← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · PaleoconAvatar
Thread ID: 3955 | Posts: 104 | Started: 2002-12-04
2002-12-04 03:12 | User Profile
Originally posted by Polichinello@Dec 3 2002, 11:08 > Originally posted by il ragno@Dec 3 2002, 02:01 But white enough. You know, it's simple math: 95% literate minus 15% mestizo; remainder, 85% Caucasian.**
Yes, Argentina's a white nation, but that still begs the question: How did it fall into such a mess if white genes are so naturally superior?
Best, P**
Polichinello, you've consistently been the master at burying loaded assumptions into your questions and comments. It's very slippery and sneaky of you to pounce on this Argentina thread to look for cracks to widen in the name of egalitarianism, but it's not unexpected.
Who said that "white genes are so naturally superior?" Those who advocate the hereditarian position never claimed that Whites were across-the-board supermen in all endeavors; that's a common liberal distortion of their position. Whites have made mistakes in managing their societies--you could have asked the same question about the failed collectivist experiment the Pilgrims engaged in (albeit short-lived), or brought up the rise of socialism in White societies and the disaster that was the Soviet Union. But more often than not, White societies are better. That's why you see Third Worlders migrate en masse to White nations and not the reverse. Whites certainly are capable of squandering their potential, but at least they have potential. Those who have consistently mismanaged Africa, and then Haiti, for example, seem to never have had any potential to squander in the first place. So quit erecting superhuman hoops as standards for Whites to jump through.
2002-12-04 17:22 | User Profile
Polichinello, you've consistently been the master at burying loaded assumptions into your questions and comments. It's very slippery and sneaky of you to pounce on this Argentina thread to look for cracks to widen in the name of egalitarianism, but it's not unexpected.
Jeez, and you got all that from a simple two-line question? Your faith must be more fragile than I thought.
Who said that "white genes are so naturally superior?"
And you call me slippery. It is the common assumption of most on this board. If you can't see the plain truth of that, then you're closing your eyes to the plain truth. I'll give you one example from memory, though. When we were arguing about following a National Socialist vision, the assumption stated by MWDALLAS and others was that after the intial terror, white genes would reassert their natural affinity for freedom, libertarianism, mom and apple pie. I guess the Argentinians lost the script.
So quit erecting superhuman hoops as standards for Whites to jump through.
It isn't a superhuman hoop. It's a simple counterexample. Argentina is not just one bad period of time like, like the pilgrims, or even a misconstructed experiement, like the Soviet Union. It is a white nation that for the last 100 hundred years or so has gone through one screw up after another, in a variety of different forms. Hell, Mexico is in better shape than Argentina. You want more? We can look at another white nation, Sweden, which now has a poverty rate worse than Mississippi according to some stats. Go through the rest of the pure-bred countries: Scandanavia, etc, and you have basically stagnating societies. The only thing keeping Norway above Sweden's level right now is the North Sea oilfields.
You do have a point that European and N. American societies are better at providing material comforts, but during that time America has had a "less white" population than Argentina, and after the 50s & 60s the same can be said for Europe as well. If we're to use a genetic test, then it seems that a bit (though not an excess) of interaction is the key to success, not isolation.
Best, P
2002-12-04 19:04 | User Profile
Polichinello, your position on this strikes me as a bit exaggerated. No one I know claims that Whites invariably create a full-fledged Utopia complete with flowing rivers of milk and honey everywhere they go. They do claim that White societies often do have their problems, but more often than not they tend to be better places to live. I suspect most people would agree that they'd rather live in Mississippi or Sweden than Haiti or China.
As far as the "success" of the increasingly multiracial United States, beneath the surface the status quo isn't that amazing. There is a lot to be lamented in American society, and those things aren't necessarily best measured in dollars and cents. That's the whole point of conservatism--lots of people feel that the America that existed before the demographic changes that began in 1965 was a better place to live. It was home. And the fact that it was also a Whiter place is not a trivial element, since most Americans before the 1960s stretching back to the time of the Founding Fathers supported laws and reinforced practices that preserved America's racial integrity--antimiscegenation laws and the like. These things mattered to them, before the liberal Cultural Revolution that took all of this away. That's what this is all about.
2002-12-04 19:35 | User Profile
**When we were arguing about following a National Socialist vision, the assumption stated by MWDALLAS and others was that after the intial terror, white genes would reassert their natural affinity for freedom, libertarianism, mom and apple pie. **
No, I did not state that. I stated that after a coalescence into a cohesive group and after elimination of the threat, the intrinsic nature of the members of the group would not have changed, and that the society would revert to the status quo ante, i.e., a relatively more individualistic society. Of course, my statement contained no implication of superiority, nor any implication that the intrinsic nature of whites in America should be same as that of whites in Argentina or elsewhere.
2002-12-04 19:43 | User Profile
Polichinello, your position on this strikes me as a bit exaggerated. No one I know claims that Whites invariably create a full-fledged Utopia complete with flowing rivers of milk and honey everywhere they go.
Actually, the argument ran along the lines of White genes being a talismanic defense against dystopias. Yes, I think the position's exaggerated, but that's what was presented me. In fact, it runs through your very ideas as well. The Golden Key for you is a racial cleansing, which is why you look forward, with ill-concealed malicious glee, to a racial war.
They do claim that White societies often do have their problems, but more often than not they tend to be better places to live. I suspect most people would agree that they'd rather live in Mississippi or Sweden than Haiti or China.
That isn't the argument. The question is between living in Mississippi or Sweden. Haiti and China are more like Sweden in their racial purity. But if we're choosing exotic locales, then I'd easily pick Singapore or Bangkok over Sweden. In fact, so do many Swedes, which is why I always saw them when I was over there.
Indeed, given the general drabbiness of Stockholm, I'd prefer Nairobi to it.
As far as the "success" of the increasingly multiracial United States, beneath the surface the status quo isn't that amazing. There is a lot to be lamented in American society, and those things aren't necessarily best measured in dollars and cents.
Of course, but that's the standard you gave me when you cited all those benighted heathen making their way here.
That's the whole point of conservatism--lots of people feel that the America that existed before the demographic changes that began in 1965 was a better place to live. It was home. And the fact that it was also a Whiter place is not a trivial element, since most Americans before the 1960s stretching back to the time of the Founding Fathers supported laws and reinforced practices that preserved America's racial integrity--antimiscegenation laws and the like. These things mattered to them, before the liberal Cultural Revolution that took all of this away. That's what this is all about.
Saying the 1965 law was an error is one thing (for which we have enough suitable cultural arguments without resorting to race). Trying to forcibly undo it though force, however, is another thing. You'd have to adopt a route similar to Argentina's to attain it, and the cost in misery would offset the potential gain.
As to miscegenation, well, that's your little hobby horse, as we both know, so ride it all you want. Of course, you should bear in mind that most American whites have black ancestry anyhow.
"Ohio State anthropologist and sociologist Robert Stuckert, in a study called "African Ancestry of the White American Population", estimated that by 1950 21% of whites (about 28 million people then) had black ancestry within the last four generations. This finding was corroborated by Esteban J. Parra et al., who determined that "The presence of the FY null allele in the three [white sample] populations clearly indicates an introgression of African genes into the European American gene pool...." (Am. J. Hum. Genet., 1998)." [url=http://www.geocities.com/racial_myths/aryanmyth.html]http://www.geocities.com/racial_myths/aryanmyth.html[/url]
Best, P
2002-12-04 20:00 | User Profile
Originally posted by Polichinello@Dec 4 2002, 13:43 **Saying the 1965 law was an error is one thing (for which we have enough suitable cultural arguments without resorting to race). Trying to forcibly undo it though force, however, is another thing. You'd have to adopt a route similar to Argentina's to attain it, and the cost in misery would offset the potential gain. **
Well now I'm scratchin' my head wonderin' where you're at, P. Just here the other day you wrote that voting and by default, politics, was now a futile exercise.
What's the solution, man? Have you resigned yourself to the old Clayton Williams position of "might as well lay back and enjoy it?"
2002-12-04 20:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE][QUOTE]When we were arguing about following a National Socialist vision, the assumption stated by MWDALLAS and others was that after the intial terror, white genes would reassert their natural affinity for freedom, libertarianism, mom and apple pie. [/QUOTE] No, I did not state that. I stated that after a coalescence into a cohesive group and after elimination of the threat, the intrinsic nature of the members of the group would not have changed, and that the society would revert to the status quo ante, i.e., a relatively more individualistic society.[QUOTE]
That group being delineated by genetics.
[QUOTE]Of course, my statement contained no implication of superiority,[/QUOTE]
So tyrranical collectivism is just as good as free, individualistic societies?
[QUOTE]...nor any implication that the intrinsic nature of whites in America should be same as that of whites in Argentina or elsewhere.[/QUOTE]
The only differentiation you made was that Americans differed from Europeans because they "self-selected" through immigration, and so were less likely, genetically, to fall into totalitaranism. Well, the Argentinians self-selected themselves as well. A lot of them happen to be German, too. Why haven't their genes saved them from totalitarianism and economic chaos? Oh, sure, I could understand it if they weren't quite up to U.S. par, say another Spain or Italy, but, Good Lord, look at them. They're in the toilet.
This puts a huge hole in the proposition that having the right genes is a cure for our ills, and that a racial cleansing will assurredly, or even probably make things better, as you maintained in that other thread. Aside from the Anglo-Saxon countries, Argentina's about as close to us anyone genetically, and they've flopped.
Best, P
2002-12-04 20:09 | User Profile
Hmmm.
Instead of trying to argue that all-white=great, why don't we approach it from the opposite end and ask: if multiculturalism is so nice, why does it have to be implemented at the point of a gun?
2002-12-04 20:11 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Dec 4 2002, 20:00 What's the solution, man? Have you resigned yourself to the old Clayton Williams position of "might as well lay back and enjoy it?"
Well, you don't have to enjoy it.
Best, P
2002-12-04 20:13 | User Profile
Originally posted by MadScienceType@Dec 4 2002, 20:09 **Hmmm.
Instead of trying to argue that all-white=great, why don't we approach it from the opposite end and ask: if multiculturalism is so nice, why does it have to be implemented at the point of a gun?**
Multiculturalism is another matter, and I don't like it.
However, it hasn't been imposed by gunpoint. People are eating up happily on their own, buying movie tickets, watching the tube and voting for the politicians.
Best, P
2002-12-04 20:24 | User Profile
Actually, the argument ran along the lines of White genes being a talismanic defense against dystopias. Yes, I think the position's exaggerated, but that's what was presented me. In fact, it runs through your very ideas as well. The Golden Key for you is a racial cleansing, which is why you look forward, with ill-concealed malicious glee, to a racial war.
There are no guarantees, but you can talk about tendencies. Whites arguably have the strongest tendency for creating desirable societies. Race is a tremendous factor, but no one claimed that complex constructs like societies were monocausally linked to race. There are other things besides race that affect the quality of societies, too, and I don't think many people would deny that. Even if you had a 100% White country based in a 100% White world, particular White countries will do better than others depending on the decisions they make as they craft their laws and practices, etc. And those White societies can suffer from mismanagement for long periods of time because those poor decisions can become entrenched and perpetuated. It's hard to turn things around on a dime, and it takes a lot of visionary effort to be able to engage in the sort of "ideological zero-based budgeting" it takes to scrap a long-standing system that's failing. Sometimes you have to wait until you really hit bottom to overcome that inertia. Jefferson sort of mentions this tendency in the Declaration of Independence where he mentions that people are often willing to put up with negative circumstances, often because those circumstances are familiar. You must see these things, or at least you would if you were more open-minded and less cursory and dismissive in judging what gets said at OD. Not attacking you here, just asking for you to give us some more credit.
Now, about that "malicious glee".... Examine the implications of that comment for a moment. Is that what you really think is at work here, just malice? Do you really think that nationalists were just bored one day and looking for a fight and decided to engage in political advocacy just to cause some sht for the fun of it? All the thought and effort and reading done by the people who advocate the things I do is motivated just by base malice? Isn't that kind of psychoanalyzing a bit simplistic, maybe even far-fetched? Isn't it more plausible that maybe I've come across some ideas that I find persuasive, ones that seem to fit "the way things are" (as I see them, admittedly) and that advance my interests, and the interests of those I feel an affinity toward, in my honest* calculation? You don't think this is all in good faith?
> QUOTE ÃÂ They do claim that White societies often do have their problems, but more often than not they tend to be better places to live. I suspect most people would agree that they'd rather live in Mississippi or Sweden than Haiti or China.**
That isn't the argument. The question is between living in Mississippi or Sweden. Haiti and China are more like Sweden in their racial purity. But if we're choosing exotic locales, then I'd easily pick Singapore or Bangkok over Sweden. In fact, so do many Swedes, which is why I always saw them when I was over there.
Indeed, given the general drabbiness of Stockholm, I'd prefer Nairobi to it.**
I find that sort of jet-setting globalism, that cosmopolitanism, a bit rootless. That description you give sounds like what a lot of anti-White people say--they say Whites are drabby and boring and need to be "spiced up" with diversity. To each his own, I guess. It's just too bad we have leaders who have made that decision for us, and are forcing Third Worlders into our boring, quiet communities without our consent and often over our objection. There used to be a lot more objection, by the way, but that has dwindled since the American people have been brainwashed by agenda-driven movies and sitcoms telling them this is the way the world has to be, and if they don't like it, there's something wrong with them--they're "bigots" and "unenlightened" and driven by "malicious glee." ;)
> QUOTE ÃÂ As far as the "success" of the increasingly multiracial United States, beneath the surface the status quo isn't that amazing. There is a lot to be lamented in American society, and those things aren't necessarily best measured in dollars and cents. **
Of course, but that's the standard you gave me when you cited all those benighted heathen making their way here.**
The Third Worlders do come here to cash in. If all the goodies were cut off tomorrow, many of them would head home.
> QUOTE ÃÂ That's the whole point of conservatism--lots of people feel that the America that existed before the demographic changes that began in 1965 was a better place to live. It was home. And the fact that it was also a Whiter place is not a trivial element, since most Americans before the 1960s stretching back to the time of the Founding Fathers supported laws and reinforced practices that preserved America's racial integrity--antimiscegenation laws and the like. These things mattered to them, before the liberal Cultural Revolution that took all of this away. That's what this is all about. **
Saying the 1965 law was an error is one thing (for which we have enough suitable cultural arguments without resorting to race). Trying to forcibly undo it though force, however, is another thing. You'd have to adopt a route similar to Argentina's to attain it, and the cost in misery would offset the potential gain.**
No one definitively says that force is the only way to achieve political goals. People might be persuaded by coming events, when they see that the New World Order that the Establishment cheers on isn't such a benevolent place to them.
As to miscegenation, well, that's your little hobby horse, as we both know, so ride it all you want.
Admittedly, people today aren't as concerned about it as they used to be. There are reasons for that, and there are reasons why some people should try to remind people of the way things used to be.
**Of course, you should bear in mind that most American whites have black ancestry anyhow.
"Ohio State anthropologist and sociologist Robert Stuckert, in a study called "African Ancestry of the White American Population", estimated that by 1950 21% of whites (about 28 million people then) had black ancestry within the last four generations. This finding was corroborated by Esteban J. Parra et al., who determined that "The presence of the FY null allele in the three [white sample] populations clearly indicates an introgression of African genes into the European American gene pool...." (Am. J. Hum. Genet., 1998)."http://www.geocities.com/racial_myths/aryanmyth.html**
I have no way of verifying the truth of that, and we all know that such scholarship tends to be agenda-driven, and that "racist" scholars that would try to counter these types of studies get punished by TPTB.
But even if this were true, it seems like you're saying, "well, there's only a few parts per million of arsenic in our drinking water, approaching the EPA maximum standards for it, so since it's not absolutely pure, screw it and let's just pour some motor oil into the pitcher and drink it down." No one claims that the races are "absolutely pure." You've got it backwards here. No one said that the races all began pure way back when and are getting impure. That's not even the way it works--the races are part of a process of divergent evolution--they were once "all one" and have over time grown markedly different, following distinct paths down through the generations. They would have continued those separate paths, growing more pure, more distant from one another IF our communications and transportation technology had not short-circuited this process.
