the “white race” is defined by those who say things like “The white race is the cancer of human history.” (That was Susan Sontag.) The “white race” is being attacked as such, and thus the white race is defined by the attacker. White racial consciousness is a reactive, defensive phenomenon prompted by the attack. There’s no point in my attempting to delineate any boundaries of the race. And there’s no reason for you to expect me to. All I know is I’m part of it, and I’m not going to stand by while a program of subjugation or genocide proceeds.
Jews are not arbitrarily excluded. Jews have excluded themselves by their own choice and set themselves up in opposition to other Caucasians (and other racial groups as well).
Every time I get on here, there are many new questions and confrontations. This is the first I’ve seen someone ask for a definition of the White Race- I have evaded no one.
White Race: as far as I’m concerned, the White Race is people of European ancestry. Jews are of middle-Eastern ancestry- Semites. All anti-Whites try to muddy the waters by saying there is no way to define Whites w/o including jews.
Rosa Luxemburg: the new information provided here is new to me. I’ll check it out. The name Meyer, at least, sounds jewish. And you will acknowledge that she did take part in founding the group that led the revolution, though she may have been in prison when it took place.
Immigration: Professor George Borjas, who teaches economics at Harvard’s respectably anti-WN John F. Kennedy School of Government, said that when the costs of crime rates, courtroom and hospital interpreters, bilingual education, medical treatment for uninsured immigrants, etc., are subtracted from the taxes these people pay, the real net economic result of immigration is a loss of $70 billion per year. According to some estimates, every California household pays, on average, an extra $1,300 per year in taxes because of immigrants. American Renaissance, Nov. 2002, p7.
According to the statistics of The Death of the West (Pat Buchanan’s book of last year, unexpectedly popular among millions of “racists”), White birthrates have falled below sustainment level.
Liberal White cowards give millions each year to save spotted owls or whales, but, as one person above said, saving the White race is considered perverse and evil, comparable to sex with goats.
This is the result of a steady stream of propaganda fed to us by the jew-controlled media. WNs are portrayed as wicked, violent perverts. One poster above asked me to prove that our movement is peaceful- well, for example, the World Church of the Creator summarily expels any member found engaging in any illegal activity.
We are peaceful, for now. But every time another boatload of Haitians is granted asylum here, and every time another White schoolkid is taught that his ancestors were wicked, exploitative racists, and ever time that another white is victimized by violent crime as a result of our government’s decree that “all races are equal,” more Whites get closer to dealing with the problem violently.
Hopefully peaceful discourse will overcome media propaganda and political change will make violent revolution unnecessary.
You just have to love the self evidence of such statements as the above.
So let’s see… you are part of something that you do not know what it is, but you know that you are part of it whatever it is. In any case you won’t define it because its self evident, or was the refusal to define whatever it is that you are part of due to something Susan Sontag said? The best part is that this thing that we do not know what it is, is under attack, I would surmise that the attackers are also an unknown group that isn’t part of the first mystey group, I guess that’s the group you tentatively refer to as the Jews?
Nice logic there Truthguy! Keep ‘em coming in that style and you might actually convince someone of something, most likely how utterly tenuous and completely laughable your stance and ideology is.
As for your last remark about citing your lies and misinformation I refer to the grand total of what you have posted in this thread, excepted the rather irrelevant piece about immigration and occupation.
Sparc
Oh and Halogen… Meyer is the most frequent last name you’ll find in Germany. Sort of like Smith. Then again there are quite a few Jews named Smith and Meyer around… you just can’t trust anything to be as it should these days. I guess that damned Cabal’s been at it again.
Unfortunately, I don’t have my reference books with me, but I will gladly provide references when I get a chance. One Jewish historian whose name escapes me at the moment noted that at the time of the Christ the Jewish community was obsessed with racial purity.
Read MacDonald’s A People That Shall Dwell Alone. His well-supported conclusion is that, essentially, Judaism amounts to a worship of the holy seed discussed in the Book of Ezra.
