← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Mithras
Thread ID: 11110 | Posts: 33 | Started: 2003-11-16
2003-11-16 20:03 | User Profile
There is something wrong with White activism folks. Every other activist group is professional, filing lawsuits, launching education campaigns, working with the system, and adopting a certain language. What do we have?
I turn your attention to the latest example of the Mexican terrorist(s) who obviously and deliberately infected hundreds of Americans with Hep A. Nowhere does the NA or this thread on SF mention how non-whites wish to intentionally kill whites, or how this is an act of bio-terrorism. Nowhere does the NA state that they are filing a lawsuit against Chi-chis for discrimination against White Americans. Nowhere is displayed how we can't trust anyone who comes into this country because of the anti-white hatred which they harbour. Is the white activist movement really this powerless, undeveloped and childish?
[url]http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=1149[/url] [url]http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=1156[/url] [url]http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=99908&page=1&pp=15[/url]
2003-11-16 20:14 | User Profile
WN organizations would lose their money filing such a lawsuit because they have no case, based on the information I've seen. If you have some information I'm not aware of, please bring my attention to it.
2003-11-17 14:12 | User Profile
It's like my theory that Mexicans started the fires in San Diego etc to burn out Whitey. Makes sense, except that when it gets as hot and windy and dry as it does, and people build houses out in the middle of it, well, you get fires. There may have been an arson angle in one of them, but arson is a psychological profile sort of thing, typically done by someone who lives in the area the arson occurs, hence I think they caught two White arsonists. My theory fell flat.
I like the hepatitus as terrorist weapon idea, and maybe if a bunch of us each in our respective towns called in to radio talk shows and ventured the idea, honestly and seriously, the host would talk about it a bit and in the process of shooting us down the public out there would at least hear or hopfully mis-hear! the idea, and get it out there. But, there appears to be no evidence, the truth is much worse: Mexicans are just filthy disease-spreaders, notice we call them cockroaches a lot on here. It's for a reason.
2003-11-17 15:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Edana]WN organizations would lose their money filing such a lawsuit because they have no case, based on the information I've seen. If you have some information I'm not aware of, please bring my attention to it.[/QUOTE]
There are White activists who aren't White Nationalists.
In this case, if you were a lawyer you could find the white families of the people who died or the 500 people who got infected and explain that you want to take their case. One could sue for millions, perhaps billions. It is bio-terrorism. I think this case could be easily won.
The non-white activists have some outlandish lawsuits as well, but it creates a certain atmosphere and inspires a certain attitude that is good for non-whites.
2003-11-17 16:42 | User Profile
1) They would lose money in the case since they have no case.
2) It would not create a good atmosphere, IMO, to file frivolous lawsuits that would come off as paranoid. There is no proof of purposeful "bio-terrorism" against Whites in this case. The Mexicans were just running a dirty arse restaurant and being unhygenic. Mexicans don't conspire to be dirty. They likely infected a bunch of Mexicans too.. and other ethnicities. That tosses out the "discrimination" and "purposely intending to kill Whites" idea, unless you have some information I do not have. Do you have a list of the ethnicities of all the victims?
Up here in Alberta, a Chinese restaurant was found with skinned doggies in their freezer. The facts were enough to disgust people without speculating a conspiracy behind it.
2003-11-17 17:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Edana]1) They would lose money in the case since they have no case.
2) It would not create a good atmosphere, IMO, to file frivolous lawsuits that would come off as paranoid. There is no proof of purposeful "bio-terrorism" against Whites in this case. The Mexicans were just running a dirty arse restaurant and being unhygenic. Mexicans don't conspire to be dirty. They likely infected a bunch of Mexicans too.. and other ethnicities. That tosses out the "discrimination" and "purposely intending to kill Whites" idea, unless you have some information I do not have. Do you have a list of the ethnicities of all the victims?
Up here in Alberta, a Chinese restaurant was found with skinned doggies in their freezer. The facts were enough to disgust people without speculating a conspiracy behind it.[/QUOTE]
We have huge differences of opinion here. I think this is an open and shut case. Obviously, the Mexican terrorist is guilty of manslaughter if nothing else, and racism is the second issue. Anti-white racism can be tied to manslaughter and if the Mexican knew he had Hep. A then it is obviously bio-terrorism.
Calling this a frivolous lawsuit confuses me. It's a frivolous lawsuit? People have died and over 500 are infected!!! This is also going to hurt the economy because millions will be afraid to eat out!!! Someone has to pay. This is golden for White Activism. This is [B]terrorism against Whites![/B]
2003-11-17 17:43 | User Profile
It's frivolous because there is no proof. First off, you need to find a list of the people who were infected and their ethnicities. If it turns out that a sizeable portion were Mexicans themselves, or black, chinese, whatever, you'd come off like a laughingstock with your theory that Mexicans conspired to infect Whites. Haven't you heard the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf?