All nationalists advocate is controls on the way these technologies are being used, because these technologies are overcoming natural barriers and meshing the races back together again when they were formerly diverging. The divergence is good, and to be preserved and encouraged, not abandoned like you suggest. If all life converged again back to its LCD, you'd basically have one life form, like an amoeba--none of the much-worshipped "diversity" at all. It's not too late, and we can work with what we have, with White people as they are now. If it were too late, TPTB wouldn't work so hard at trying to tell us it's too late.
2002-12-04 20:48 | User Profile
Of course, you should bear in mind that most American whites have black ancestry anyhow.
Preposterous.
"Ohio State anthropologist and sociologist Robert Stuckert, in a study called "African Ancestry of the White American Population", estimated that by 1950 21% of whites (about 28 million people then) had black ancestry within the last four generations.
Note the word "estimated". Stuckert's estimate is found here:
[url=http://www.geocities.com/fskirby/Stuckert.pdf]http://www.geocities.com/fskirby/Stuckert.pdf[/url]
It is not based on any genetic studies. It is based on two things: a bunch of highly tendentious assumptions, and flimsy studies positing the numbers of negroes who were passing as white in the 1920's. (One such study was performed by Melville Herskovits!)
As for the Parra study, here we see Steve Sailer and Glayde Whitney discussing it:
[url=http://www.arthurhu.com/99/14/mix2.txt]http://www.arthurhu.com/99/14/mix2.txt[/url]
Although I cannot locate the Parra study online, the sources that discuss it do not suggest that it in corroborates Stuuckert's musings.
As for your "aryanmyth" website, most of it is concerned with semitic and berber ancestry -- not negro. In any event, it's hard to take seriously a site that claims Angie Harmon has non-European ancestry.
2002-12-04 20:58 | User Profile
**The only differentiation you made was that Americans differed from Europeans because they "self-selected" through immigration, and so were less likely, genetically, to fall into totalitaranism. Well, the Argentinians self-selected themselves as well. **
And were they self-selected for the same traits? Did they have identical resources to work with?
The point I made previously is that the coalescence into a group for the purpose of confronting a threat does not change our nature. If we are individualists, we remain so.
2002-12-04 21:00 | User Profile
Originally posted by Polichinello@Dec 4 2002, 16:13 > Originally posted by MadScienceType@Dec 4 2002, 20:09 Hmmm.
Instead of trying to argue that all-white=great, why don't we approach it from the opposite end and ask: if multiculturalism is so nice, why does it have to be implemented at the point of a gun?**
Multiculturalism is another matter, and I don't like it.
However, it hasn't been imposed by gunpoint. People are eating up happily on their own, buying movie tickets, watching the tube and voting for the politicians.
Best, P**
Imposition at gunpoint isn't necessary:
From [url=http://www.natvan.com/who-rules-america/]http://www.natvan.com/who-rules-america/[/url]
Who Rules America?
There is no greater power in the world today than that wielded by the manipulators of public opinion in America. No king or pope of old, no conquering general or high priest ever disposed of a power even remotely approaching that of the few dozen men who control America's mass media of news and entertainment.
Their power is not distant and impersonal; it reaches into every home in America, and it works its will during nearly every waking hour. It is the power that shapes and molds the mind of virtually every citizen, young or old, rich or poor, simple or sophisticated.
The mass media form for us our image of the world and then tell us what to think about that image. Essentially everything we know -- or think we know -- about events outside our own neighborhood or circle of acquaintances comes to us via our daily newspaper, our weekly news magazine, our radio, or our television.
It is not just the heavy-handed suppression of certain news stories from our newspapers or the blatant propagandizing of history-distorting TV "docudramas" that characterizes the opinion-manipulating techniques of the media masters. They exercise both subtlety and thoroughness in their management of the news and the entertainment that they present to us.
For example, the way in which the news is covered: which items are emphasized and which are played down; the reporter's choice of words, tone of voice, and facial expressions; the wording of headlines; the choice of illustrations -- all of these things subliminally and yet profoundly affect the way in which we interpret what we see or hear.
On top of this, of course, the columnists and editors remove any remaining doubt from our minds as to just what we are to think about it all. Employing carefully developed psychological techniques, they guide our thought and opinion so that we can be in tune with the "in" crowd, the "beautiful people," the "smart money." They let us know exactly what our attitudes should be toward various types of people and behavior by placing those people or that behavior in the context of a TV drama or situation comedy and having the other TV characters react in the Politically Correct way.
Molding American Minds
For example, a racially mixed couple will be respected, liked, and socially sought after by other characters, as will a "take charge" Black scholar or businessman, or a sensitive and talented homosexual, or a poor but honest and hardworking illegal alien from Mexico. On the other hand, a White racist -- that is, any racially conscious White person who looks askance at miscegenation or at the rapidly darkening racial situation in America -- is portrayed, at best, as a despicable bigot who is reviled by the other characters, or, at worst, as a dangerous psychopath who is fascinated by firearms and is a menace to all law-abiding citizens. The White racist "gun nut," in fact, has become a familiar stereotype on TV shows.
The average American, of whose daily life TV-watching takes such an unhealthy portion, distinguishes between these fictional situations and reality only with difficulty, if at all. He responds to the televised actions, statements, and attitudes of TV actors much as he does to his own peers in real life. For all too many Americans the real world has been replaced by the false reality of the TV environment, and it is to this false reality that his urge to conform responds. Thus, when a TV scriptwriter expresses approval of some ideas and actions through the TV characters for whom he is writing, and disapproval of others, he exerts a powerful pressure on millions of viewers toward conformity with his own views.
And as it is with TV entertainment, so it is also with the news, whether televised or printed. The insidious thing about this form of thought control is that even when we realize that entertainment or news is biased, the media masters still are able to manipulate most of us. This is because they not only slant what they present, but they establish tacit boundaries and ground rules for the permissible spectrum of opinion.
As an example, consider the media treatment of Middle East news. Some editors or commentators are slavishly pro-Israel in their every utterance, while others seem nearly neutral. No one, however, dares suggest that the U.S. government is backing the wrong side in the Arab-Jewish conflict and that it served Jewish interests rather than American interests to send U.S. forces to cripple Iraq, Israel's principal rival in the Middle East. Thus, a spectrum of permissible opinion, from pro-Israel to nearly neutral, is established.
Another example is the media treatment of racial issues in the United States. Some commentators seem almost dispassionate in reporting news of racial strife, while others are emotionally partisan -- with the partisanship always on the non-White side. All of the media spokesmen without exception, however, take the position that "multiculturalism" and racial mixing are here to stay, and that they are good things.
Because there are differences in degree, however, most Americans fail to realize that they are being manipulated. Even the citizen who complains about "managed news" falls into the trap of thinking that because he is presented with an apparent spectrum of opinion he can escape the thought controllers' influence by believing the editor or commentator of his choice. It's a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation. **Every point on the permissible spectrum of public opinion is acceptable to the media masters -- and no impermissible fact or viewpoint is allowed any exposure at all, if they can prevent it. **
The control of the opinion-molding media is nearly monolithic. All of the controlled media -- television, radio, newspapers, magazines, books, motion pictures -- speak with a single voice, each reinforcing the other. Despite the appearance of variety, there is no real dissent, no alternative source of facts or ideas accessible to the great mass of people that might allow them to form opinions at odds with those of the media masters. They are presented with a single view of the world -- a world in which every voice proclaims the equality of the races, the inerrant nature of the Jewish "Holocaust" tale, the wickedness of attempting to halt the flood of non-White aliens pouring across our borders, the danger of permitting citizens to keep and bear arms, the moral equivalence of all sexual orientations, and the desirability of a "pluralistic," cosmopolitan society rather than a homogeneous one. It is a view of the world designed by the media masters to suit their own ends -- and the pressure to conform to that view is overwhelming. People adapt their opinions to it, vote in accord with it, and shape their lives to fit it.
And who are these all-powerful masters of the media? As we shall see, to a very large extent they are Jews. It isn't simply a matter of the media being controlled by profit-hungry capitalists, some of whom happen to be Jews. If that were the case, the ethnicity of the media masters would reflect, at least approximately, the ratio of rich Gentiles to rich Jews. The preponderance of Jews in the media is so overwhelming, however, that we are obliged to assume that it is due to more than mere happenstance.
Electronic News & Entertainment Media
Continuing government deregulation of the telecommunications industry has resulted, not in the touted increased competition, but rather in an accelerating wave of corporate mergers and acquisitions that have produced a handful of multi-billion-dollar media conglomerates. The largest of these conglomerates are rapidly growing even bigger by consuming their competition, almost tripling in size during the 1990s. Whenever you watch television, whether from a local broadcasting station or via a cable or a satellite dish; whenever you see a feature film in a theater or at home; whenever you listen to the radio or to recorded music; whenever you read a newspaper, book, or magazine -- it is very likely that the information or entertainment you receive was produced and/or distributed by one of these megamedia companies.
The largest media conglomerate today is AOL-Time Warner, created when AOL bought Time Warner for $160 billion in 2000. The merger brought together Steve Case, a Gentile, as chairman of AOL-TW, and Time Warner chairman Gerald Levin, a Jew, as the CEO. Although AOL-TW isn't (yet) run entirely by Jews, the effect of this blend of leadership between a White capitalist whose biggest concern is money and a racially conscious Jew will be gradually to increase the Jewish influence within AOL. Steve Case won't complain when Gerald Levin begins hiring mostly Jews to fill key positions beneath him because Case's own profits won't be affected. After Case dies or retires, the Jews will have complete control at AOL.
Before the merger, AOL was the largest Internet service provider in America, and it will now be used as an online platform for the Jewish content from Time Warner.
Time Warner, Inc., with 1997 revenues of more than $13 billion, was the second largest of the international media leviathans when it was bought by AOL. Levin, chairman and CEO of Time Warner, had bought Turner Broadcasting Systems in 1996 from Ted Turner, who had been one of the few Gentile entrepreneurs in the media business. Ted Turner, as the company president, became the number three man at AOL-TW, after Case and Levin.
When Ted Turner, the Gentile media maverick, made a bid to buy CBS in 1985, there was panic in media boardrooms across the nation. Turner had made a fortune in advertising and then had built a successful cable-TV news network, CNN, with over 70 million subscribers. Although Turner employed a number of Jews in key executive positions in CNN and had never taken public positions contrary to Jewish interests, he is a man with a large ego and a strong personality and was regarded by Chairman William Paley and the other Jews at CBS as uncontrollable: a loose cannon who might at some time in the future turn against them. Furthermore, Jewish newsman Daniel Schorr, who had worked for Turner, publicly charged that his former boss held a personal dislike for Jews.
To block Turner's bid, CBS executives invited billionaire Jewish theater, hotel, insurance, and cigarette magnate Laurence Tisch to launch a "friendly" takeover of the company, and from 1986 until 1995 Tisch was the chairman and CEO of CBS, removing any threat of non-Jewish influence there. Subsequent efforts by Turner to acquire a major network were obstructed by Levin's Time Warner, which owns nearly 20 percent of CBS stock and has veto power over major deals. When his fellow Jew Sumner Redstone offered to buy CBS for $34.8 billion in 1999, Levin had no objection.
Thus, despite being an innovator and garnering headlines, Turner never commanded the "connections" necessary for being a true media master. He finally decided if you can't lick 'em, join 'em, and he sold out to Levin. Ted Turner is in one respect a reflection of Steve Case. Both of these White men are capitalists with no discernible degree of racial consciousness or responsibility. In July 2001, AOL Time Warner announced that yet another Jew, Walter Isaacson, formerly the editorial director of Time, Inc., will become the new chairman and CEO of CNN News Group, which oversees the news empire that Ted Turner built.
Time Warner's subsidiary HBO is the country's largest pay-TV cable network. Until the purchase in May 1998 of PolyGram by Edgar Bronfman, Jr., Warner Music was America's largest record company, with 50 labels, the biggest of which is Warner Brothers Records. Warner Music was an early promoter of "gangsta rap." Through its involvement with Interscope Records (prior to Interscope's acquisition by MCA), it helped to popularize a genre whose graphic lyrics explicitly urge Blacks to commit acts of violence against Whites.
In addition to cable and music, Time Warner is heavily involved in the production of feature films (Warner Brothers Studio, Castle Rock Entertainment, and New Line Cinema) and in publishing. Time Warner's publishing division (editor-in-chief Norman Pearlstine, a Jew) is the largest magazine publisher in the country (Time, Sports Illustrated, People, Fortune).
The second-largest media conglomerate today, with 1997 revenues of $23 billion, is the Walt Disney Company. Its chairman and CEO, Michael Eisner, is a Jew. The Disney empire, headed by a man described by one media analyst as "a control freak," includes several television production companies (Walt Disney Television, Touchstone Television, Buena Vista Television) and cable networks with more than 100 million subscribers altogether.
As for feature films, the Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group, under Walt Disney Studios, headed by Joseph E. Roth (also a Jew), includes Walt Disney Pictures, Touchstone Pictures, Hollywood Pictures, and Caravan Pictures. Roth founded Caravan Pictures in January 1993, and it is now headed by his fellow Jew Roger Birnbaum. Disney also owns Miramax Films, run by the Weinstein brothers, Bob and Harvey, who have produced such ultra-raunchy movies as The Crying Game, Priest, and Kids.
When the Disney Company was run by the Gentile Disney family, prior to its takeover by Eisner in 1984, it epitomized wholesome, family entertainment. While it still holds the rights to Snow White, the company under Eisner has expanded into the production of a great deal of so-called "adult" material.
In August 1995, Eisner acquired Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., which owns the ABC Television Network, which in turn owns ten TV stations outright in such big markets as New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Houston. In addition, it has 225 affiliated stations in the United States and is part owner of several European TV companies.
ABC's cable subsidiary, ESPN, is headed by president and CEO Steven Bornstein, who is a Jew. The corporation also has a controlling share of Lifetime Television and A & E Television Networks cable companies, with 67 million subscribers each. ABC Radio Network owns 26 AM and FM stations, again in major cities such as New York, Washington, and Los Angeles, and has over 3,400 affiliates.
Although primarily a telecommunications company, Capital Cities/ABC earned over $1 billion in publishing in 1997. It owns seven daily newspapers, Fairchild Publications (Women's Wear Daily), Chilton Publications (automotive manuals), and the Diversified Publishing Group.
Number three on the list, with 1997 revenues of just over $13 billion, is Viacom, Inc., headed by Sumner Redstone (born Murray Rothstein). Viacom, which produces and distributes TV programs for the three largest networks, owns 13 television stations and 12 radio stations. It produces feature films through Paramount Pictures, headed by Jewess Sherry Lansing. Redstone acquired CBS following the December 1999 stockholders' votes at CBS and Viacom.
Working for Redstone as CBS's chief executive is a Jew named Melvin A. Karmazin. He is the boss and biggest individual shareholder of the company that owns the CBS Television Network, 14 major-market TV stations, 160 radio stations, the Country Music Television and the Nashville Network cable channels, and a large number of outdoor advertising assets.
Viacom's publishing division includes Simon & Schuster, Scribner, The Free Press, and Pocket Books. It distributes videos through over 4,000 Blockbuster stores. It is also involved in satellite broadcasting, theme parks, and video games.
Viacom's chief claim to fame, however, is as the world's largest provider of cable programming, through its Showtime, MTV, Nickelodeon, and other networks. Since 1989 MTV and Nickelodeon have acquired larger and larger shares of the juvenile television audience. The first quarter of 2001 was the 16th consecutive quarter in which MTV was rated as the #1 cable network for viewers between the ages of 12 and 24. Redstone, who actually owns 76 per cent of the shares of Viacom, has offered Beavis and Butthead as teen role models and currently is the largest single purveyor of race-mixing propaganda to White teenagers and sub-teens in America and in Europe. MTV Networks plans to acquire The Music Factory (TMF) from the Dutch media and marketing group Wegener. TMF distributes music to almost 10 million homes in Holland and Belgium. MTV is expanding its presence in Europe through new channels, including MTV Dance (Britain) and MTV Live (Scandinavia). MTV Italy is active through Cecchi Gori Communications. MTV pumps its racially mixed rock and rap videos into 210 million homes in 71 countries and is the dominant cultural influence on White teenagers around the world.
