
-
It would seem to me that the WN movement is long on complaints about the status quo and short on concrete plans of action. I gather that the “official” position is to have every “race” left alone to determine its own destiny free of the influence of other races. But how is this to be accomplished? Suppose you were elected president and had unqualified support in congress to do as you wish, what actual laws would you pass to accomplish your aims? OK, I imagine you would immediately eliminate all affirmative action and promotion of “multi-culturalism”, but then what? Do you send all Blacks back to Africa? Ban all Jews from public office? Seize all their property in the media and elsewhere? Divide up the country into zones and forcibly move all people into the zone dedicated to their race? IOW, what exactly do you want? (I touched on this a bit during my brief escapade at SF but received no response).
-
The gay issue. The question I have here concerns the inclusion of a position on gays in what seems to be a totally unconnected movement. You say you are opposed to gays for Reason X and support WN for Reason Y, but these seem wholly unrelated, and one wonders why the WN had to take a position on gay rights at all. That it did so seems to me to be a valid indicator that the common denominator of the WN movement is simply an intolerance for others who are different (which would include the gays) and not merely a shared belief in preservation of White Culture (to which gay issues are irrelevant) as you attempt to present.
Back for a small while…
Races -
It seems like the “race does not exist” group is using a straw man for the concept of race, then knocking it down and claiming race does not exist. When genetic differences based on ethnicity are found, then they use the term “populations” to describe it simply because they don’t like the word “race”. Whatever you call it, genetic differences exist beyond skin color. A “population” of people in the desert evolve with different genetic traits than a “population” in the snow.
There are huge genetic similarities between man and women, and man and chimps for that matter, yet gender exists and men and chimps are not the same.
Christianity originated in the middle east, but spread and took hold in Europe. As a result, Europe has a distinct Christian-based tradition. Jesus is worshipped in the present in every nation (thanks to the Christian tradition of proselytization, but it will be hard for anyone to claim that China, Japan, or Africa have Christian based traditions.
You are arguing with a straw man. No one said “No other cultures contributed to civilization”. I’m well aware of the contributions of Arabic and Oriental Civilization.
What does voting have to do with gay “rights”? No one asks you what your sexuality is before you vote.
As for housing, it’s the property owner’s decision. If the property owner doesn’t want to rent to you, tough luck. Why cry to the government? It’s his or her property.
If it’s a private company, they can hire or loan to whomever they want. However, you aren’t forced to ask for a loan or job with a giant rainbow t-shirt with “Gay Pride” written on it.
The only ones “legislating” at the present are the ones who want to make “Hate Crime” laws, “Hate Speech” laws, and laws dictating how a private company conducts it’s business. Guess who that is.
For a moderator, you are not very observant. I said I had some business to take care of. What exactly do you want to know about “jewspeak”? Someone asked me a question about it in the previous thread and I answered. And?
I never said I didn’t say it. I clarified for you that the “bureaucratic mumbo jumbo” referred to the actions described in the rest of my sentence. Are you ready to actually make a point, or do you want to continue picking at the semantics of a sentence?
Actually, those ideas have not spread throughout the rest of the world. The Oriental, Arabic, and African nations are still very different than the European ones.
http://www.selu.edu/Academics/Faculty/aanderson/101class.htm
Izzy, will reply to you tomorrow. I have to take off again.
DavidB’s literal question was whether you personally employ the (silly and offensive, IMHO) term “jewspeak.” Another question that has come up–which you declined to answer except by making s too-cute reference to “I know it when I see it”–is what the heck it means in the first place. As far as I can tell from its usage in context, it means “sarcasm aimed at a WN or any other statement that challenges WN belief too directly.” Is that about it?
I am rather disappointed that you declined to address any of my points regarding using WC as the common denominator for all white people when you have not adequately demonstrated what is actually common within WC itself. I do hope we can get some more of your thoughts on that tomorrow.
gobear: I certainly understand and agree with your point about the brotherhood of everyone. The problem here is that our friend is attempting to find a rational basis for subdividing that brotherhood. I am merely pointing out that the Japanese sushi chef and I do not share a common cultural heritage that sets us apart from everyone else, even though we may have many other things in common, even in addition to a love of fresh seafood and wasabi.
Good questions; I’ve often wondered where the current conception of “Western civilization” came from, too, as last I checked, Latin America is located pretty squarely in the Western Hemisphere. Why did my class in Development of Latin American Culture count toward my non-Western civ liberal arts distribution requirement? And yet I don’t think anyone, liberal, conservative, or whatever, is arguing that say, the Mayas were white. I certainly can’t think of any WN groups that make a special effort to celebrate Inca culture.