People have died and over 500 are infected!!!
Yes, and there's no proof of anything beyond gross negligence due to not washing their veggies well or at all. Of course, the restaurant can be sued for gross negligence and violations of that sort - big time. That's a far cry from the accusation that the restaurant purposely infected Whites with disease - which requires proof.
This is also going to hurt the economy because millions will be afraid to eat out!!!
If it hurts anything in the economy, it hurts the Mexican restaurant sector, which is a good thing, is it not?
2003-11-17 18:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Edana]It's frivolous because there is no proof. First off, you need to find a list of the people who were infected and their ethnicities. If it turns out that a sizeable portion were Mexicans themselves, or black, chinese, whatever, you'd come off like a laughingstock with your theory that Mexicans conspired to infect Whites. Haven't you heard the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf? [/QUOTE]
The first part of a lawsuit is an investigation. I believe most of their customers are White, but almost all of them are at least Americans, so one can slant it any way one chooses. It still shines a spotlight on Mexican terrorists. And if they were majority non-white one could still take the case as anti-Americanism and profit thereby. Money is victory. Shining a spotlight on non-white immigrants wrongdoing is victory.
[QUOTE]Yes, and there's no proof of anything beyond gross negligence due to not washing their veggies well or at all. Of course, the restaurant can be sued for gross negligence and violations of that sort - big time. That's a far cry from the accusation that the restaurant purposely infected Whites with disease - which requires proof.[/QUOTE]
Gross negligence is still guilt, and manslaughter, which would equal victory.
[QUOTE]If it hurts anything in the economy, it hurts the Mexican restaurant sector, which is a good thing, is it not?[/QUOTE]
No, Mexicans work in White restaurants as well. It hurts the turd-world immigration policy. But it furthers the case against Mexican terrorists.
We need to exploit every aspect of every situation which is the way non-white activists operate.
2003-11-17 18:42 | User Profile
Without proof of intent, there is no "terrorism". Dirty people who neglect to clean their food aren't "terrorists". They're just dirty.
Shining a spotlight on non-white immigrants wrongdoing is victory.
Yes, when you shine the spotlight on the real wrongdoing. That would be negligence. When you add a bunch of allegations with no proof, like an accusation that Mexicans purposely infected their food to kill Whites, you open yourself up to ridicule.
Gross negligence is still guilt, and manslaughter, which would equal victory.
I'm not against suing for Gross Negligence. It's the other accusations which I think are irresponsible.
We need to exploit every aspect of every situation which is the way non-white activists operate.
The Non-White activists can get away with extremely ridiculous stuff because the media is already on their side. We don't have the luxury to get away with that kind of crap, and I would hope we're better than that anyway.
2003-11-17 19:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Edana]Without proof of intent, there is no "terrorism". Dirty people who neglect to clean their food aren't "terrorists". They're just dirty. [/QUOTE]
Manslaughter by gross negligence doesn't require intent. If the perp. knew he had the disease, however, is enough to imply terrorism.
[QUOTE]Yes, when you shine the spotlight on the real wrongdoing. That would be negligence. When you add a bunch of allegations with no proof, like an accusation that Mexicans purposely infected their food to kill Whites, you open yourself up to ridicule.[/QUOTE]
At this point, there need be an investigation. Without a pro-white activist team of lawyers investigating do you actually think there won't be a cover-up?
[QUOTE]I'm not against suing for Gross Negligence. It's the other accusations which I think are irresponsible.[/QUOTE]
How do you know at this point?
[QUOTE]The Non-White activists can get away with extremely ridiculous stuff because the media is already on their side. We don't have the luxury to get away with that kind of crap, and I would hope we're better than that anyway.[/QUOTE]
Better than what? We are getting assaulted at every angle! The non-whites didn't just one day appear to be the media favorite. They won it in the courts and in the streets after decades of opposition and ridicule. Now we are the minority. Why shouldn't we use legitimate tactics which are proven to work?
2003-11-17 20:06 | User Profile
Manslaughter by gross negligence doesn't require intent.
Mithras, my statement was about the charge of terrorism. Why are you talking about gross negligence now? Terrorism and gross negligence are two different things.
If the perp. knew he had the disease, however, is enough to imply terrorism.
First off, I'm going to put it on the table that I'm tired of the over-use of the word "terrorism".