Nickelodeon, with about 65 million subscribers, has by far the largest share of the four-to-11-year-old TV audience in America and also is expanding rapidly into Europe. Most of its shows do not yet display the blatant degeneracy that is MTV's trademark, but Redstone is gradually nudging the fare presented to his kiddie viewers toward the same poison purveyed by MTV. As of early 2001, Nickelodeon was continuing a nine-year streak as the top cable network for children and younger teenagers.
Another Jewish media mogul is Edgar Bronfman, Jr. He headed Seagram Company, Ltd., the liquor giant, until its recent merger with Vivendi. His father, Edgar Bronfman, Sr., is president of the World Jewish Congress. Seagram owned Universal Studios and Interscope Records, the foremost promoter of "gangsta rap." These companies now belong to Vivendi Universal.
Bronfman became the biggest man in the record business in May 1998 when he also acquired control of PolyGram, the European record giant, by paying $10.6 billion to the Dutch electronics manufacturer Philips. With the revenue from PolyGram added to that from MCA and Universal, Bronfman became master of the fourth largest media empire, with annual revenues around $12 billion. One especially unfortunate aspect of the PolyGram acquisition was that it gave Bronfman control of the world's largest producer of classical music CDs: PolyGram owns the Deutsche Grammophon, Decca-London, and Philips record companies.
In June 2000, the Bronfman family sold Seagram to Vivendi, a French utilities company led by gentile Jean-Marie Messier. The combined company, Vivendi Universal, will retain Edgar Bronfman, Jr., as the vice chairman of the new company, and he will continue to be in charge of its entertainment division. The strategy for this merger seems to mirror that of AOL-Time Warner: infect and wait. Vivendi Universal will pay off the debts it assumed in the merger by selling Seagram's alcohol business, retaining its media empire.
With two of the top four media conglomerates in the hands of Jews, and with Jews in executive charge of the remaining two, it is difficult to believe that such an overwhelming degree of control came about without a deliberate, concerted effort on their part.
What about the other big media companies?
Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, which owns Fox Television Network, 20th Century Fox Films, and Fox 2000, is the fifth largest megamedia corporation in the country, with 1997 revenues of over $11 billion. It is the only other media company that comes even close to the top four. Murdoch is a Gentile Australian, but Peter Chernin, who is president and CEO of Fox Group, which includes all of News Corporation's film, television, and publishing operations in the United States, is a Jew. Under Chernin, as president of 20th Century Fox, is Laura Ziskin, a Jewess who formerly headed Fox 2000. Jew Peter Roth works under Chernin as president of Fox Entertainment. News Corporation also owns the New York Post and TV Guide, and they are published under Chernin's supervision. Murdoch told Newsweek magazine (July 12, 1999) that he would probably elevate Chernin to CEO of News Corporation, rather than allow the company to fall into the hands of his own children, none of whom are younger than their late twenties. It is hard to imagine a Jew giving a major media corporation to a Gentile underling when he has children waiting in the wings. For his part, Chernin was quite candid: "I get to control movies seen all over the world. . . . What could be more fun?"
Most of the television and movie production companies that are not owned by the largest corporations are also controlled by Jews. For example, New World Entertainment, proclaimed by one media analyst as "the premier independent TV program producer in the United States," is owned by Ronald Perelman, a Jew who also owns Revlon cosmetics and who offered a job to Monica Lewinsky when Bill Clinton was trying to keep her quiet.
The best known of the smaller media companies, DreamWorks SKG, is a strictly kosher affair. DreamWorks was formed in 1994 amid great media hype by recording industry mogul David Geffen, former Disney Pictures chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg, and film director Steven Spielberg, all three of whom are Jews. The company produces movies, animated films, television programs, and recorded music. Considering the cash and connections that Geffen, Katzenberg, and Spielberg have, DreamWorks may soon be in the same league as the big four.
It is well known that Jews have controlled most of the production and distribution of films since shortly after the inception of the movie industry in the early decades of the 20th century. When Walt Disney died in 1966, the last barrier to the total Jewish domination of Hollywood was gone, and Jews were able to grab ownership of the company that Walt built. Since then they have had everything their way in the movie industry.
Films produced by just the four largest motion picture companies mentioned above -- Disney, Warner Brothers, Paramount (Viacom), and Universal (Seagram) -- accounted for two-thirds of the total box-office receipts for the year 1997.
The big three in television network broadcasting used to be ABC, CBS, and NBC. With the consolidation of the media empires, these three are no longer independent entities. While they were independent, however, each was controlled by a Jew since its inception: ABC by Leonard Goldenson; NBC first by David Sarnoff and then by his son Robert; and CBS first by William Paley and then by Laurence Tisch. Over periods of several decades these networks were staffed from top to bottom with Jews, and the essential Jewishness of network television did not change when the networks were absorbed by other corporations. The Jewish presence in television news remains particularly strong.
NBC provides a good example of this. The executives at NBC recently were shuffled among the key positions. Andrew Lack, who had been chief of the network's news division, ascended to become its president and chief operations officer. Neal Shapiro, who had been producing Dateline NBC, moved into Lack's old job. Jeff Zucker, who had been producing the Today show, was promoted to NBC entertainment president (a job that apparently was created for him), and Jonathan Wald moved into Zucker's old spot after shoving aside Michael Bass, who had been filling in for Zucker with Today. Some time ago, Wald became the producer of the NBC Nightly News, taking the position from Jeff Gralnick. When Wald moved to Today, Steve Capus took over as Tom Brokaw's producer. It is not known at this time whether Capus is a Jew or not, but everyone else is.
A similar preponderance of Jews exists in the news divisions of the other networks. For example, in February 2000, Al Ortiz moved to head the "Special Events" coverage at CBS, making gentile Jim Murphy the executive producer of The CBS Evening News with Dan Rather -- and the only exception that we know of to an otherwise solidly Jewish cadre of television news producers. The new CBS Early Show, which replaced CBS This Morning, had an internal shakeup in which three producers were fired, ostensibly for not being "aggressive" enough. One wonders whether they were also not Jewish enough. The shakeup did not, however, affect the outgoing executive producer Al Berman, who transferred to a new job as a program developer, and Steve Friedman has become the executive producer of the Early Show.
Paul Friedman is still the executive producer of ABC World News Tonight with Peter Jennings. Rick Kaplan, once an executive at ABC, moved to CNN in 1997, where he became the president of CNN/USA.
The Print Media
After television news, daily newspapers are the most influential information medium in America. Sixty million of them are sold (and presumably read) each day. These millions are divided among some 1483 different publications (this figure is for February 2000). One might conclude that the sheer number of different newspapers across America would provide a safeguard against minority control and distortion. Alas, such is not the case. There is less independence, less competition, and much less representation of majority interests than a casual observer would think.
In 1945, four out of five American newspapers were independently owned and published by local people with close ties to their communities. Those days, however, are gone. Most of the independent newspapers were bought out or driven out of business by the mid-1970s. Today most "local" newspapers are owned by a rather small number of large companies controlled by executives who live and work hundreds or even thousands of miles away. Today less than 20 percent of the country's 1483 papers are independently owned; the rest belong to multi-newspaper chains. Only 104 of the total number have circulations of more than 100,000. Only a handful are large enough to maintain independent reporting staffs outside their own communities; the rest must depend on these few for all of their national and international news.
The Associated Press, which sells content to newspapers, is currently under the control of its Jewish managing editor, Michael Silverman, who directs the day-to-day news reporting and supervises the editorial departments. Silverman had directed the AP's national news as assistant managing editor since 1992. He was promoted to his current job in 2000. Silverman reports to Jonathan Wolman, also a Jew, who is executive editor for the AP.
In only 47 cities in America are there more than one daily newspaper, and competition is frequently nominal even among them, as between morning and afternoon editions under the same ownership. Examples of this are the Mobile, Alabama, morning Register and afternoon Press-Register; and the Syracuse, New York, morning Post-Standard and afternoon Herald-Journal -- all owned by the Jewish Newhouse brothers through their holding company, Advance Publications.
The Newhouse media empire provides an example of more than the lack of real competition among America's daily newspapers: it also illustrates the insatiable appetite Jews have shown for all the organs of opinion control on which they could fasten their grip. The Newhouses own 30 daily newspapers, including several large and important ones, such as the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Newark Star-Ledger, and the New Orleans Times-Picayune; Newhouse Broadcasting, consisting of 12 television broadcasting stations and 87 cable-TV systems, including some of the country's largest cable networks; the Sunday supplement Parade, with a circulation of more than 22 million copies per week; some two dozen major magazines, including the New Yorker, Vogue, Mademoiselle, Glamour, Vanity Fair, Bride's, Gentlemen's Quarterly, Self, House & Garden, and all the other magazines of the wholly owned Conde Nast group.
This Jewish media empire was founded by the late Samuel Newhouse, an immigrant from Russia. When he died in 1979 at the age of 84, he bequeathed media holdings worth an estimated $1.3 billion to his two sons, Samuel and Donald. With a number of further acquisitions, the net worth of Advance Publications has grown to more than $8 billion today.
The gobbling up of so many newspapers by the Newhouse family was in large degree made possible by the fact that newspapers are not supported by their subscribers, but by their advertisers. It is advertising revenue -- not the small change collected from a newspaper's readers -- that largely pays the editor's salary and yields the owner's profit.
Whenever the large advertisers in a city choose to favor one newspaper over another with their business, the favored newspaper will flourish while its competitor dies. Since the beginning of the last century, when Jewish mercantile power in America became a dominant economic force, there has been a steady rise in the number of American newspapers in Jewish hands, accompanied by a steady decline in the number of competing Gentile newspapers -- primarily as a result of selective advertising policies by Jewish merchants.
Furthermore, even those newspapers still under Gentile ownership and management are so thoroughly dependent upon Jewish advertising revenue that their editorial and news reporting policies are largely constrained by Jewish likes and dislikes. It holds true in the newspaper business as elsewhere that he who pays the piper calls the tune.
Three Jewish Newspapers
The suppression of competition and the establishment of local monopolies on the dissemination of news and opinion have characterized the rise of Jewish control over America's newspapers. The resulting ability of the Jews to use the press as an unopposed instrument of Jewish policy could hardly be better illustrated than by the examples of the nation's three most prestigious and influential newspapers: the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post. These three, dominating America's financial and political capitals, are the newspapers that set the trends and the guidelines for nearly all the others. They are the ones that decide what is news and what isn't, at the national and international levels. They originate the news; the others merely copy it. And all three newspapers are in Jewish hands.
The New York Times, with a September 1999 circulation of 1,086,000, is the unofficial social, fashion, entertainment, political, and cultural guide of the nation. It tells America's "smart set" which books to buy and which films to see; which opinions are in style at the moment; which politicians, educators, spiritual leaders, artists, and businessmen are the real comers. And for a few decades in the 19th century it was a genuinely American newspaper.
The New York Times was founded in 1851 by two Gentiles, Henry J. Raymond and George Jones. After their deaths, it was purchased in 1896 from Jones's estate by a wealthy Jewish publisher, Adolph Ochs. His great-great-grandson, Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., is the paper's current publisher and the chairman of the New York Times Co. The executive editor is Joseph Lelyveld, also a Jew (he is a rabbi's son).
The Sulzberger family also owns, through the New York Times Co., 33 other newspapers, including the Boston Globe, purchased in June 1993 for $1.1 billion; twelve magazines, including McCall's and Family Circle with circulations of more than 5 million each; seven radio and TV broadcasting stations; a cable-TV system; and three book publishing companies. The New York Times News Service transmits news stories, features, and photographs from the New York Times by wire to 506 other newspapers, news agencies, and magazines.
Of similar national importance is the Washington Post, which, by establishing its "leaks" throughout government agencies in Washington, has an inside track on news involving the Federal government.
The Washington Post, like the New York Times, had a non-Jewish origin. It was established in 1877 by Stilson Hutchins, purchased from him in 1905 by John R. McLean, and later inherited by Edward B. McLean. In June 1933, however, at the height of the Great Depression, the newspaper was forced into bankruptcy. It was purchased at a bankruptcy auction by Eugene Meyer, a Jewish financier and former partner of the infamous Bernard Baruch, industry czar in America during the First World War.
The Washington Post is now run by Katherine Meyer Graham, Eugene Meyer's daughter. She is the principal stockholder and the board chairman of the Washington Post Co. In 1979 she appointed her son Donald publisher of the paper. He now also holds the posts of president and CEO of the Washington Post Co. The newspaper has a daily circulation of 763,000, and its Sunday edition sells 1.1 million copies.
The Washington Post Co. has a number of other media holdings in newspapers (the Gazette Newspapers, including 11 military publications); in television (WDIV in Detroit, KPRC in Houston, WPLG in Miami, WKMG in Orlando, KSAT in San Antonio, WJXT in Jacksonville); and in magazines, most notably the nation's number-two weekly newsmagazine, Newsweek. The Washington Post Company's various television ventures reach a total of about 7 million homes, and its cable TV service, Cable One, has 635,000 subscribers.
In a joint venture with the New York Times, the Post publishes the International Herald Tribune, the most widely distributed English-language daily in the world.
The Wall Street Journal, which sells 1.8 million copies each weekday, is the nation's largest-circulation daily newspaper. It is owned by Dow Jones & Company, Inc., a New York corporation that also publishes 24 other daily newspapers and the weekly financial tabloid Barron's, among other things. The chairman and CEO of Dow Jones is Peter R. Kann, who is a Jew. Kann also holds the posts of chairman and publisher of the Wall Street Journal.
Most of New York's other major newspapers are in no better hands than the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. In January 1993 the New York Daily News was bought from the estate of the late Jewish media mogul Robert Maxwell (born Ludvik Hoch) by Jewish real-estate developer Mortimer B. Zuckerman. The Village Voice is the personal property of Leonard Stern, the billionaire Jewish owner of the Hartz Mountain pet supply firm. And, as mentioned above, the New York Post is owned by News Corporation under the Jew Peter Chernin.
News Magazines
The story is pretty much the same for other media as it is for television, radio, films, music, and newspapers. Consider, for example, newsmagazines. There are only three of any importance published in the United States: Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report.
Time, with a weekly circulation of 4.1 million, is published by a subsidiary of Time Warner Communications, the new media conglomerate formed by the 1989 merger of Time, Inc., with Warner Communications. The CEO of Time Warner Communications, as mentioned above, is Gerald Levin, a Jew.
Newsweek, as mentioned above, is published by the Washington Post Company, under the Jewess Katherine Meyer Graham. Its weekly circulation is 3.1 million.
U.S. News & World Report, with a weekly circulation of 2.2 million, is owned and published by the aforementioned Mortimer B. Zuckerman, who also has taken the position of editor-in-chief of the magazine for himself. Zuckerman also owns the Atlantic Monthly and New York's tabloid newspaper, the Daily News, which is the sixth-largest paper in the country.
Our Responsibility
Those are the facts of media control in America. Anyone willing to spend a few hours in a large library looking into current editions of yearbooks on the radio and television industries and into directories of newspapers and magazines; into registers of corporations and their officers, such as those published by Standard and Poors and by Dun and Bradstreet; and into standard biographical reference works can verify their accuracy. They are undeniable, and when confronted with them Jewish spokesmen customarily will use evasive tactics. "Ted Turner isn't a Jew!" they will announce triumphantly, as if that settled the issue. If pressed further they will accuse the confronter of "anti-Semitism" for even raising the subject. It is fear of this accusation that keeps many persons who know the facts silent.