Also, what do WN groups think about the real Caucasians, meaning the indigenous inhabitants of the Caucasus Mountain region? Most of them are on the dark-skinned side, and many are Muslims. Culturally, they’re much more Middle Eastern than European (although some might argue this is not as true of the Armenians and Georgians as of, say, the Chechens).
Also,
Sionnach That is an interesting link to a class on Western Civ, however this doesn’t answer my question. I’ll rephrase it.
From a White Nationalist perspective, would Iranians be considered white? They come from an Indo-European background and Farsi is an indo-European language.
My second question is where would White Nationalists put the cut-off for Western Civ? I’m not so sure that the ancient egyptians were by any means “white”*. Naturally, I am not counting the Ptolemaic line in this definition as we all know that they were Macedonian Greeks.
Come to think of it, I am not sure exactly what language group, Ancient Egyptian belongs to. What other languages is Ancient Egyptian related to?
Your first statement is simply a broad brush declaration that you have failed to support. Once again: Any examples of this claim?
I have already outlined three separate uses of the word race and noted that two of them were legitimate in context, but that they did not identify a biological grouping. Your comment regarding “not liking” the word race is closer, but still misses the mark. Using genetics, one cannot identify a “white” race or a “black” race or a “yellow” race. There are too many people across the culturally defined lines who share genetic material and too many people within those culturally described groups who have distinct genetic material for those groups to have meaning in a biological sense. (For that matter, those who defend the notion of a “white” race do not even appear to be able to define it to their own satisfaction. The obsolete category of Caucasian included all Europeans, all Middle Easterners, and all the peoples of the Indian sub-continent, yet we now encounter people denying that Arabs or Persians or Indians (to say nothing of Italians and Jews and Rom) are “white.”)
Your analogy to men and women and chimps is seriously flawed. Women do not have a Y chromosome and men do not have the marker on the X chromosome that gives rise to sexual characteristics. Barring a few unfortunate individuals with aberrant genes, a simple test will easily distinguish a male from a female for 99.999%+ of the human population. Similarly, we can, indeed, test genetically to distinguish between humans and chimps. When Dr. Goldstein in the article to which you linked tested for susceptibility to diseases and medicines based on DNA, he found that his markers were more accurate than using “racial” identifiers and that his markers did not map onto “racial” categories. Dr. Risch did not even argue that his method was better; he argued that it was cheaper.
As to populations in the desert and the snow evolving differently: no doubt, given sufficient time and complete separation, they would evolve differently, possibly even evolving into different species. The problem, however, is that the genetic maps currently indicate that the peoples of earth have moved back and forth over each other’s territories so often that there has been no time to actually “evolve” in that way. Whatever might happen if we actually separated different human colonies for sufficient time, it has not yet happened.
Eva Luna, I’m not entirely sure why Latin American studies would be outside Western Civ. In addition to being in the Western Hemishere, wasn’t Latin American culture be strongly influenced by the Spanish and the Portuguese?
True, but the class focused primarily on what makes Latin America different from Europe; pre-Columbian cultures and indigenous religions, etc. Pretty much the only time people of European descent were mentioned, it was to bash them. (Not that I minded; it was a very refreshing change of pace from my historical education up until then.)
Gah, not this guy again. He seems to ignore the genetic test being more accurate, and just says his is cheaper and faster. He then briefly goes into race should be used because it can show access to medical care. In reality, he should change that to economic status, as there are poor people of many ethnic groups (or a mix). And what tom~ said here (and the other thread, and countless other threads)
Humans difference between various populations is slight, and humans migrate too often and mate with too many different people for their to be evolved differences over a brief period of time. Areas where people have basepairs that differ entirely because of their “race” are few and far between. The work i do measures the differences between different populations. out of say 4000 different spots i’ve analysed personally, maybe 5 were set up so only one population was 100% some base while the others were 100% another base. Usually if only one area has a given base, they don’t have it 100%.
What definitions of race do you have so you cannot accuse us of creating a straw man?
The similarities between humans and chimps is nowhere near the similarities between you and Sam Jackson. Gender is due to males having a shriveled version of the X chromosome that activates male sex characteristics. A defective Y chromosome will result in you being born a woman.
This post is a mess. Hopefully i didn’t mess up my explinations too much.
Interesting, which countries were they teaching? I would imagine Mexico, Peru, and some of the central American nations as well, right? I would still guess that the cultures in those countries are still fairly Europeanized.
Another question for Sionnach, isn’t there some divergence amongst the members of the Stormfront boards, hereafter referred to as the SFMB, as to whether southern European nations are truly “white”?
What is your personal opinion regarding the above topic?