At this point, there need be an investigation. Without a pro-white activist team of lawyers investigating do you actually think there won't be a cover-up?
I'm also going to put it on the table that I very much doubt this theory, personally. I don't think Mexicans maliciously conspire to be dirty.
Better than what?
Better than fabricating conspiracy theories when the facts will do just fine.
We are getting assaulted at every angle! The non-whites didn't just one day appear to be the media favorite. They won it in the courts and in the streets after decades of opposition and ridicule. Now we are the minority. Why shouldn't we use legitimate tactics which are proven to work?
It didn't exactly happen this way. A treacherous sector of the elite found it in their best interests to side with a few "underdog" groups. They already had their support in the media, universities, and Federal Government. If you want to use the corrupt judicial system, at least start with a solid case, not one built on speculation absent of even crucial facts - such as lists of the victim's ethnicity.
2003-11-17 20:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Edana]Mithras, my statement was about the charge of terrorism. Why are you talking about gross negligence now? Terrorism and gross negligence are two different things. [/QUOTE]
One can have multiple charges that are related for maximum justice.
[QUOTE]First off, I'm going to put it on the table that I'm tired of the over-use of the word "terrorism". [/QUOTE]
So only Arabs can be terrorists? When one seeks to harm an economy and harm civilian lives it is terrorism.
[QUOTE]I'm also going to put it on the table that I very much doubt this theory, personally. I don't think Mexicans maliciously conspire to be dirty. [/QUOTE]
Oh, please. So mexicans aren't conspiring to kill whitey?
[QUOTE]Better than fabricating conspiracy theories when the facts will do just fine.[/QUOTE]
Whose side are you on anyway?
[QUOTE]It didn't exactly happen this way. A treacherous sector of the elite found it in their best interests to side with a few "underdog" groups. They already had their support in the media, universities, and Federal Government.[/QUOTE]
That's absolutely not true. They "earned" their support by non-stop activism.
2003-11-17 21:22 | User Profile
One can have multiple charges that are related for maximum justice.
I was discussing one charge in particular.
So only Arabs can be terrorists?
Did I say that?
When one seeks to harm an economy and harm civilian lives it is terrorism.
Wrong. At least according to the definition, when an organized group or individual intentionally harms civilians for a political goal, it's "terrorism". I'd even dispute that definition, since it's too broad, but we'll go with it. If civilian lives and the economy is harmed by negligence of some parties, it's not terrorism by any definition. If some biker beats someone up at a bar, it's not "terrorism". Where is the proof of intent and political statement this is supposed to make?
Oh, please. So mexicans aren't conspiring to kill whitey?
Oh, please. I said they don't conspire to be dirty. Some Mexicans obviously conspire to kill Whitey. That would be gangbangers and political radicals. However, it's poor logic to leap from the existence of gangbangers shooting gringos as proof that it's a conspiracy when some beaner is too lazy to clean his onions.
Whose side are you on anyway?
Watch out. You're drawing a false dichotomy.
That's absolutely not true. They "earned" their support by non-stop activism.
The Federal Government had a self-interest in imposing certain laws on the South as punishment. Voila, we got a certain amendment.
The universities became seeped with cultural marxism, along with the media... which helped give favorable coverage when rich northern jewish and white kids bussed down to the south to agitate.
2003-11-17 22:05 | User Profile
If the majority of customers were white then terrorism could be proven. Mexicans want to ethnically cleanse non-hispanics from America. That is terrorism. Sometimes Arab suicide bombers kill muslims when targeting jews, but no one doubts that they were targeting jews.
In a civil suit, one needn't prove guilt. All that is needed for the judgment is that the party was responsible for the victims being hurt.
Now think of the press that such cases would draw. The official press release could refer to the mexican as a terrorist, draw attention to anti-white immigrants, and much, much more.
2003-11-17 22:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Edana]The Federal Government had a self-interest in imposing certain laws on the South as punishment. Voila, we got a certain amendment.
The universities became seeped with cultural marxism, along with the media... which helped give favorable coverage when rich northern jewish and white kids bussed down to the south to agitate.[/QUOTE]
The minorities won their influence mostly through civil disobedience.
2003-11-17 22:18 | User Profile
If the majority of customers were white then terrorism could be proven.
No, it wouldn't.
Mexicans want to ethnically cleanse non-hispanics from America. That is terrorism.
It would be terrorism when they start doing this. It's not terrorism when some idiot forgets to wash his onions and people get sick.
In a civil suit, one needn't prove guilt. All that is needed for the judgment is that the party was responsible for the victims being hurt.