But we must not remain silent on this most important of issues! The Jewish control of the American mass media is the single most important fact of life, not just in America, but in the whole world today. There is nothing -- plague, famine, economic collapse, even nuclear war -- more dangerous to the future of our people.
Jewish media control determines the foreign policy of the United States and permits Jewish interests rather than American interests to decide questions of war and peace. Without Jewish media control, there would have been no Persian Gulf war, for example. There would have been no NATO massacre of Serb civilians. There would be no continued beating of the drums for another war against Iraq.
By permitting the Jews to control our news and entertainment media we are doing more than merely giving them a decisive influence on our political system and virtual control of our government; we also are giving them control of the minds and souls of our children, whose attitudes and ideas are shaped more by Jewish television and Jewish films than by parents, schools, or any other influence.
The Jew-controlled entertainment media have taken the lead in persuading a whole generation that homosexuality is a normal and acceptable way of life; that there is nothing at all wrong with White women dating or marrying Black men, or with White men marrying Asian women; that all races are inherently equal in ability and character -- except that the character of the White race is suspect because of a history of oppressing other races; and that any effort by Whites at racial self-preservation is reprehensible.
We must oppose the further spreading of this poison among our people, and we must break the power of those who are spreading it. It would be intolerable for such power to be in the hands of any alien minority, with values and interests different from our own. But to permit the Jews, with their 3,000-year history of nation-wrecking, from ancient Egypt to Russia, to hold such power over us is tantamount to race suicide. Indeed, the fact that so many White Americans today are so filled with a sense of racial guilt and self-hatred that they actively seek the death of their own race is a deliberate consequence of Jewish media control.
Once we have absorbed and understood the fact of Jewish media control, it is our inescapable responsibility to do whatever is necessary to break that control. We must shrink from nothing in combating this evil power that has fastened its deadly grip on our people and is injecting its lethal poison into their minds and souls. If we fail to destroy it, it certainly will destroy our race.
Let us begin now to acquire knowledge and to take action toward this necessary end.
Owners, managers, and corporate relationships change from time to time, of course. All of the names and other data in this report have been checked carefully and are accurate as of July 2001.
2002-12-04 21:12 | User Profile
**As for the Parra study, here we see Steve Sailer and Glayde Whitney discussing it:
[url=http://www.arthurhu.com/99/14/mix2.txt]http://www.arthurhu.com/99/14/mix2.txt[/url]
Although I cannot locate the Parra study online, the sources that discuss it do not suggest that it in corroborates Stuuckert's musings.**
You're right. It looks like my site distorted the Parra study. It should have listed the numbers.
As for your "aryanmyth" website, most of it is concerned with semitic and berber ancestry -- not negro.
True. The American discussion was a sidebar. It also takes on other issues, including leftist myths about race.
In any event, it's hard to take seriously a site that claims Angie Harmon has non-European ancestry.
She'd pass for an Arab at my wife's church.
Best, P
2002-12-04 21:17 | User Profile
Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Dec 4 2002, 21:00 > Originally posted by Polichinello@Dec 4 2002, 16:13 > Originally posted by MadScienceType@Dec 4 2002, 20:09 **Hmmm.
Instead of trying to argue that all-white=great, why don't we approach it from the opposite end and ask: if multiculturalism is so nice, why does it have to be implemented at the point of a gun?**
Multiculturalism is another matter, and I don't like it.
However, it hasn't been imposed by gunpoint. People are eating up happily on their own, buying movie tickets, watching the tube and voting for the politicians.
Best, P**
Imposition at gunpoint isn't necessary:
From [url=http://www.natvan.com/who-rules-america/]http://www.natvan.com/who-rules-america/[/url] ...**
Nobody despises a white man more than a white nationalist. This whole argument assumes white people don't have a brain of their own and need to be controlled for their own good by someone with the RIGHT answers, which, of course, is you.
Best, P
2002-12-04 21:47 | User Profile
Originally posted by Polichinello@Dec 4 2002, 17:17 > Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Dec 4 2002, 21:00 > Originally posted by Polichinello@Dec 4 2002, 16:13 > Originally posted by MadScienceType@Dec 4 2002, 20:09 Hmmm.
Instead of trying to argue that all-white=great, why don't we approach it from the opposite end and ask: if multiculturalism is so nice, why does it have to be implemented at the point of a gun?**
Multiculturalism is another matter, and I don't like it.
However, it hasn't been imposed by gunpoint. People are eating up happily on their own, buying movie tickets, watching the tube and voting for the politicians.
Best, P**
Imposition at gunpoint isn't necessary:
From [url=http://www.natvan.com/who-rules-america/]http://www.natvan.com/who-rules-america/[/url] ...**
Nobody despises a white man more than a white nationalist. This whole argument assumes white people don't have a brain of their own and need to be controlled for their own good by someone with the RIGHT answers, which, of course, is you.
Best, P**
Another distortion of the WN position, disguised as a jab at irony. In all societies, presumably regardless of race, most people don't think independently on their own. They take their cues from their peers and from other "agents of socialization" as the social scientists call it: the media, schools, church, and so on. I'm sure you've heard of the phenomenon of "peer pressure," for another example. Conservatives have long taken note of this problem, such as Ortega y Gasset in The Revolt of the Masses. It may be unflattering, but it's just the reality that we have to live with. That doesn't make WNs flawed just because they point these facts out. It doesn't mean I despise the common man. If anything, I'm raising these issues because I know that things can be better and it's possible to uplift the citizenry.
And it's not about me thinking I know the answers everyone else has to live by, I'm just doing the logical thing and reaching back into the past, into the times that were guided by wiser men less subject to dysgenesis, for our guide. I think we should look for our inspiration back there, not in the current age with the status quo. In one of my Ether Zone articles, I recommended this exercise for people to get a taste of what I'm talking about--what's been lost and what I'm trying to recover:
Go get one of those anthologies that collect all of the presidential inaugural speeches from the time of Washington to Bush II. Look at the inaugural speeches of Presidents Jefferson, Polk, and Coolidge, then compare them with those of the presidents weââ¬â¢ve had for the last 30 or so years. Look at the trends and changes in the style and manner of the speeches, paying attention to how they are written and what subjects they discuss. Notice that as you go forward in time, the style and diction of the speeches becomes less substantive. Their content suffers as well. They become ever more vague and littered with platitudes. The long, thought-laden paragraphs of the past disappear, replaced by short, one or two sentence blurbs todayââ¬âpre-digested thoughts for the people. This is evidence that the American people have been seriously dumbed-down over time, their "leadership" included. They have lost depth and range in their vocabulary, their attention span, and their powers of reasoning. This exercise becomes quite "subversive" to the Establishment when you start wondering who did this to us, and why.
Here's an excerpt from Murray and Herrnstein's The Bell Curve on the dysgenic trends in America. The upshot of the quote is that the level of sophistication of the American people is going to get worse, not better, because of our flawed egalitarian policies. I'm taking the time to type it out here because when I first read it a few years back, it really hit me. I never forgot it. Like I said, there are reasons for why I think the things I do.
And now, the M&H quote from a sidebar on p. 366:
**How Would We Know That IQ Has Been Falling?
Can the United States really have been experiencing falling IQ? Would not we be able to see the consequences? Maybe we have. In 1938, Raymond Cattell, one of the most illustrious psychometricians of his age, wrote an article for the British Journal of Psychology, "Some Changes in Social life in a Community with a Falling Intelligence Quotient."(67) The article was eerily prescient.
In education, Cattell predicted that academic standards would fall and the curriculum would shift toward less abstract subjects. He foresaw an increase in "delinquency against society"--crime and willful dependency (for example, having a child without being able to care for it) would be in this category. He was not sure whether this would lead to a slackening of moral codes or attempts at tighter government control over individual behavior. The response could go either way, he wrote.
He predicted that a complex modern society with a falling IQ would have to compensate people at the low end of IQ by a "systematized relaxation of moral standards, permitting more direct instinctive satisfactions."(68) In particular, he saw an expanding role for what he called "fantasy compensations." He saw the novel and the cinema as the contemporary means for satisfying it, but he added that "we have probably not seen the end of its development or begun to appreciate its damaging effects on 'reality thinking' habits concerned in other spheres of life"-- a prediction hard to fault as one watches the use of TV in today's world and imagines the use of virtual reality helmets in tomorrow's.(69)
Turning to political and social life, he expected to see "the development of a larger 'social problem group' or at least of a group supported, supervised and patronized by extensive state social welfare work." This, he foresaw, would be "inimical to that human solidarity and potential equality of prestige wich is essential to democracy."(70)**
The important element here, related to the earlier "Who Rules America" post is who it is that manipulates these "fantasy compensations" of the public Cattell mentions, and toward what ends.
2002-12-04 22:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Jefferson sort of mentions this tendency in the Declaration of Independence where he mentions that people are often willing to put up with negative circumstances, often because those circumstances are familiar. You must see these things, or at least you would if you were more open-minded and less cursory and dismissive in judging what gets said at OD. Not attacking you here, just asking for you to give us some more credit.[/QUOTE]
I understand putting up with negative circumstances, but there is such a thing as jumping from the frying pan into the fire, which is what you wind up advocating, though, of course, like the Marxists, you wind up pinning it all on historical inevitability with a twist of genetic determinism.
[QUOTE]Now, about that "malicious glee".... Examine the implications of that comment for a moment. Is that what you really think is at work here, just malice?[/QUOTE]
Of course not. There's also envy and pride at work, too.
[QUOTE]Do you really think that nationalists were just bored one day and looking for a fight and decided to engage in political advocacy just to cause some sh*t for the fun of it?[/QUOTE]
Oh, yeah, that too.
[QUOTE]All the thought and effort and reading done by the people who advocate the things I do is motivated just by base malice?[/QUOTE]
No, I just throw malice into the mix as one ingredient among many.
[QUOTE]Isn't that kind of psychoanalyzing a bit simplistic, maybe even far-fetched?[/QUOTE]
It generalizes, to be sure, but as you insist in other areas, such generalizations are at times needed. I've seen you're posts on the coming racial apocolypse--practically quivering with anticipation at the thought of it all--not to mention your fulminations about the "cold embrace of the grave" and infered the logical conclusion: You get a kick out of this.
[QUOTE]Isn't it more plausible that maybe I've come across some ideas that I find persuasive, ones that seem to fit "the way things are" (as I see them, admittedly) and that advance my interests, and the interests of those I feel an affinity toward, in my honest calculation? You don't think this is all in good faith?[/QUOTE]
Oh, now you're into good faith. I find that kind of funny, Paul, considering how you started this conversation by accusing me of being sneaky and slippery.
[QUOTE][Snipping points about Sweden, Nairobi, et al for brevity] ...I find that sort of jet-setting globalism, that cosmopolitanism, a bit rootless. That description you give sounds like what a lot of anti-White people say--they say Whites are drabby and boring and need to be "spiced up" with diversity.[QUOTE]
Well, I based my judgement on my experiences in Europe and Asia. I got this experience in the Air Force, which I joined out of devoted desire to indulge in "...that sort of jet-setting globalism, that cosmopolitanism..."
Of course, if I had my choice of where to live in the world, it would be South Texas, which is a place where they still have 4th of July parades, name high schools after War Heroes, and everyone knows everyone else--sort of like pre-1965 America. You wouldn't like it though, what with all the healthy tans down there and all.
[QUOTE]It's just too bad we have leaders who have made that decision for us, and are forcing Third Worlders into our boring, quiet communities without our consent and often over our objection. [/QUOTE]
Are you talking about Sweden or America? I prefer America. It sounds like you prefer Sweden, you nationless nationalist, you.
[QUOTE]There used to be a lot more objection, by the way, but that has dwindled since the American people have been brainwashed by agenda-driven movies and sitcoms telling them this is the way the world has to be, and if they don't like it, there's something wrong with them--they're "bigots" and "unenlightened" and driven by "malicious glee." [/QUOTE]
There it is again: Your utter contempt for white people. You must think them the stupidest creatures on the planet.
[QUOTE]The Third Worlders do come here to cash in. If all the goodies were cut off tomorrow, many of them would head home. [/QUOTE]
Hey, I'm all for cutting off the goodies. The point here, though, is that you used them as a metric. But now you want to disown it. Very well.
[QUOTE]I have no way of verifying the truth of that, and we all know that such scholarship tends to be agenda-driven, and that "racist" scholars that would try to counter these types of studies get punished by TPTB.[/QUOTE]
I don't know about TPTB, but here you happen to be correct. The study was misquoted. Of course, your side ain't exactly free of of the taint being "agenda-driven" either.
[QUOTE]All nationalists advocate is controls on the way these technologies are being used, because these technologies are overcoming natural barriers and meshing the races back together again when they were formerly diverging. [/QUOTE]
If these barriers are "natural" they should hold up just fine on their own and do not need your "help."
[QUOTE]The divergence is good, and to be preserved and encouraged, not abandoned like you suggest. If all life converged again back to its LCD, you'd basically have one life form, like an amoeba--none of the much-worshipped "diversity" at all. [/QUOTE]
I don't suggest anything at all. I'm simply saying your route is no cure. My own view is if people want to "race-mix" they'll do it. If they don't, they won't, and all the MTV in world won't change their mind.
[QUOTE]It's not too late, and we can work with what we have, with White people as they are now. If it were too late, TPTB wouldn't work so hard at trying to tell us it's too late.[/QUOTE]
I doubt TPTB, the serious TPTB and not some pissants at Purdue, even know you exist, or care for that matter.
Best, P
2002-12-04 22:21 | User Profile
Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Dec 4 2002, 21:47 > Originally posted by Polichinello@Dec 4 2002, 17:17 ** ...Nobody despises a white man more than a white nationalist. This whole argument assumes white people don't have a brain of their own and need to be controlled for their own good by someone with the RIGHT answers, which, of course, is you.
Best, P**
Another distortion of the WN position, disguised as a jab at irony. In all societies, presumably regardless of race, most people don't think independently on their own. They take their cues from their peers and from other "agents of socialization" as the social scientists call it: the media, schools, church, and so on. I'm sure you've heard of the phenomenon of "peer pressure," for another example. Conservatives have long taken note of this problem, such as Ortega y Gasset in The Revolt of the Masses. It may be unflattering, but it's just the reality that we have to live with. That doesn't make WNs flawed just because they point these facts out. It doesn't mean I despise the common man. If anything, I'm raising these issues because I know that things can be better and it's possible to uplift the citizenry.**
It's not a distortion. It's the truth. All your jibbery-jab is in that direction. To assume that the vast majority of white people have fallen for a deception on the scale you allege is to impute a hitherto unheard level of stupidity. In fact, WN polemics are often peppered with exhortations that run like "Even black people know better than that..." when referring to the alleged gullibility of the White Race.
It is certainly true that Conservatives despair of the common herd's ability to always choose the right, but there's an even healthier distrust of those who would set themselves above even that, as you attempt to do.
Best, P
PS: I apologize to all for the bad quote marks in the previous post. P
2002-12-04 22:34 | User Profile
My own view is if people want to "race-mix" they'll do it. If they don't, they won't, and all the MTV in world won't change their mind.
This is so blatantly false I can't believe you really believe that, P.
2002-12-04 22:47 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Dec 4 2002, 22:34 > My own view is if people want to "race-mix" they'll do it. If they don't, they won't, and all the MTV in world won't change their mind.**
This is so blatantly false I can't believe you really believe that, P.**
Yes, I do. Just think about it for a minute. "Race-mixing" requires people to live together for a very long time. You're married: you know exactly what that means. MTV can't get anyone to do that if it's against their natural inclinations.
Best, P
2002-12-04 22:55 | User Profile
Originally posted by Polichinello@Dec 4 2002, 18:47 > Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Dec 4 2002, 22:34 > My own view is if people want to "race-mix" they'll do it. If they don't, they won't, and all the MTV in world won't change their mind.
This is so blatantly false I can't believe you really believe that, P.**
Yes, I do. Just think about it for a minute. "Race-mixing" requires people to live together for a very long time. You're married: you know exactly what that means. MTV can't get anyone to do that if it's against their natural inclinations.