Spartacus: Clown- do you deny that all of the co-conspirators in forming the Spartacus party with Rosa Luxemburg were jews? Where is your cite supporting your claim about the name Meyer? Don’t disappear on me now.
Who said anything about a Cabal? Is this reference supposed to link me to some irrational “conspiracy theory” that is ridiculed among multiculturalists such as yourself?
SPARC SAID: The best part is that this thing that we do not know what it is, is under attack,
We know what it is and we know that it is under attack. And we know that whites have a choice- either organize and defeat the threat of multiculturalism or die.
Watching your friends and relatives being beaten and killed is a powerful motivator. As the U.S. moves toward the South Africa model (now rape capital of the world under the black Mandela/Mbeki government), whites there have resorted to violence to protect themselves. In Zimbabwe, whites are being driven off their lands for being white.
More and more people organize every day. Stormfront’s membership has gone from 10,000 to 12,000 in the past 2 months. The question is whether (1) WNs will save the day, or (2) your city will be the next Praetoria.
An example of a media “hush crime,” the Wichita Massacre took place in December 2000. Late one night, the black Carr brothers entered the home of three young white men who had two young women visiting them. The Carrs had a pistol. They raped the young women, forced the men to have sex with the women, and forced the women to have sex with each other. They then took the whites to an ATM machine and forced them to take out as much money as possible. They then drove their five victims to a field and shot all of them in the heads. Four died, but one young woman survived and ran naked to a nearby house, where she called the police. The Carrs were caught the next day with items they had stolen from the victims.
This is not unusual- it happens all the time. I use it as an example of disparate media treatment of different crimes. The trial was originally scheduled to be on CourtTV but this was canceled. Neither the crime nor the trial were ever mentioned on the nightly news programs that trumpeted the dragging death of the ONE black in Texas. Like all black-on-white crime, this is kept away from the TV because it could spread “racism.” The recent sniper shootings in the DC area are an example of what happens when the media publicizes crimes w/o knowing the race of the perp(s).
Then your example was superfluous and meaningless. And it wasn’t my statement.
As for a genus, I am well aware what it means. I am also well aware that its primary definition relates to biological classification. Since you chose to introduce genes into the definition, it was my belief that this was the definition you were using.
And, while it may well be possible to destroy a group through forced sterilization, that does not change the fact that, again, the most common connotation refers to murder.
Both of these examples are nothing more than semantic arguments that do nothing to alter El_Kabong’s initial statement:
Nor does your semantic side-trip have any real point, since it certainly does not invalidate the context from which the quote was pulled: by any definition, of either “genus” or “genocide”, Jews are not enaging in “genocidal tactics against Palestinians and against white countries” (as was claimed by your compatriot Halogen back on page 6).
Halogen, your example of the Carr brothers sucks ass because there is not one tiny shred of evidence that the assholes targeted their victims because they were white. That means, as reprehensible as it was, it was stil not a fucking hate crime. Meanwhile, dozens and dozens of trials for multiple murders occur every year in this country, and nearly all of them get pretty much what the Carr brothers trial has received: Significant local media coverage, and minor national coverage. So what’s the disparate treatment you think you’ve identified?
Well, seeing as how they had all taken the land away from the native Zimbabweans and all I’d think you’d applaud their attempts at establishing racial purity inside their own borders
Um, no, it’s kept away from the TV because the networks have bigger, more important fish to fry, like the new government in Israel, and the earthquake in Italy, and the slaughter of Russian hostages by the supposed Good Guys.
And, please tell me what other examples of “black on white” crime have been kept off the TV. The most spectacular example I can think of to refute this statement is the D.C. sniper–how come there’s suddenly no media blackout concerning him, to “prevent the spread of racism”? If your statement was true, we should have suddenly stopped hearing about him as soon as it was realized that he was black.
So, you’re saying that the media only publicized the methodical serial-killer shooting of 13 people, one of them a child, over the course of several weeks, because they thought it was a white guy?