If you're going to make an accusation that the restaurant workers intentionally infected the food of White customers as a terrorist political statement, then you damn well better have some proof of guilt if you want to bring it to court and not get laughed at.
Now think of the press that such cases would draw. The official press release could refer to the mexican as a terrorist...
Are you thinking of the same press I'm thinking of? I can see the opinion columns now - "Nazis waste court's time and your money with paranoid, racist conspiracy theories" and the headlines "Nazis accuse Hispanic American entreprenuers of terrorism - 'Prosecuters have no case, says Defense Lawyers'"
2003-11-17 22:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Edana] It would be terrorism when they start doing this. It's not terrorism when some idiot forgets to wash his onions and people get sick.
If you're going to make an accusation that the restaurant workers intentionally infected the food of White customers as a terrorist political statement, then you damn well better have some proof of guilt if you want to bring it to court and not get laughed at. [/QUOTE]
I have already stated that if the evidence exists that the mexican knew he had the disease then that is all the proof needed for intent. HE knowingly had HEP A did not wash his hands before handling food. That is [U]murder[/U].
Now are you thinking of the same public I'm thinking of who are sick to death of all this PC "racism" bullshit?
2003-11-17 22:41 | User Profile
I have already stated that if the evidence exists that the mexican knew he had the disease then that is all the proof needed for intent. HE knowingly had HEP A did not wash his hands before handling food. That is murder.
"If the evidence exists", yes you'd have a possible murder trial. That's a far cry from the discrimination lawsuit you suggested in the beginning of this thread and a terrorist conspiracy.
Now are you thinking of the same public I'm thinking of who are sick to death of all this PC "racism" bullshit?
Yes, the public eventually gets tired of bullshit. Play up on that instead of creating more bullshit, such as baseless accusations of discrimination and terrorism.
2003-11-17 23:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Edana]"If the evidence exists", yes you'd have a possible murder trial. That's a far cry from the discrimination lawsuit you suggested in the beginning of this thread and a terrorist conspiracy.
Yes, the public eventually gets tired of bullshit. Play up on that instead of creating more bullshit, such as baseless accusations of discrimination and terrorism.[/QUOTE]
So what you're saying is don't be a white activist. Sit down and take it while mud after mud rob us blind and kick us in the teeth. That is exactly what I am talking about when I started out saying [B]there is something definitely wrong with white activism[/B].
2003-11-18 03:59 | User Profile
So what you're saying is don't be a white activist. Sit down and take it while mud after mud rob us blind and kick us in the teeth.
Pro-White activism is not based on making up bullshit.
2003-11-18 05:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Edana]Pro-White activism is not based on making up bullshit.[/QUOTE]
You have a real winning attitude.
This is a perfect forum for constructive ideas on activism, not endless nay-saying. The latter is exactly what SF is for. I thought I was escaping that crap by coming here.
2003-11-18 05:45 | User Profile
Over the last 30 years, all the news articles I have read on food poisoning, Hepatitis etc. have involved non white eaterie's or non white kitchen help.. Does any remember the honorable and revered Jesse Jackson who admited he spit in white people's food when he worked in a restaurant. There is a pathology in the non white communitie's against whitey. Ala the Carr Brother's two blacks, who had children with white educated and decent looking white women, who even defended them after their terror murder crime's against U.S. Any and all white's who pin point this pathology, are worse than any savage doing any horror crime, and that is why the hate supremecist's who own and control the media bury the race war news and list Jared Taylor and with hate tag's. CA. is building two new Feral prison's, if I am correct that this is true, it is not a pretty picture considering we are broke and have NO border's as you see S.E.Asian peasant's with food stamps in area of the U.S. that ten years ago have almost 0 savages.
2003-11-18 06:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Mithras]You have a real winning attitude.
This is a perfect forum for constructive ideas on activism, not endless nay-saying. The latter is exactly what SF is for. I thought I was escaping that crap by coming here.[/QUOTE]
Constructive ideas must be able to take some criticism. I think the lack of evidence is a valid criticism. If your idea was to make a lawsuit about crimes involving gross negligence and to seize this situation to bring attention to the spread of disease caused by massive third world immigration, I'd be with you all the way.
However, you claimed that this was "obviously" a case of "terrorism" where the Mexicans deliberately infected Whites, with absolutely no evidence to back it up. This claim was coupled with a claim that the "white activist movement" is "powerless, undeveloped, and childish" and a condemnation of the NA because they aren't filing a discrimination lawsuit against Chi-Chis and haven't come to your conclusions. Therefore, it wasn't "just" a constructive idea.