Best, P**
:lol: You know you can make that "you know what it means to be married" argument with TD because he's one of the few people left in America with traditional values and the capability of understanding the depth of that sort of commitment. But most Americans try on marriage partners in the same way they try out new clothes. Marriage, for the majority, is utterly debased these days, and all that really comes out of it are scores of illegitimate children. The divorce rates are now at what, 50%?
As far as the natural barriers comment earlier, I should have made that more clear--I was talking about natural geographic barriers that used to keep people apart, like oceans and mountain ranges--and distances that have now been eliminated by the advent of our communications and transportation technology.
2002-12-04 23:12 | User Profile
> Originally posted by Polichinello@Dec 4 2002, 18:47 > Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Dec 4 2002, 22:34 > My own view is if people want to "race-mix" they'll do it. If they don't, they won't, and all the MTV in world won't change their mind.**
This is so blatantly false I can't believe you really believe that, P.**
Yes, I do. Just think about it for a minute. "Race-mixing" requires people to live together for a very long time. You're married: you know exactly what that means. MTV can't get anyone to do that if it's against their natural inclinations.
Best, P**
:lol: You know you can make that "you know what it means to be married" argument with TD because he's one of the few people left in America with traditional values and the capability of understanding the depth of that sort of commitment. But most Americans try on marriage partners in the same way they try out new clothes. Marriage, for the majority, is utterly debased these days, and all that really comes out of it are scores of illegitimate children. The divorce rates are now at what, 50%?**
You're still talking about months, usually years, of living together with someone. No television programming can convince someone to do that. They do it because they want to, sometimes impulsively and stupidly, but because they want to.
As far as the natural barriers comment earlier, I should have made that more clear--I was talking about natural geographic barriers that used to keep people apart, like oceans and mountain ranges--and distances that have now been eliminated by the advent of our communications and transportation technology.
Then your not talking about anything implicit in human nature, only arbitrary conditions. So, since man is naturally a technological creature, it can be easily said that he was meant to surmount these barriers.
Mind you, this doesn't mean that there shouldn't be border controls, but only that they can't be claimed on the basis of some "natural order of things." They're based instead on cultural conventions.
Best, P
2002-12-04 23:49 | User Profile
Originally posted by Polichinello@Dec 4 2002, 16:47 **"Race-mixing" requires people to live together for a very long time. **
I'm not aware of the term "race mixing" referring strictly to interracial marriage, or even cohabitation. I was thinking more about the high school girl who has maybe had a little too much to drink one night at a party and her making a mistake that will change the rest of her and her family's life.
You just can't tell me that popular media, combined with peer pressure, is not the be-all and end-all of what is important to most teenagers. Not every one, for sure, but most. If not, then what the heck has every cultural conservative, from Buchanan to Schlafly been fighting for and against the last two and a half decades? I would venture to say that one could almost do a case study on American youth opinions and mores simply by studying the phenomenon of rock music and now MTV. It's an awesome cultural force.
2002-12-04 23:54 | User Profile
**In all societies, presumably regardless of race, most people don't think independently on their own. **
Of course -- it would be highly inefficient otherwise.
It's not a distortion. It's the truth. All your jibbery-jab is in that direction. To assume that the vast majority of white people have fallen for a deception on the scale you allege is to impute a hitherto unheard level of stupidity. In fact, WN polemics are often peppered with exhortations that run like "Even black people know better than that..." when referring to the alleged gullibility of the White Race.
But stupidity and gullibility are not the same thing. You know better than that.
2002-12-05 00:06 | User Profile
Originally posted by mwdallas@Dec 4 2002, 23:54 But stupidity and gullibility are not the same thing. You know better than that.
The latter is a subset of the former.
Best, P
2002-12-05 00:19 | User Profile
No, it's not.
2002-12-05 00:20 | User Profile
> Originally posted by Polichinello@Dec 4 2002, 16:47 "Race-mixing" requires people to live together for a very long time. **
I'm not aware of the term "race mixing" referring strictly to interracial marriage, or even cohabitation. I was thinking more about the high school girl who has maybe had a little too much to drink one night at a party and her making a mistake that will change the rest of her and her family's life. You just can't tell me that popular media, combined with peer pressure, is not the be-all and end-all of what is important to most teenagers. Not every one, for sure, but most. **
First, the teeny-bopper phenom is a rather insignificant number of the totals when it comes to actual products of "race-mixing." Second, no law is going to change how a drunk teenager behaves. The question then becomes not who she sleeps with, but why is she drunk and why is she sleeping around. That falls under the rubric of general morality.
The bigger question of race-mixing has to do with two consenting adults, and they are not going to go live with each other, and stay that way, just because all their buddies are doing it.
If not, then what the heck has every cultural conservative, from Buchanan to Schlafly been fighting for and against the last two and a half decades? I would venture to say that one could almost do a case study on American youth opinions and mores simply by studying the phenomenon of rock music and now MTV. It's an awesome cultural force.
Again, this has to do with general morality, and it is a slackening in a permissive direction: doing what feels good, and this is hardly anything new; it's happened before many times in the West: the 18th-century Georgians, 1920s flappers, and on and on. Like then, people want to go against conventions because they wanted to be left alone. In short, it means telling people what they already want to hear. This is not what race-mixing involves. It means, according to the logic promulgated on this forum, living with someone you're not naturally inclined to, and that does not feel good.
Best, P
2002-12-05 00:21 | User Profile
Originally posted by mwdallas@Dec 5 2002, 00:19 No, it's not.
It most certainly is. It's the opposite of skepticism, which is a distinctive sign of intelligence.
Best, P
2002-12-05 00:33 | User Profile
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here overall, P. Nationalism, white or otherwise is stupid? Whites are dumber than they think, but not as stupid as WNs make out? What's your take on possible solutions, if any to the multicultural mess we find ourselves in?
Anyway, I stand by my statement that multiculturalism is applied by force. There are of course other methods used to make it "stick" but the final argument is always the bayonet.
Still don't believe me? Most here are familiar with Wallace's political theater on the schoolhouse steps, but it goes way beyond that. Look at the oft-maligned phenomenon of "white flight" for example. Those folks are voting with their feet instead of from the rooftops or at the voting booth. Maybe that makes them cowards, but they are making their preferences known, nonetheless. Do you really think conscientious white parents want to send their kids to schools that are mostly minority? I think you are confusing lack of resistance with agreement, and that ain't necessarily the case. I mean really, is there truly any freedom of association left these days? Try making a low-cost, private housing development for whites only for instance, and see what happens. Sooner or later, some guys with guns are gonna show up and force you to let Shaniqua and her brood move in, after you've been cleaned out through legal fees, that is.
Other reasons there hasn't been widespread opposition to multiculturalism have been debated here at length: media manipulation of opinion and perception, gradualism, manufactured consensus, etc. As far as whites being lemmings and attitudes like Pierce's, I disagree strongly with those sentiments (I'll make an exception for teenagers. I remember being a lot dumber than I thought I was at the time!) The idea that whites need to be herded for their own good is part of what got us into this mess in the first place. I simply think that most people, white or otherwise, won't take action which may cause discomfort unless the situation they are in becomes more uncomfortable than that which they face by taking action. Since most white folks, while not necessarily happy with the status quo, do not think the risk of bucking the system is justified yet by the potential rewards, they grumble and move out to the suburbs.
I don't think there is unabashed glee at the prospect of racial conflict. I know I don't look forward to Sarajevo-style fun in CONUS. I do think that most "quivering with anticipation" realize that any peaceful change has been made nearly (some would say completely) impossible and even options like dropping out of the system have been closed off (just ask Randy Weaver). Given that, I think most would prefer to whack someone on the head while they aren't arthritic than die the death of a thousand cuts. Is that historic inevitability? Maybe. We don't have to base everything on that concept, but history hasn't been too kind to those who ignore history!
Incidentally, I agree there is a lot of "envy and pride" at work in white culture. The idea of whites being too good for "negro work" or the attitude of, "Mow my own lawn? That's what Mexicans are for!" have played no small part in bringing about our current circumstances as well.
As far as MTV not being influential, why do you think it's most targeted at the 14-25 market? They get them young before experience teaches them that TV "programming" (an interesting term in and of itself) is a bunch of bullshit.
2002-12-05 00:34 | User Profile
First, the teeny-bopper phenom is a rather insignificant number of the totals when it comes to actual products of "race-mixing."
Ridiculous. Black men have their children out of wedlock -- even among those who are born legitimately, many if not most are born in a marriage with a woman who earlier bore the man a child illegitimately. It generally takes a naive teenager to wind up on the receiving end of this phenomenon.
**Second, no law is going to change how a drunk teenager behaves. **
Ridiculous.
**The question then becomes not who she sleeps with, but why is she drunk and why is she sleeping around. **
No. Those are not the questions.
Why is she drunk?
-- Because she's a normal kid?
Why is she sleeping around?
-- Who said she's sleeping around?
The question is why is she giving in to the desires of the particular man who hits the jackpot.
You're at your worst today, P.
2002-12-05 00:36 | User Profile
**Anyway, I stand by my statement that multiculturalism is applied by force. **
Partly, but more importantly by fraud.
2002-12-05 00:40 | User Profile
...skepticism... is a distinctive sign of intelligence.
So then why are skeptics of the Holocaust always shown as goobers? And skeptics of Israel-knew-nothing re 9/11 presented as ultra gullible?
2002-12-05 00:42 | User Profile
It most certainly is. It's the opposite of skepticism, which is a distinctive sign of intelligence.
Only in the Jewish mind are gullibility and stupidity synonyms.
A trusting nature can be adaptive or maladaptive. It depends on the circumstances. Obviously, when Jews are around it's maladaptive at a group level.
2002-12-05 00:46 | User Profile
Oh, you're right, P.
People do stuff because it feels good, and damn the long term consequences, as is their right.
I think what most paleos object to is that today's society is dedicated to removing the burden of those long term coseqeunces from those who created them and onto the backs of those who manage to control the "if it feels good do it" impulse long enough to be productive members of society.
As far as race mixing goes: I like white culture and values. I don't like other cultures' values as much (or at all, in some cases). Every mulatto brat diminishes the percentage of the former and increases the percentage of the latter, with the added bonus of being billed for the "service" in the form of taxpayer assistance. By the way, how long do you have to "stay together" to impregnate someone?
Damn typos...
2002-12-05 00:47 | User Profile
Originally posted by mwdallas@Dec 4 2002, 18:36 > Anyway, I stand by my statement that multiculturalism is applied by force. **
Partly, but more importantly by fraud.**
Hey, ain't fraud just intellectual force?
2002-12-05 00:53 | User Profile
Polichinello:
Again, this has to do with general morality, and it is a slackening in a permissive direction: doing what feels good, and this is hardly anything new; it's happened before many times in the West: the 18th-century Georgians, 1920s flappers, and on and on. Like then, people want to go against conventions because they wanted to be left alone. In short, it means telling people what they already want to hear. This is not what race-mixing involves. It means, according to the logic promulgated on this forum, living with someone you're not naturally inclined to, and that does not feel good.
It's interesting you bring this point up. Most of the states that had laws prohibiting miscegenation also had laws along the same lines prohibiting sodomy.
I think it's safe to say that the incidence of sodomy among young people has gone up as a result of its legitimization and glamorization by the mass media--the same as miscegenation is now being legitimized and glorified in movies like O, and as anti-sodomy laws are now being repealed in many states by the Left the same way anti-miscegenation laws were repealed in the 1960s. Apparently, some young people think sodomy also feels good, even though it's hard to imagine that sodomy is something that Nature would "incline" humans toward, since it has no reproductive/evolutionary benefit.
In fact, I have read (and I do not have personal experience of this) that engaging in such acts at first feels awkward and painful, but with encouragement one gets used to it and can come to enjoy it. The same goes for interracial unions--many White women may at first feel awkward at a Black man's advances, but with reassurances coupled with peer pressure (and a fear of being seen as racist) and the like, they too end up travelling down that road.
My point, after recounting all this sordid stuff, is that people often end up being led down paths that are destructive and not in their interests, even as it "feels good" to them. With both sodomy and miscegenation, there is the potential for disease and other health risks (many don't know Blacks are high-risk AIDS carriers, for example). Also, in both types of unions, there are problems with family stability. Gays tend to go through partners at breakneck speeds, and interracial unions often cause tensions for the children, who are at home with neither race. Blacks often tend to roam after acquiring a White "trophy wife," and that leads to marital discord, divorce, and higher illegitimacy rates as well. Our ancestors had good reason for passing these "illiberal" laws in the first place.
2002-12-05 00:58 | User Profile
BTW, looking over this thread, I have to say this thread is fast becoming an OD Classic. :lol:
2002-12-05 15:22 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Dec 5 2002, 00:40 > ...skepticism... is a distinctive sign of intelligence.**
So then why are skeptics of the Holocaust always shown as goobers? And skeptics of Israel-knew-nothing re 9/11 presented as ultra gullible?**
Because they don't apply their skepticism to their own theories.
And, yes, several of the Holocaust Rememberance groupies fall into this group as well: they're just mirror images.
Same thing with 9/11: the people who fall for the idea that we were attacked simply because of our "freedom" are mirror images of those concoct all sorts of strange conspiracy theories.
Best, P
2002-12-05 15:32 | User Profile
**Ridiculous. Black men have their children out of wedlock -- even among those who are born legitimately, many if not most are born in a marriage with a woman who earlier bore the man a child illegitimately. It generally takes a naive teenager to wind up on the receiving end of this phenomenon. **
But white women don't. There are two players here, remember. Since this issue is giving you fellows so much heartburn, surely you can find how many teenage women have illegitimate children.
> Second, no law is going to change how a drunk teenager behaves. **
Ridiculous.**
Yeah, right, drunk teenagers always give heed to the law.
**Why is she drunk?
-- Because she's a normal kid?**
To the point that she sleep with someone she's not naturally inclined to. That's hardly normal. It certainly shouldn't be.
**Why is she sleeping around?
-- Who said she's sleeping around?**
Tex did. Or do you believe that all these girls are nice innocent nuns-in-waiting?
The question is why is she giving in to the desires of the particular man who hits the jackpot.
LOL. Which assumes she has no desires of her own. It takes two to tango, chief.
Best, P
2002-12-05 15:49 | User Profile
> It most certainly is. It's the opposite of skepticism, which is a distinctive sign of intelligence.**
Only in the Jewish mind are gullibility and stupidity synonyms. **
I didn't say they were synonyms. I said one is a subset of the other. Stupidity covers a lot more territory than gullibility.
Now, from those infamous Jews, Merriam-Webster: [url=http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary]http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary[/url]
Main Entry: gull÷ible Variant(s): also gull÷able /'g&-l&-b&l/ Function: adjective Date: 1818 : easily duped or cheated
Note the adverb "easily." This implies a lacking of intelligence.
A trusting nature can be adaptive or maladaptive. It depends on the circumstances. Obviously, when Jews are around it's maladaptive at a group level.
To follow your theory, White people have been deceived by the Jews into autogenocide not just once, but through several steps, over a period of not days, months, or years, but decades, even centuries if you want to really extend it outwards. An intelligent person, even one with a trusting nature, would have caught on far earlier. To meet your theory's criteria requires non-Jewish whites to be absolute clods.
Best, P
2002-12-05 15:56 | User Profile
Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Dec 5 2002, 00:53 In fact, I have read (and I do not** have personal experience of this) that engaging in such acts at first feels awkward and painful, but with encouragement one gets used to it and can come to enjoy it. The same goes for interracial unions--many White women may at first feel awkward at a Black man's advances, but with reassurances coupled with peer pressure (and a fear of being seen as racist) and the like, they too end up travelling down that road. **
Sex for women hurts the first few times around, too.
Ultimately, it's a question of desire, and if you have it, you don't care about the pain. How often have you seen men or women stick with boyfriends, girlfriends or spouses who gives them nothing but grief, or even abuse? And how often have they done it in plain defiance of the advice of their parents, siblings and friends? Getting rid of the laws removed the controls on the desires, it did not, however, create them.