Another thing I noticed while skimming through some threads on the SFMB is a sense that many of the posters feel that “white” culture is threatened and could disappear at any time. How exactly is it under attack?
It wasn’t a history class per se; we covered various sociocultural phenomena, with historical references where appropriate. Off the top of my head (and keep in mind that I took the course in 1987), I remember reading authors from Uruguay, Mexico, Venezuela, Guatemala (Rigoberta Menchu, for those of you who are familar; later a Nobel laureate, but she also spoke on campus that semester), and Nicaragua. Those are just the books, all of which I still have; there were also journal articles, films, etc. from other countries, which I don’t have in my possession, plus some of the other ones either covered the entire region (Eduardo Galeano’s The Open Veins of Latin America; there’s an English version, although we read the Spanish one) or made general conclusions which could be applied to the area as a whole.
But for the most part, the course was focused on the non-European aspects of Latin American civilization and/or how the European ones have wiped out the indigenous ones. The professor, who later became my advisor, was a rather leftist Puerto Rican nationalist; although she was pretty darn white herself, she tended to teach from a rather anti-European perspective. In that class, after a while I got sick of her staring at me every time she started to rant about Europeans (I was the only native English speaker in the class, which was taught in Spanish), so I pointed out that during most of the time period we were discussing, my ancestors had been running from pogroms, so I’d appreciate it if she could keep in mind that indigenous Latin Americans don’t have a monopoly on persecution. We got along much better after that.
Sorry for the hijack; hope some of you find it interesting!
Sionnach tapdanced:
And you have still not answered my repeated questions. Don’t give me any BS about you having business – you posted a number of replies, including to the very messages in which I had asked you about it, yet you repeatedly ignored it. Crap like that may cut it when you’re surrounded by a bunch of your pals, but it’s not going to work here. So let’s try again, shall we? I very clearly asked you:
As for your cute little smiley regarding “jewspeak,” do you always find it so amusing to throw around bigoted insults? Just curious.
So then why did you even bring it up in that list? You want to get rid of all the other things there, what about parades? I’ll ask straight out (not that asking straight out has gotten you to answer questions so far, but what the heck): Are you in favor of banning gay pride parades?
DavidB wrote:
Dammit, David, I wish you’d just drop it. She has answered you. She gave you an answer you didn’t like. Criminey! This is the first new and interesting topic in a while, and you drop in like a bull in a china shop after not being heard from in Great Debates for what, a year or two? Your patented heavy-handedness is contributing nothing here. Please stop it. You aren’t debating. You’re bullying.
Sionnach
I’m not satisfied with your response about homosexuality. All you’ve said is that individuals view it different ways, but what I was wondering is how it ties in to White Nationalism. Why the use of commonly known-to-be perjorative terms like “queer” and so forth? Can you cite any White Nationalist apologia or defense of homosexuals? Even just a kind word from someone?
Yes, there is a variety. The same observation applies to left-wing groups. You have your leftists that are more freedom-oriented and support free speech, then you have your leftists that want to ban certain speech in the name of tolerance. As a Canadian, it’s the latter that has predominance.
One major common link between the strict WN and the more Paleoconservative positions like myself, is that we all completely oppose third world immigration and Zionist control of government/media. Aren’t even leftists tired of forking over billions of dollars a year to Israel and supporting that country unconditionally?
Why aren’t leftists concerned about the double standards in the media regarding “hate crimes”? This is something I’d really like answered. When a negro was dragged to death by a white man, there were speeches by the President and nationwide outrage. When five whites were dragged to a field by two negros and sexually assaulted, then four executed with one lady surviving the gunshot wound, the media was silent. Why the double standard besides perhaps the media having some agenda about “white racism” being some huge evil thing and blacks all being victims?
I have never claimed to speak for anyone but myself. I came here because I noticed that I was personally mentioned, and felt like clearing a few things up with a deluded poster. People began asking questions, so I remain for the time being. I would be dishonest if I claimed to represent all WN, but I have not done so. If you want to debate the positions of other people, you should have done so on SF without resorting to sarcasm and ignoring the mods. There are “antis” that have a 100+ post count and are still there. The difference between them and the ones who get banned, is that they don’t come in acting uppity and defying the moderator when he asks to tone down the sarcasm.
Actually, WN’s support trade and tourism with other nations. We just don’t support the third-world immigration that floods into our own.