2003-11-18 15:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Edana]Constructive ideas must be able to take some criticism. I think the lack of evidence is a valid criticism. If your idea was to make a lawsuit about crimes involving gross negligence and to seize this situation to bring attention to the spread of disease caused by massive third world immigration, I'd be with you all the way.
However, you claimed that this was "obviously" a case of "terrorism" where the Mexicans deliberately infected Whites, with absolutely no evidence to back it up. This claim was coupled with a claim that the "white activist movement" is "powerless, undeveloped, and childish" and a condemnation of the NA because they aren't filing a discrimination lawsuit against Chi-Chis and haven't come to your conclusions. Therefore, it wasn't "just" a constructive idea.[/QUOTE]
You don't listen very well, do you?
I stated that in a civil suit one needn't prove guilt, only that the party responsible harmed another's life. Case closed. Anything else the lawyers wish to say about the party responsible is to their added pleasure.
2003-11-18 15:28 | User Profile
I stated that in a civil suit one needn't prove guilt, only that the party responsible harmed another's life. Case closed. Anything else the lawyers wish to say about the party responsible is to their added pleasure.
And I don't agree that making up stuff is in our best interests, sorry. I have that strange problem with lying and all that. I think that pro-White activism should be based on the truth.
2003-11-18 15:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Edana]And I don't agree that making up stuff is in our best interests, sorry. I have that strange problem with lying and all that. I think that pro-White activism should be based on the truth.[/QUOTE]
It is not making stuff up. You are being confrontational and fail to see reality.
2003-11-18 16:03 | User Profile
If there is not a shred of evidence, yet you make conclusive statements, it is making things up.
2003-11-18 16:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Edana]If there is not a shred of evidence, yet you make conclusive statements, it is making things up.[/QUOTE]
When one gets sick at a restaurant one can sue them. Or are the victims just making this up? What is your problem?
At this point I have little doubt that you're an anti of some sort.
2003-11-18 16:25 | User Profile
Did I say that one cannot sue for negligence and stuff like that if you get sick at a restaurant? Nope, I said I'd be with you all the way on that. They should definately get their butts sued for negligence and hopefully go out of business because of this. However, I dispute your claim that the Mexican workers purposely infected the food of White customers as a BioTerrorist assault. I think they're just dirty and were too careless and lazy to wash their veggies. That's it. Stupidity and laziness can be deadly, ya know. Everything is not intentional. I think you're giving them way too much credit.
At this point I have little doubt that you're an anti of some sort.
I'm "anti-making stuff up". I think our activism should be based on truth, not lies. If we base our activism on baseless lies, we have no basis to get self-righteous and complain when the other side lies.
2003-11-18 17:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Edana]Did I say that one cannot sue for negligence and stuff like that if you get sick at a restaurant? Nope, I said I'd be with you all the way on that. They should definately get their butts sued for negligence and hopefully go out of business because of this. However, I dispute your claim that the Mexican workers purposely infected the food of White customers as a BioTerrorist assault. I think they're just dirty and were too careless and lazy to wash their veggies. That's it. Stupidity and laziness can be deadly, ya know. Everything is not intentional. I think you're giving them way too much credit. [/QUOTE]
In other words, I'm "lying" 'cause you said so. You're right and everyone else is wrong. You actually believe that mexicans are too stupid to put 2 and 2 together and intentionally harm people. I can't even believe I'm having this discussion. There is no need to investigate 'cause Edana said so. Whatever. :huh:
2003-11-18 17:32 | User Profile
I'm merely saying that you can't make conclusive statements without any evidence. You can speculate, but that's all it is - baseless speculation. If evidence can be brought forth supporting your theory, I'm very open to it.
Take notice that you didn't start this thread just saying the situation should be investigated more. You already hopped to your own conclusion with no evidence and then called the pro-White activist movement childish because they didn't come to your conclusions. What is that?
2003-11-18 17:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Edana]I'm merely saying that you can't make conclusive statements without any evidence. You can speculate, but that's all it is - baseless speculation. If evidence can be brought forth supporting your theory, I'm very open to it.
Take notice that you didn't start this thread just saying the situation should be investigated more. You already hopped to your own conclusion with no evidence and then called the pro-White activist movement childish because they didn't come to your conclusions. What is that?[/QUOTE]
Right, ignore everything I wrote after the first post. You are the only one allowed to speculate. I especially like the typical racist comment that mexicans are too damn stupid to put two and two together. And you're wondering why I called the white activist movement (what movement?) "childish and undeveloped"?
2003-11-18 17:56 | User Profile
Whatever, I'll leave you to this.