Best, P
2002-12-05 16:09 | User Profile
Originally posted by MadScienceType@Dec 5 2002, 00:33 **I'm not sure what you're trying to say here overall, P. Nationalism, white or otherwise is stupid? Whites are dumber than they think, but not as stupid as WNs make out? What's your take on possible solutions, if any to the multicultural mess we find ourselves in?
Anyway, I stand by my statement that multiculturalism is applied by force. There are of course other methods used to make it "stick" but the final argument is always the bayonet.
Still don't believe me? Most here are familiar with Wallace's political theater on the schoolhouse steps, but it goes way beyond that. Look at the oft-maligned phenomenon of "white flight" for example. Those folks are voting with their feet instead of from the rooftops or at the voting booth. Maybe that makes them cowards, but they are making their preferences known, nonetheless. Do you really think conscientious white parents want to send their kids to schools that are mostly minority? I think you are confusing lack of resistance with agreement, and that ain't necessarily the case. I mean really, is there truly any freedom of association left these days? Try making a low-cost, private housing development for whites only for instance, and see what happens. Sooner or later, some guys with guns are gonna show up and force you to let Shaniqua and her brood move in, after you've been cleaned out through legal fees, that is.
Other reasons there hasn't been widespread opposition to multiculturalism have been debated here at length: media manipulation of opinion and perception, gradualism, manufactured consensus, etc. As far as whites being lemmings and attitudes like Pierce's, I disagree strongly with those sentiments (I'll make an exception for teenagers. I remember being a lot dumber than I thought I was at the time!) The idea that whites need to be herded for their own good is part of what got us into this mess in the first place. I simply think that most people, white or otherwise, won't take action which may cause discomfort unless the situation they are in becomes more uncomfortable than that which they face by taking action. Since most white folks, while not necessarily happy with the status quo, do not think the risk of bucking the system is justified yet by the potential rewards, they grumble and move out to the suburbs.
I don't think there is unabashed glee at the prospect of racial conflict. I know I don't look forward to Sarajevo-style fun in CONUS. I do think that most "quivering with anticipation" realize that any peaceful change has been made nearly (some would say completely) impossible and even options like dropping out of the system have been closed off (just ask Randy Weaver). Given that, I think most would prefer to whack someone on the head while they aren't arthritic than die the death of a thousand cuts. Is that historic inevitability? Maybe. We don't have to base everything on that concept, but history hasn't been too kind to those who ignore history!
Incidentally, I agree there is a lot of "envy and pride" at work in white culture. The idea of whites being too good for "negro work" or the attitude of, "Mow my own lawn? That's what Mexicans are for!" have played no small part in bringing about our current circumstances as well.
As far as MTV not being influential, why do you think it's most targeted at the 14-25 market? They get them young before experience teaches them that TV "programming" (an interesting term in and of itself) is a bunch of bullshit.**
> **I'm not sure what you're trying to say here overall, P. Nationalism, white or otherwise is stupid? Whites are dumber than they think, but not as stupid as WNs make out? What's your take on possible solutions, if any to the multicultural mess we find ourselves in?**
No, I'm saying to accept the WN case, you have to assume Whites are unbelievably and contemptibly stupid.
[QUOTE]Anyway, I stand by my statement that multiculturalism is applied by force. QUOTE]
Of course, you do.
The fact still remains that all those consumers and voters made the choices they did, and they did so even after knowing about white flight and every other bad consequence you might want to list here. If you want to think they were taken in by fraud alone, fine, but then you have to go back to my point about your case being based on your assuming that whites are incredibly stupid.
Best, P
2002-12-05 16:30 | User Profile
Originally posted by Polichinello@Dec 5 2002, 11:09 **The fact still remains that all those consumers and voters made the choices they did, and they did so even after knowing about white flight and every other bad consequence you might want to list here. ÃÂ If you want to think they were taken in by fraud alone, fine, but then you have to go back to my point about your case being based on your assuming that whites are incredibly stupid.
**
P, I totally disagree. When the agenda has been crafted under the most secret and pernicious methods, the juggernaut ready-set-go, the will of the People thrown out like used corn-on-the-cob, there is nothing the people can do, regardless of their intelligence! There were many White people in the USA who fought long and hard 50-100 years ago to throw out the Marxist traitors who lived among us and controlled what we see, hear and read. Brave White men and women who knew their country was in great jeopardy took great leaps and risks but were silenced and shot down like Japanese Zeros in WWII. Like Mad Science Type and others have stated: We lost by fraud and at the point of a gun and star of david. We were herd-poisoned, like Huxley wrote, by jews who were smarter and massively more wicked than us. They broke our will. What can we say?????? The sh*t that has happened to us in the last 100 years is something that 1 million 110 IQers could not have stopped.
2002-12-05 17:10 | User Profile
Originally posted by xmetalhead@Dec 5 2002, 16:30 > Originally posted by Polichinello@Dec 5 2002, 11:09 The fact still remains that all those consumers and voters made the choices they did, and they did so even after knowing about white flight and every other bad consequence you might want to list here. ÃÂ If you want to think they were taken in by fraud alone, fine, but then you have to go back to my point about your case being based on your assuming that whites are incredibly stupid.
**
P, I totally disagree. When the agenda has been crafted under the most secret and pernicious methods, the juggernaut ready-set-go, the will of the People thrown out like used corn-on-the-cob, there is nothing the people can do, regardless of their intelligence! There were many White people in the USA who fought long and hard 50-100 years ago to throw out the Marxist traitors who lived among us and controlled what we see, hear and read. Brave White men and women who knew their country was in great jeopardy took great leaps and risks but were silenced and shot down like Japanese Zeros in WWII. Like Mad Science Type and others have stated: We lost by fraud and at the point of a gun and star of david. We were herd-poisoned, like Huxley wrote, by jews who were smarter and massively more wicked than us. They broke our will. What can we say?????? The sht that has happened to us in the last 100 years is something that 1 million 110 IQers could not have stopped.*
They broke your will? How, through PR? Gimme a break. These same people voted for Kennedy, Johnson and all the rest, and they knew damn well what was going on. They knew about all the stuff you guys bitch about here: desegregation, busing, welfare and all the rest. None of this was any kind of a secret. To assume they were somehow decieved by a conspiracy, group strategy or whatever other funky name you want to come up with assumes a massive amount of plain stupidity.
Best, P
2002-12-05 18:37 | User Profile
** ** ** Second, no law is going to change how a drunk teenager behaves.**
Ridiculous. **
Yeah, right, drunk teenagers always give heed to the law. **
That's not a refutation of what I said.
You said "no law is going to change how a drunk teenager behaves." You know full well that my pointing out the falsity of that statement hardly implies that drunk teenagers always heed the law.
2002-12-05 18:44 | User Profile
** ** ** Why is she sleeping around? ÃÂ **
-- Who said she's sleeping around? **
Tex did. Or do you believe that all these girls are nice innocent nuns-in-waiting? **
Tex said nothing of the sort. Sleeping with one guy is not "sleeping around".
There are a number of reasons why teenage girls are particularly vulnerable to sexual advances from men in general, thus the concept of "stauttory rape". Moreover, there are a number of reasons why generally vulnerable teenage girls are particularly vulnerable to the sexual advances of black men.
2002-12-05 18:54 | User Profile
**> ** The question is why is she giving in to the desires of the particular man who hits the jackpot. **
LOL. Which assumes she has no desires of her own. It takes two to tango, chief.**
It assumes no such thing. Do you understand the concept of logical argument? You're supposed to disprove what I said -- merely making conclusory denials followed by statements entirely consonant with my contnetion doesn't cut it.
2002-12-05 18:59 | User Profile
**Main Entry: gull÷ible Variant(s): also gull÷able /'g&-l&-b&l/ Function: adjective Date: 1818 : easily duped or cheated
Note the adverb "easily." This implies a lacking of intelligence. **
Only to those who are predisposed to infer a lack of intelligence, i.e., to those who define intelligence as inconsistent with gullibility. That is a Jewish definition of intelligence.
2002-12-05 19:04 | User Profile
To follow your theory, White people have been deceived by the Jews into autogenocide not just once, but through several steps, over a period of not days, months, or years, but decades, even centuries if you want to really extend it outwards. An intelligent person, even one with a trusting nature, would have caught on far earlier. To meet your theory's criteria requires non-Jewish whites to be absolute clods.
In the opinions of certain others, surely.
It's been many months, and I see your study of evolutionary psychology has not progressed.
2002-12-05 19:15 | User Profile
Originally posted by Polichinello@Dec 5 2002, 12:10 They broke your will? How, through PR? Gimme a break.
Well, um, actually yea, Polch. Check it out!
**The Doors Of Perception:
Why Americans Will
Believe Almost Anything
By Tim O'Shea
www.thedoctorwithin.com
8-18-1 **
Aldous Huxley's inspired 1956 essay detailed the vivid, mind-expanding, multisensory insights of his mescaline adventures. By altering his brain chemistry with natural psychotropics, Huxley tapped into a rich and fluid world of shimmering, indescribable beauty and power. With his neurosensory input thus triggered, Huxley was able to enter that parallel universe described by every mystic and space captain in recorded history.
Whether by hallucination or epiphany, Huxley sought to remove all controls, all filters, all cultural conditioning from his perceptions and to confront Nature or the World or Reality first-hand - in its unpasteurized, unedited, unretouched, infinite rawness.
Those bonds are much harder to break today, half a century later. We are the most conditioned, programmed beings the world has ever known. Not only are our thoughts and attitudes continually being shaped and molded; our very awareness of the whole design seems like it is being subtly and inexorably erased. The doors of our perception are carefully and precisely regulated. Who cares, right?
It is an exhausting and endless task to keep explaining to people how most issues of conventional wisdom are scientifically implanted in the public consciousness by a thousand media clips per day. In an effort to save time, I would like to provide just a little background on the handling of information in this country. Once the basic principles are illustrated about how our current system of media control arose historically, the reader might be more apt to question any given popular opinion. **If everybody believes something, it's probably wrong. We call that Conventional Wisdom. ** In America, conventional wisdom that has mass acceptance is usually contrived: somebody paid for it.
Examples:
* Pharmaceuticals restore health
* Vaccination brings immunity
* The cure for cancer is just around the corner
* Menopause is a disease condition
* When a child is sick, he needs immediate antibiotics
* When a child has a fever he needs Tylenol
* Hospitals are safe and clean.
* America has the best health care in the world.
* Americans have the best health in the world.
* Milk is a good source of calcium.
* You never outgrow your need for milk.
* Vitamin C is ascorbic acid.
* Aspirin prevents heart attacks.
* Heart drugs improve the heart.
* Back and neck pain are the only reasons for spinal adjustment.
* No child can get into school without being vaccinated.
* The FDA thoroughly tests all drugs before they go on the market.
* Back and neck pain are the only reason for spinal adjustment.
* Pregnancy is a serious medical condition
* Chemotherapy and radiation are effective cures for cancer
* When your child is diagnosed with an ear infection, antibiotics should
be given
immediately 'just in case'
* Ear tubes are for the good of the child.
* Estrogen drugs prevent osteoporosis after menopause.
* Pediatricians are the most highly trained of al medical specialists.
* The purpose of the health care industry is health.
* HIV is the cause of AIDS.
* AZT is the cure.
* Without vaccines, infectious diseases will return
* Fluoride in the city water protects your teeth
* Flu shots prevent the flu.
* Vaccines are thoroughly tested before being placed on the Mandated
Schedule.
* Doctors are certain that the benefits of vaccines far outweigh any
possible risks.
* There is a power shortage in California.
* There is a meningitis epidemic in California.
* The NASDAQ is a natural market controlled only by supply and
demand.
* Chronic pain is a natural consequence of aging.
* Soy is your healthiest source of protein.
* Insulin shots cure diabetes.
* After we take out your gall bladder you can eat anything you want
* Allergy medicine will cure allergies.
This is a list of illusions, that have cost billions and billions to conjure up.
Did you ever wonder why you never see the President speaking publicly
unless he is reading? Or why most people in this country think generally
the same about most of the above issues?
HOW THIS WHOLE SET-UP GOT STARTED ...................
the rest of article here: [url=http://www.rense.com/general12/believe.htm]http://www.rense.com/general12/believe.htm[/url]
2002-12-06 00:00 | User Profile
Originally posted by mwdallas@Dec 5 2002, 18:44 **> ** ** ** Why is she sleeping around? ÃÂ **
-- Who said she's sleeping around? **
Tex did. Or do you believe that all these girls are nice innocent nuns-in-waiting? **
Tex said nothing of the sort. Sleeping with one guy is not "sleeping around".
There are a number of reasons why teenage girls are particularly vulnerable to sexual advances from men in general, thus the concept of "stauttory rape". Moreover, there are a number of reasons why generally vulnerable teenage girls are particularly vulnerable to the sexual advances of black men.**
Has it been that long since you were in college, MW? Look, if someone's liable to go to bed with a person they've just met, 95 times out of 100, they are not a Prudence Pureheart to begin with.
It's been many months, and I see your study of evolutionary psychology has not progressed.
I've seen how you use it as a catch-all from day one, and nothing you've done or said has changed my mind since. You have yet to provide a standard of falsification, despite being asked repeatedly, and you and the others always, always puss out when it comes time to acknowledge your own group's responsibility, pawning it off on such dubious claims as having a naturally elevated, generous and altruistic nature.
It assumes no such thing. Do you understand the concept of logical argument? You're supposed to disprove what I said -- merely making conclusory denials followed by statements entirely consonant with my contnetion doesn't cut it.
Well, actually, you never bothered to provide anything in the way of evidence backing up your claim that these one-night encounters between dusky, lascivious blackamoors and innocent, spotless white virgins are the cause of the majority, or even a significant minority, of "race mixing."
Common sense and experience show that most of this phenomenon results from adults making decisions and acting on their own impulses and desires. Both parties, not just one. Like I said, it takes two to tango.
Only to those who are predisposed to infer a lack of intelligence, i.e., to those who define intelligence as inconsistent with gullibility. That is a Jewish definition of intelligence.
From y'all's favorite little site comes this gem:
[url=http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/december02/index606.htm]http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/decembe...02/index606.htm[/url]
"It's only a shame that Whites seem never to learn [inability to learn equalling a deficiency in intelligence], and that racially loyal Whites are made to suffer along with their gullible kindred or even more so."
Who knows, maybe this Andrei Kievsky's one of your secret Jews, MW. Check your little list of names. Hey, he might even be an FBI agent provacatuer.:lol
And since we're here, let's look at some cartoons: [url=http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/cartoons2.htm]http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/cartoons2.htm[/url]
Go to the third cartoon from the bottom. Notice how the white man is portrayed. Surely, this rivals, if not exceeds, any hatred, contempt and scorn alleged of the "Jewish" media by WN's.
Best, P
2002-12-06 00:02 | User Profile
Originally posted by xmetalhead@Dec 5 2002, 19:15 > Originally posted by Polichinello@Dec 5 2002, 12:10 They broke your will? ÃÂ How, through PR? ÃÂ Gimme a break. ÃÂ **
Well, um, actually yea, Polch. Check it out!
**The Doors Of Perception:
Why Americans Will
Believe Almost Anything
By Tim O'Shea
www.thedoctorwithin.com
8-18-1 **
**
Yeah, I know, THEY are out there trying to tamper with our precious bodily fluids.
Tell, you what, take two aspirins, get some sleep and avoid all Strategic Air Command bases for the next, oh, five or six decades.
Best, P
2002-12-06 02:54 | User Profile
Well, actually, you never bothered to provide anything in the way of evidence backing up your claim that these one-night encounters between dusky, lascivious blackamoors and innocent, spotless white virgins are the cause of the majority, or even a significant minority, of "race mixing."
Nor did you bother top back up your claim that they are "insignificant". No room for you to complain, bub. You always act like the burden of proof is on the other guy. It doesn't work that way.