You really think that if the media had thought it was a black guy, that they wouldn’t have said anything about the methodical serial-killer shooting of 13 people, one of them a child, over the course of several weeks? Then how come as soon as a witness said the sniper had “olive or dark skin”, the media didn’t suddenly shrug, “Oh, it’s a black guy”, and clam up?
That was October 16, by which time he’d killed 9 people and wounded 2. How come as soon as it was thought he might possibly black or Hispanic, or at least not “white”, the media didn’t drop him from the nightly news?
The witness wasn’t charged with lying until October 18, so for a day or so there was the possibility that he was black or Hispanic, but if you do a GoogleNews search for “sniper olive skin”, you’ll find there are dozens of media hits for October 17, quoting the witness. If you’re right, the media should have dropped him from their coverage for October 17.
Destroying a group through sterilization is murder, is it not? Murder of the group qua group?
The point of this exercise is that genocide can be accomplished without the murder of any individual, without any bloodshed. Thus, the absence of murders of individuals by the putative genocidalists does not refute the accusation of intent to commit genocide.
Your information regarding who the Jews “are” is, at best, incomplete. Semitic is a linguistic family, not a genetic one. The Jews originated from the same general “white” stock that passed back and forth across Europe and Southern Asia for millennia. (This, of course, is why the ethnologists who tried to define “race” included everyone from Iceland to Southern India in the Causcasian “race.” The number of migrations and degree of intermarriage has never been any secret.) And when the Jews expanded through Europe after the Roman Diaspora, they often took wives from the people among whom they settled, at least up until around the tenth century, so there is plenty of “white” “European” blood (whatever that might be) in the Ashkenazi and Sephardic European Jewish communities. Certainly they are as “pure white” as the people of Western Europe who were overrun by and intermarried with people migrating out of Asia.
So, you are defined by Susan Sontag? Gee, I would not let her define who I am.
A couple of corrective points on this: Ms. Sontag (or even Ms. Sontag and a few thousand like-minded friends) does not have the power to “subjugate” anyone and she is hardly practicing genocide. (It would seem strange to see her advocating her own elimination, anyway.)
Ms. Sontag’s statements, intemperate as they were, rely on other people to define “white.” It was (self-identified) “white” people that created the notion of race. It was later (self-identified) “white” people who tried to set up hierarchies to rank these purported “races” according to the hierarchical schemes. Any statment that Ms. Sontag (or any like-minded individual) would make about “white” people is a reference to groups that have already identified themelves. I was just curious as to who was supposed to be in the group.
While MacDonald wrote interesting speculation in the area of sociology (although I have yet to see the evidence that it is “well-supported”), his work fails on the most basic level: Judaism has embraced, on several occasions, quite a few peope of radically separate ethnic origins. In addition, recent genetic analysis has shown that founder communities of Jews throughout Europe frequently intermarried until they had become established. Thus, MacDonald’s claim that the Jews are “worshipping” some “holy seed” is easily refuted by physical evidence. However entertaining his social theories may be while looking at intergroup competition, they are basically irrelevant to any discussion that attempts to artificially segregate Jews from other “white” groups.
If you want to know what the “white race” is you’ll need to observe the words and deeds of those who have made it a politically relevant concept by attacking it.
Nope. The people who have made “white race” politically relevant are the ones who claim to be defending it. The claimants of some “pure” white race go back well into the nineteenth century. Those who are accused of attacking it generally go back no further than the late 1960s. Since the attackers are basing their language on the language of the purported defenders, it is up to the defenders to explain who they mean.
If Sontag (or anyone else) reacts against claims of “white” superiority by turning that on its head and claiming moral poverty, they are still using the terms against which they are reacting–terms that preceded them.
To claim that the “attacks” preceded the “defense” is an example of either woeful ignorance or willful misdirection. The earliest “defenders” were in opposition to a strawman that never existed.