As for what I want, here is one scenario of it. Keep in mind that I only speak for myself. I would close off all third-world immigration. I would deport illegals and immigrants guilty of crime. I would ship all the Zionist activists and supporters to Israel. They are dual-loyalists. People who repeatedly commit violent crime unprovoked would be executed (any self-defense violence does not count). Most of the welfare state would be abolished. Laws dictating who someone has to hire or rent to would be abolished. If they continue to make demands on taxpayers, destroy property, or riot, they will be shipped out. I’m guessing Jesse Jackson would be the first to go. Media monopolies would be broken up. One Jewish family owns most of the media where I live and has an official policy of his papers speaking with “one voice” on certain issues, especially concerning Israel (surprise, surprise!). SOURCE. That would stop.
That is one option. The other involves secession.
It’s all a part of the rapid decline of culture. Gay issues are not irrelevant to the preservation of culture at all. Nothing can express that pure degeneration quite like a Gay Pride parade.
As for gay “rights”, I had a question for Lucki Chaarms that I will repost here. Maybe you can reply.
*When you talk about rights, what type of rights are you referring to? I’ve noticed that when liberals discuss rights, they actually mean the “right” to dictate their philosophies onto others.
“Rights” to “equal treatment” are merely rights of government and ethnic lobbies to dictate to private businesses who they have to hire.
Rights to free speech have turned into the “Right” to be free from any criticism and any speech that might “hurt feelings”.
Rights to free association have turned into the “Right” to force integration.
Rights to justice have turned into the “Right” for organized ethnic groups to lobby for special treatment and more monetary shakedowns from white taxpayers in the form of “reparations”.*
When gay people ask for a loan or job, they do not have to wear a rainbow shirt with “Gay Pride” written on it. As for inheritances, can’t you write up a will to leave your property with your “partner”? If the government prohibits you from leaving your property in a will to whomever you want, that is indeed a problem for everyone.
For those who ask “How are you threatened?” : If anyone wants to read an example about how Western Civ is exactly in danger, read Death of the West by Pat Buchanan. Yes, yes, I know you all think he’s a horrible racist-sexist-homophobic-xenophobe-antisemite and whatever other slur words leftists are using against those who don’t agree with their politics, but some of you might try to read something that goes against your politics for once.
Well, a few people in this thread have done so.
Here is the official position according to the FAQ,
*17. Q. Why the beef with homosexuals? Is sexual preference in your opinion a sign of genetic inferiority?
A. Considered objectively, homosexuality is a disease prone and childless “lifestyle.” There is no definitive, scientific evidence linking homosexual behavior to genetic factors.*
Personally, I don’t care about what goes on in people’s bedrooms. Just don’t make a political agenda out of it.
The following story demonstates, then, that we indeed have a problem. Marshall Gardiner must have believed that intestate laws would protect his wife and therefore a will was unnecessary. Apparently he was wrong.
In 1999, Marshall Gardiner died without a will. Under Kansas law his wife, J’Noel Ball Gardiner, should have been entitled to half of her husband’s estate. Her husband’s son, Joe Gardiner, went to court to have the marriage invalidated on the grounds that J’Noel, a transsexual, had been born male.
Joe Gardiner challenged J’Noel’s inheritance claims in probate court, and a trial court agreed with the son. But a Kansas Appellate Court later overturned the decision. The Appellate Court ruled that gender is not fixed and that gender at the time of marriage is the determining factor in the validity of that marriage.
Joe Gardiner appealed this decision to the Kansas Supreme Court, which ruled, in a 9-0 decision, that J’Noel was “male for purposes of marriage.” Relying heavily on dictionary definitions, the Kansas Supreme Court announced: "The words “sex,” “marriage,” “male,” and “female” in everyday understanding do not encompass transsexuals.
“The common, ordinary meaning of ‘persons of the opposite sex’”, according to the state’s Supreme Court opinion, “contemplates what is commonly understood to be a biological man and a biological woman. A post-operative male-to-female transsexual does not fit the common definition of a female.”
On Oct. 7, the U.S. Supreme court refused to hear the case and let the Kansas court decision stand.
Perhaps the most troubling issue in this decision is its violation of the U.S. Constitution. Article IV, clause 1 of the Constitution states: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and Judicial Proceedings of every other State.
Gardiner’s appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court asked whether this clause “requires a State to recognize an individual’s sex as reported in a birth certificate issued pursuant to court order by the State in which the individual was born.” **The State of Wisconsin recognizes J’Noel Gardiner to be female as manifest on her birth certificate. **
The state of Kansas has opened a breach in Article IV of the Constitution.
“The decision of the Supreme Court of Kansas side-stepped the Full Faith and Credit issue” based on the Kansas Appellate Court ruling, according to attorney Meiselman.
Much of the preceding text is from a press release from the National Transgender Advocacy Coalition, a §501©(4) civil rights organization working to establish and maintain the right of all transgendered, intersexed, and gender-variant people to live and work without fear of violence or discrimination.