Common sense and experience show that most of this phenomenon results from adults making decisions and acting on their own impulses and desires. Both parties, not just one. Like I said, it takes two to tango.
"It takes two to tango". Why do you keep repeating that as if it is somehow at odds with what I have said?
Of course, it takes two to tango! The subject of discussion is why one of the parties decides to tango. (We'll ignore the closely related question of whether both parties consented to the tangoing.)
As for "adults making decisions", "common sense" suggests no such thing, though I haven't been able to find anything to confirm or deny your "sense". Moreover, interracial marriages are so much less problematic as to hardly warrant discussion. That was left unsaid but should be obvious to someone possessing "common sense".
2002-12-06 03:10 | User Profile
**I've seen how you use it as a catch-all from day one, and nothing you've done or said has changed my mind since. **
Changed your mind about what? The Jewish evolutionary strategy? > **You have yet to provide a standard of falsification, despite being asked repeatedly, **
That's the job of the falsifier.
and you and the others always, always puss out when it comes time to acknowledge your own group's responsibility, pawning it off on such dubious claims as having a naturally elevated, generous and altruistic nature.
White populations are susceptible to attack from within by group startegies, especially the Jewish strategy. That susceptibility simply "is". No one is "responsible" for it.
You can have contempt for the goyim, call them stupid, etc. That does nothing to promote understanding of the situation or a solution to the problem.
2002-12-06 03:45 | User Profile
Well, actually, you never bothered to provide anything in the way of evidence backing up your claim that these one-night encounters between dusky, lascivious blackamoors and innocent, spotless white virgins are the cause of the majority, or even a significant minority, of "race mixing."
You're being dishonest, P. I never said they were innocent. I said that Tex had not claimed they were "sleeping around". Can you apprehend the distinction?
Has it been that long since you were in college, MW? Look, if someone's liable to go to bed with a person they've just met, 95 times out of 100, they are not a Prudence Pureheart to begin with.
Either a girl who is sleeping around takes certain precautions, or chances are she gets pregnant before she qualifies as having "slept around". That is why the concern is with naive teenagers rather than adults or even college students. That's "common sense".
Do you understand human sexuality? Do you understand racial differences, especially as reflected in the realm of sexuality? Did you grow up with black people?
I doubt it.
2002-12-10 00:40 | User Profile
> Well, actually, you never bothered to provide anything in the way of evidence backing up your claim that these one-night encounters between dusky, lascivious blackamoors and innocent, spotless white virgins are the cause of the majority, or even a significant minority, of "race mixing."**
Nor did you bother top back up your claim that they are "insignificant". No room for you to complain, bub. You always act like the burden of proof is on the other guy. It doesn't work that way.**
I'm not the one quibbling over forensic rules. Common sense and general experience show that the one-night stand Tex is talking about is a rather small minority of the cases in question. Usually they are from marriages or long-standing relationships. You want to claim the opposite, which is something out of the normal, so if you want to quibble about burdens of proof, in this case it is on you.
Of course, it takes two to tango! The subject of discussion is why one of the parties decides to tango. (We'll ignore the closely related question of whether both parties consented to the tangoing. **
They don't "consent," as in "Aw, gee, OK, Mr. Blackamoor" they go out looking to dance. Both partners. That means they have their own desires which the general loosening of morals has released. Does it seem odd that some girls have the hots for black guys? To you, it does. But people have all sorts of weird inclinations. That's just the way people are.
As for "adults making decisions", "common sense" suggests no such thing, though I haven't been able to find anything to confirm or deny your "sense". Moreover, interracial marriages are so much less problematic as to hardly warrant discussion. That was left unsaid but should be obvious to someone possessing "common sense".
Interracial marriages are less problematic? Then why do you need laws prohibiting them?
> ** You have yet to provide a standard of falsification, despite being asked repeatedly,
That's the job of the falsifier.**
If you're going to promote a theory as science, then you, the promoter, need to provide some means of falsifying the theory. That's a basic scientific rule. The falsifier's job is to meet that criterion. This is why it's pointless arguing about group strategies with you. No matter how many counter-examples I propose, you expand and contort your theory to make them fit within.
> Well, actually, you never bothered to provide anything in the way of evidence backing up your claim that these one-night encounters between dusky, lascivious blackamoors and innocent, spotless white virgins are the cause of the majority, or even a significant minority, of "race mixing." **
You're being dishonest, P. I never said they were innocent. I said that Tex had not claimed they were "sleeping around". Can you apprehend the distinction?**
I'm being saracastic, which includes a bit of bombast. But the structure of your argument, about women being susceptible to the wiles of the blackamoor, tend to make them into passive blanks.
Either a girl who is sleeping around takes certain precautions, or chances are she gets pregnant before she qualifies as having "slept around". That is why the concern is with naive teenagers rather than adults or even college students. That's "common sense".
So are you now talking about general morality? That was my original point.
Do you understand human sexuality? Do you understand racial differences, especially as reflected in the realm of sexuality?
Are you going to start complaining about how the darkies have some great advantage over the white man in competing for his women? Because if so, then the logic of your argument means not only is not unnatural for the races to mix, but that nature has intended it to be so.
Did you grow up with black people?
Well, my childhood years were spent in the Rio Grande Valley where I grew up with Mexicans. From 18-23 I was in the Air Force, where I worked with plenty of black people. I now live in Houston, and, it has been said, there are a few black folk around here.
But, please, go on and enlighten me about the savage nature of the lesser peoples.
Best, P
2002-12-10 10:33 | User Profile
But, please, go on and enlighten me about the savage nature of the lesser peoples.
Why bother? Your movie critic's doing a fine job of it, all by himself.
2002-12-10 23:39 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Dec 10 2002, 10:33 > But, please, go on and enlighten me about the savage nature of the lesser peoples.**
Why bother? Your movie critic's doing a fine job of it, all by himself.**
LOL.
You must be referring to Hank's take on Jackie Brown
[url=http://www.thetexasmercury.com/articles/parnell/HP20021202a.html]http://www.thetexasmercury.com/articles/pa...P20021202a.html[/url]
"As with the negroes in Chapel Hill when I went to college, it is fine for a negro to have all the white women he wants, but not for a white man to have a negro womanââ¬âthis is, after all, about race revenge, not about "tolerance for interracial couples," which, as the negro columnist William Raspberry once pointed out, are comprised mostly of negro men and white women."
I agree that there can be an element of getting even with Whitey in these relationships, but that hardly accounts for someone spending months, even years, with a person. It certainly doesn't account for the woman, either.
Of course, if we're quoting Hank, you should be aware that his idea of "lesser peoples" is really rather broad, and most definitely includes many of the posters here:
[url=http://www.thetexasmercury.com/articles/parnell/HP20021020.html]http://www.thetexasmercury.com/articles/pa...HP20021020.html[/url]
"And likewise I'll never turn on the people who were my friends growing up, a great many of them black, nor will I condemn others that I don't know simply because of their race. And those who think that I might are going to be in for a severe disappointment someday, when they find themselves facing me. It is just that simple."
Best, P
Best, P
2002-12-10 23:49 | User Profile
Well, my childhood years were spent in the Rio Grande Valley where I grew up with Mexicans. From 18-23 I was in the Air Force, where I worked with plenty of black people. I now live in Houston, and, it has been said, there are a few black folk around here.
In other words, you did not grow up with black people.
But, please, go on and enlighten me about the savage nature of the lesser peoples.
Real nice. I said nothing about "savage nature" or "lesser peoples". And what's with the sarcastic tone?
2002-12-10 23:58 | User Profile
This is why it's pointless arguing about group strategies with you. No matter how many counter-examples I propose.
A counterexample of what?
If you're going to promote a theory as science, then you, the promoter, need to provide some means of falsifying the theory.
Anyone who understands a theory understands how to falsify it. You have made no effort to comprehend the relevant theories; thus, you have no idea how to falsify them. How can I tell you how to falsify "the" theory when you can't explain which theory you're talking about?
2002-12-11 00:00 | User Profile
**I'm not the one quibbling over forensic rules. Common sense and general experience show that the one-night stand Tex is talking about is a rather small minority of the cases in question. **
How do you figure that? Why would "common sense" come into play at all here? That concept seems entirely inapplicable.
General experience? My general experience is obviously at odds with yours.
2002-12-11 00:24 | User Profile
**That means they have their own desires which the general loosening of morals has released. Does it seem odd that some girls have the hots for black guys? To you, it does. **
The whole freaking point is that it is does NOT seem odd to me, which is why the social strictures matter -- discouragement vs. encouragement is important.
2002-12-11 00:31 | User Profile
**Are you going to start complaining about how the darkies have some great advantage over the white man in competing for his women? Because if so, then the logic of your argument means not only is not unnatural for the races to mix, but that nature has intended it to be so. **
A facile analysis offered to rebut a strawman. I have never claimed that it is unnatural for the races to mix, but don't let that slow you down. Of course, your point hardly demonstrates that it is natural. If society intervenes to stop misdirected urges of females who have not reached adulthood, that's every bit as natural.
2002-12-11 00:40 | User Profile
> Well, my childhood years were spent in the Rio Grande Valley where I grew up with Mexicans. From 18-23 I was in the Air Force, where I worked with plenty of black people. I now live in Houston, and, it has been said, there are a few black folk around here.**
In other words, you did not grow up with black people.**
If you choose to see it as such, fine. So how do your juvenile experiences observing black people have any relevance to the conversation?
> But, please, go on and enlighten me about the savage nature of the lesser peoples.**
Real nice. I said nothing about "savage nature" or "lesser peoples". And what's with the sarcastic tone?**
I'm simply adopting that personal, raspy style you so love when it's applied to your opponents by folks like IR or Mr. Linder.
> I'm not the one quibbling over forensic rules. Common sense and general experience show that the one-night stand Tex is talking about is a rather small minority of the cases in question.**
How do you figure that? Why would "common sense" come into play at all here? That concept seems entirely inapplicable.
General experience? My general experience is obviously at odds with yours. **
Well, since your basis of evaluating black people seems to be contained to your teenage experiences, I can't say that this surprises me.
Anyone who understands a theory understands how to falsify it.
Well, actually, I can't find a falsifiable test, that's the problem with the theory. It's like you putting forward a theory that UFO's are controlling us through telepathy. The only way I can falsify this theory is to show you conclusively that no such aliens exist. IOW, prove a negative. My problem here is not a failure to comprehend the theory, I know what you mean by it, but rather it's utter and absolute untestability.
The same thing works for your evolutionary group strategy because there's no standard you give by which I can or cannot prove that individual Jews or even groups of them are not part of your strategy because you morph and bend it to account for them at your convenience.
You have made no effort to comprehend the relevant theories; thus, you have no idea how to falsify them. How can I tell you how to falsify "the" theory when you can't explain which theory you're talking about?
We've had this long, long conversation already, and I do not intend to repeat it, as, quite frankly, it isn't worth my time. You know very well what I mean by falsifying your evolutionary strategy theory. If you want to run for the tall grass again, go right ahead. I really don't care.
Best, P
2002-12-11 00:48 | User Profile
Originally posted by mwdallas@Dec 11 2002, 00:31 > Are you going to start complaining about how the darkies have some great advantage over the white man in competing for his women? Because if so, then the logic of your argument means not only is not unnatural for the races to mix, but that nature has intended it to be so. **
A facile analysis offered to rebut a strawman. I have never claimed that it is unnatural for the races to mix, but don't let that slow you down.**
Well, if it's natural, MW, then the case that miscegenation and multiculturalism are being "forced" on people is false. The logic of your position doesn't give you any choice but to assume race-mixing is unnatural.
Of course, your point hardly demonstrates that it is natural. If society intervenes to stop misdirected urges of females who have not reached adulthood, that's every bit as natural.
This is my point. If society has to act, as you seem to agree, then you can't go around blaming MTV. There's something deeper at work than the latest Shaggy video.
Best, P
2002-12-11 01:52 | User Profile
This is my point. If society has to act, as you seem to agree, then you can't go around blaming MTV. There's something deeper at work than the latest Shaggy video.
You pay so little attention. I never suggested that any of this was monocausal.
2002-12-11 01:57 | User Profile
**Well, if it's natural, MW, then the case that miscegenation and multiculturalism are being "forced" on people is false. The logic of your position doesn't give you any choice but to assume race-mixing is unnatural. **
Sexual intercourse is natural, but that hardly means there's no such thing as rape.
2002-12-11 02:03 | User Profile
**Well, since your basis of evaluating black people seems to be contained to your teenage experiences, I can't say that this surprises me. **
No, my "basis of evaluating black people" does not seem to be limited to my teenage experiences. My observations of the interaction between blacks and whites in junior high and high school -- surprisingly enough -- derive primarily from that period in my life. That's what we were talking about.
2002-12-11 02:06 | User Profile
Originally posted by mwdallas@Dec 10 2002, 21:52 > This is my point. If society has to act, as you seem to agree, then you can't go around blaming MTV. There's something deeper at work than the latest Shaggy video.**
You pay so little attention. I never suggested that any of this was monocausal.**
Boom! The question of monocausality comes full circle again on this thread. Seems to me that the paleo perspective constantly suffers its opponents' accusations that it takes certain elements that it factors into its analysis (e.g. race, media influence, etc.) as being monocausal--a straw man meant to exaggerate our position and make us look bad.
Sam Francis describes the essential difference between libertarians, neoconservatives, and paleocons in the latest issue (Dec. 16, 2001) of The American Conservative. He states,
"Paleoconservatives, unlike libertarians, most neoconservatives, and many contemporary mainstream conservatives, do not consider America to be an "idea," a "proposition," or a "creed." It is instead a concrete and particular culture, rooted in a particular historical experience, a set of particular institutions as well as particular beliefs and values, and a particular ethnic-racial identity, and cut off from those roots, it cannot survive. Indeed, it is not surviving now, for all the glint and glitter of empire." (p. 27)
In Francis' definition, there is no forced, either/or choice between race and culture and American institutions--paleos want it all. And who can blame them? The Left never has to settle for the lesser of any evils--they get what they want out of their agenda. Call it ideological equal opportunity.
I notice this thread is split off from the other discussion on Argentina and now stands independently. Thanks, moderators, for giving this discussion its own home.
2002-12-11 02:22 | User Profile
The same thing works for your evolutionary group strategy because there's no standard you give by which I can or cannot prove that individual Jews or even groups of them are not part of your strategy....
Such an endeavor is misdirected.
If you want to falsify the theory, you have to demonstrate that the host populations that interact with the Jewish group are as cohesive as the Jewish group, i.e., that there's no utility in classifying the Jewish group as different from gentile, especially European, populations in the ways that the theories advanced by MacDonald and his followers posit.
2002-12-11 11:16 | User Profile
"And likewise I'll never turn on the people who were my friends growing up, a great many of them black, nor will I condemn others that I don't know simply because of their race. And those who think that I might are going to be in for a severe disappointment someday, when they find themselves facing me. It is just that simple."
Nice job of CYA there. I'm still on the team, Massa Dees, Massa Foxman - I jus' cracks on de Jews an' Negras I ain't growed up with! (How sporting: that thins out the target-pool down to roughly 30 million people or so.) But let's veer away from Hank's sterling New America citizenship qualities and go back to those reviews, shall we?
Jackie Brown. àCan you say "ngger," boys and girls? àActor Samuel L. Jackson surely can; he can't utter a sentence in this equally manipulative Quentin Tarentino movie without working the word into it. àAs in Pulp Fiction, everybody here is a ngger, be he black or white; and after seeing this movie, I can't see how anybody can get self-righteous about Mark Furman or the Ku Klux Klan for using this dreaded "taboo" word. àOh, I understand the argument; I saw Chris Rock explain it to Oprah Winfrey one time, and it basically boils down to this: If you are a ngger yourself, you can call anybody you want a ngger; but if you're not a ngger, better keep your mouth shut. àWell, I suppose a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, or a turd of sht, for that matter, smell as nasty; whether it's sht, or "feces," or a ââ¬Ångger,ââ¬Â or an "African," I suspect it's all pretty much the same thing. àI mean, as I told my mother one time when she called me a son of a bitch, "You should know, better than anybody." àRight? ÃÂ
The movie? àOh, yeah; there was a movie, wasn't there? àI almost forgot, with all this talk of nggers. àI mean, and let us speak honestly hereââ¬âwhich is more than can be said for the Tarentinos and Rocks and Winfreys of this worldââ¬âwhen you hear this word, whose casual use by an "evil white man" like me can get me branded as a "racist," and thus discounted and dismissed from the ranks of so-called "humanity" by all "enlightened" peopleââ¬âwhen you hear this word, used over and over so freely, by one of the very people it is supposed to offend, what, I ask you, am I supposed to think? àI'll tell you what I did think: when Jackson's character was finally killed at the end, I said aloud to the TV, "Well, that ngger is dead, isn't he?" ÃÂ
I am wont to say this movie is trash, and the people who made it human garbage; then again, it is a better film than Pulp Fiction, which I could never bring myself to watch all the way through (and which is why in good conscience I can't review it), and which in many ways is not saying much. àIndeed, appealing as is much of the action and cleverness of the plotââ¬âlargely a function of Elmore Leonard's source novel, I suspectââ¬âthis movie represents the worst of Hollywood liberal elitism, and is vomitously nauseating. àAs in Pulp Fiction, the ngger gangster has a white girlfriend, and admits he keeps her because she is white; but the possibility of a relationship between Pam Grier and Robert Foster is studiously avoided. àAs with the nggers in Chapel Hill when I went to college, it is fine for a ngger to have all the white women he wants, but not for a white man to have a ngger womanââ¬âthis is, after all, about race revenge, not about "tolerance for interracial couples," which, as the ngger columnist William Raspberry once pointed out, are comprised mostly of ngger men and white women. àIt is all disgustingââ¬âthe hypocrisy, if nothing elseââ¬âwhich was ultimately what this movie evoked in me. àDisgust, and contempt; which is nothing new. ÃÂ
The best scene in the whole movie is when Robert de Niro shoots Briget Fonda. ÃÂ Pity the gun was loaded with blanks. **
Yeah...I think I'd make sure to cobble up a "some of my best friends..." postscript as an antitoxin to such blatant horrible awful racism! If I intended to keep writing movie reviews, anyway. (Note: in the interests of honest discourse, I think it's bogus to allow the censorware to caponize the dreaded N Word into the relatively innocuous "negro", thus blunting the impact not only of the word but the review as originally written & published - so I three-card-monte'd the software. ]
For shame, Polichinello! For shame. You go sit in that corner and think about What You've Done! Either that, or give us a lot more of Hammerin' Hank, the stealth-Linder of the Texas Mercury....whose critique of DRIVING MISS DAISY notes, "I, for one, found this tale of a tight-fisted old Jewish bitch and her relationship with her black chauffeur in 1960ââ¬â¢s Atlanta to be mean-spirited and cruel. The scene in which she makes him sit in the car and listen to Martin Luther King on the radio, while she goes inside and plays the big-hearted, bleeding-heart liberal Jew and sees him in person was reprehensible, and my opinion of Martin Luther King makes Jesse Helms' seem charitable by comparison." Yowza!
Love, Raspy
PS - Perhaps if Hank weren't so vigilant about battling prejudice by his judicious wallowing in it he might've noticed that the only genuine romantic love in JACKIE BROWN - consummated onscreen or not - is between Grier and Forster, as they are the only two decent, recognizably-human characters in the film.
2002-12-12 17:56 | User Profile
Originally posted by mwdallas@Dec 11 2002, 01:52 > This is my point. If society has to act, as you seem to agree, then you can't go around blaming MTV. There's something deeper at work than the latest Shaggy video.**
You pay so little attention. I never suggested that any of this was monocausal.**
I think it's you who's failing to pay attention. You jumped in on the sice of Mad Science type was arguing that the country's being forced to endure multiculturalism. The "being forced" implying a single cause, namely, ye olde Jewes.
Best, P
2002-12-12 18:24 | User Profile
Yeah...I think I'd make sure to cobble up a "some of my best friends..." postscript as an antitoxin to such blatant horrible awful racism! If I intended to keep writing movie reviews, anyway.
Hank couldn't give a crap about Dees or Foxman. Nor are they all that happy with me for that matter:http://www.thetexasmercury.com/articles/satire/UP20021117a.html
However, the passage I quoted was not a postscript nor was it an afterthought, it came from a two-part series that he put out on his own initiative. It was hardly a CYA. Besides, we don't tell our writers what to write, nor do we make them change editorial content to suit any taste. As I noted earlier, Hank has a generally low view of all humanity. Red, brown, black, yellow or white: they're all equally worthless in his sight.
For shame, Polichinello! For shame. You go sit in that corner and think about What You've Done!
If I was to go to a corner for the sake of shame, it'd be for a lot bigger issues than this, chief--like wasting two hours watching Hudson Hawk.
Either that, or give us a lot more of Hammerin' Hank, the stealth-Linder of the Texas Mercury....
He's a regular writer, so you'll get plenty of him, but he'd be awful pissed at your comparing him to Linder.
PS - Perhaps if Hank weren't so vigilant about battling prejudice by his judicious wallowing in it he might've noticed that the only genuine romantic love in JACKIE BROWN - consummated onscreen or not - is between Grier and Forster, as they are the only two decent, recognizably-human characters in the film.
I haven't seen the movie, so I can't comment on this, Raspy. I suggest you take it up with Hank, or submit a response for publication, if you feel strongly enough about it.
Best, P
2002-12-12 18:27 | User Profile
Originally posted by mwdallas@Dec 11 2002, 02:22 > The same thing works for your evolutionary group strategy because there's no standard you give by which I can or cannot prove that individual Jews or even groups of them are not part of your strategy....**
Such an endeavor is misdirected.
If you want to falsify the theory, you have to demonstrate that the host populations that interact with the Jewish group are as cohesive as the Jewish group, i.e., that there's no utility in classifying the Jewish group as different from gentile, especially European, populations in the ways that the theories advanced by MacDonald and his followers posit.**
I don't think that's your main concern. You're concerned with Jews harming the other groups. So what standard would you accept to show that a Jew can dissent from other Jews and not be seen as promoting a strategy specifically designed to be harmful to his non-Jewish neighbors to the overall advantage of other Jews.
Best, P
2002-12-12 18:30 | User Profile
Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Dec 11 2002, 02:06 > Originally posted by mwdallas@Dec 10 2002, 21:52 > This is my point. If society has to act, as you seem to agree, then you can't go around blaming MTV. There's something deeper at work than the latest Shaggy video.
You pay so little attention. I never suggested that any of this was monocausal.**
Boom! The question of monocausality comes full circle again on this thread. Seems to me that the paleo perspective constantly suffers its opponents' accusations that it takes certain elements that it factors into its analysis (e.g. race, media influence, etc.) as being monocausal--a straw man meant to exaggerate our position and make us look bad.**
But in this case I'm responding to a position that relies on monocausality. You're side alleged that you're being forced to endure "multiculturalism" and "race-mixing." If that's so, then it means somone, a single cause--an intelligent agent at that--is doing the forcing.
Best, P
2002-12-12 18:32 | User Profile
Originally posted by mwdallas@Dec 11 2002, 01:57 > Well, if it's natural, MW, then the case that miscegenation and multiculturalism are being "forced" on people is false. The logic of your position doesn't give you any choice but to assume race-mixing is unnatural. **
Sexual intercourse is natural, but that hardly means there's no such thing as rape.**
But rape, by definition, involves force. That's the point of contention here with "race-mixing." Unlike rape, it's a consensual act between two members of the same species that involves the normal, accepted operations of sex and reproduction.
Best, P
2002-12-12 19:47 | User Profile
**But rape, by definition, involves force. **
As does forced race-mixing. Get it?
2002-12-12 20:40 | User Profile
Originally posted by mwdallas@Dec 12 2002, 19:47 > But rape, by definition, involves force. **
As does forced race-mixing. Get it?**
You haven't demonstrated any kind of "force" at all, though. Indeed, you abandoned it *ipso facto* when you decided to abandon monocausality.
Best, P
2002-12-12 20:59 | User Profile
I don't think that's your main concern. You're concerned with Jews harming the other groups. So what standard would you accept to show that a Jew can dissent from other Jews and not be seen as promoting a strategy specifically designed to be harmful to his non-Jewish neighbors to the overall advantage of other Jews.
But my "concern" isn't relevant to the science. I gave you the "standard for falsification" you claimed to desire. Do with it what you will.
The new request for a standard, quoted above, is so loaded and jumbled at the same time that I can't attempt to respond directly. AGian, this suggest that your difficulty in formulating an attempt at falsification stems primarily from your inability to apprehend the essence of the theory.
2002-12-12 21:17 | User Profile
You haven't demonstrated any kind of "force" at all, though. Indeed, you abandoned it ipso facto when you decided to abandon monocausality.
But I don't have to demonstrate force. I've addressed a remarkable number of subjects in this thread, but never once did I claim that race-mixing was being forced on anyone. Try to keep up with the argument. It's one thing to carry the discussion in a new direction, quite another to claim one's counterpart has failed to support a claim he has not made.
In this case, you said that I had to believe that race-mixing was unnatural if I thought it was being forced on white folks. I presented a valid argument refuting your claim.
By the way, I didn't "abandon" monocausality regarding anything other than sexual intercourse, although I fail to see how a claim that something is being forced on someone implies monocausality. As a matter of fact, I am sure that it does not.
2002-12-12 21:19 | User Profile
Originally posted by mwdallas@Dec 12 2002, 20:59 > I don't think that's your main concern. You're concerned with Jews harming the other groups. So what standard would you accept to show that a Jew can dissent from other Jews and not be seen as promoting a strategy specifically designed to be harmful to his non-Jewish neighbors to the overall advantage of other Jews.**
But my "concern" isn't relevant to the science. I gave you the "standard for falsification" you claimed to desire. Do with it what you will.**
But what I've stated is the point of MacDonald's work, upon which you base most of your arguments. It isn't simply that Jews are cohesive--Muslims, Hare Krishna and Amish are more cohesive--but that this cohesion has damaging effect, and that it extends to the point that Jews qua Jews all practice this strategy to the detriment of non-Jews and for the benefit of Jews, even when they promote "universalist" ideologies.
Or are you now abadoning this? Because it sure didn't sound like it the other times we discussed the issue.
The new request for a standard, quoted above, is so loaded and jumbled at the same time that I can't attempt to respond directly
You know very well that this is NOT a new request. I've put it to you a number of times, and you've declined to give a straight definite answer at each opportunity. I've proposed counter-examples--Daniel Lapin, Paul Gottfried, Michael Medved, Don Feder--to show how a Jew are not engaged in harmful activity by your and my conservative lights, and you started quibbling each time, insisting that they are all pursuing it solely to benefit their own group first, and not others. (Rather ironic for an individual who gets quite upset when he thinks someone else is imputing motives to him.)
Best, P
2002-12-12 21:38 | User Profile
But I don't have to demonstrate force. I've addressed a remarkable number of subjects in this thread, but never once did I claim that race-mixing was being forced on anyone. Try to keep up with the argument. It's one thing to carry the discussion in a new direction, quite another to claim one's counterpart has failed to support a claim he has not made.
Well, you claimed it was being imposed by fraud, but that's really only a form of intellectual force, as was pointed out by Mad Science Type. As you didn't bother to refute his direct response to you, I have to assume your silence implies consent.
In this case, you said that I had to believe that race-mixing was unnatural if I thought it was being forced on white folks. I presented a valid argument refuting your claim.
And how would it be natural if it was applied through fraud? In fact, fraud implies just as strongly that race-mixing would be otherwise unnatural.
By the way, I didn't "abandon" monocausality regarding anything other than sexual intercourse, although I fail to see how a claim that something is being forced on someone implies monocausality. As a matter of fact, I am sure that it does not.
It implies a single source wishing to obtain a single end. Are you going to pretend that you (and the others for that matter) don't always come back to blaming the Jews for race-mixing? That was certainly the point made by P. Avatar and the others. If you feel otherwise, then you should differentiate yourself, otherwise I have no choice but to assume you agree with them.
Best, P
2002-12-12 21:39 | User Profile
The problem is that the notion of a "counterexample" simply isn't relevant.
2002-12-12 21:42 | User Profile
Well, you claimed it was being imposed by fraud, but that's really only a form of intellectual force, as was pointed out by Mad Science Type. As you didn't bother to refute his direct response to you, I have to assume your silence implies consent.
I said that multiculturalism was being imposed by force and fraud.
Not race-mixing.
2002-12-12 21:49 | User Profile
**And how would it be natural if it was applied through fraud? In fact, fraud implies just as strongly that race-mixing would be otherwise unnatural. **
It doesn't. See prior responses on p. 4 of this thread.
2002-12-12 22:05 | User Profile
**It implies a single source wishing to obtain a single end. **
Even if I grant you that, that still doesn't imply monocausality.
2002-12-12 22:08 | User Profile
Originally posted by mwdallas@Dec 12 2002, 21:42 > Well, you claimed it was being imposed by fraud, but that's really only a form of intellectual force, as was pointed out by Mad Science Type. As you didn't bother to refute his direct response to you, I have to assume your silence implies consent.**
I said that multiculturalism was being imposed by force and fraud.
Not race-mixing.**
From your side's POV, the two are the same. As P. Avatar put it:
All nationalists advocate is controls on the way these technologies are being used [to promote multiculturalism], because these technologies are overcoming natural barriers [i.e., geographical distances, etc.] and meshing the races back together again when they were formerly diverging. The divergence is good, and to be preserved and encouraged, not abandoned like you suggest. If all life converged again back to its LCD, you'd basically have one life form, like an amoeba--none of the much-worshipped "diversity"[aka, multiculturalism] at all.
Again, you didn't differentiate yourself from this position. I'm sorry if that seems unfair, but as I can't read your mind, I really have no guide to go by but what's on the board here, and as you seem to take PA's side, I have to assume you concur with his point. If you want to disagree with him, please, be my guest and explain how your take differs from his.
However, I really don't see the point of your argument now. If "race-mixing" is not imposed by fraud or force, and if it's between consenting adults, then what's your beef with it, beyond your own personal preference, that is?
Best, P
2002-12-12 22:10 | User Profile
Originally posted by mwdallas@Dec 12 2002, 22:05 > It implies a single source wishing to obtain a single end. **
Even if I grant you that, that still doesn't imply monocausality.**
Yeah, okay a single (one) source doesn't imply mono(one)causality. Gotcha.
Best, P
2002-12-12 22:14 | User Profile
Originally posted by mwdallas@Dec 12 2002, 21:49 > And how would it be natural if it was applied through fraud? In fact, fraud implies just as strongly that race-mixing would be otherwise unnatural. **
It doesn't. See prior responses on p. 4 of this thread.**
If you deceive someone, then your compelling them into doing something they wouldn't otherwise do. That is, you're trying to elicit an unnatural response. That's fraud.
Your other replies are no help.
Best, P
2002-12-12 22:19 | User Profile
Yeah, okay a single (one) source doesn't imply mono(one)causality. Gotcha.
Sophistry.
You were not speaking of a single source of causation; you were speaking of a single source of force. Even if there is only one agent exerting "force", many other causes may be involved.
2002-12-12 22:20 | User Profile
From your side's POV, the two are the same.
Of course not. One may lead to the other, but that's not the same thing.
2002-12-12 22:24 | User Profile
**And how would it be natural if it was applied through fraud? In fact, fraud implies just as strongly that race-mixing would be otherwise unnatural. **
You're straining my credulity. The fact that something can be imposed by force or fraud hardly implies that it must always be imposed by force or fraud.
The fact that something may be voluntary in some circumstances hardly implies that it cannot be imposed by force or fraud in other circumstances. Your "arguments" to the contrary are all non-sequiturs.
2002-12-12 22:28 | User Profile
Originally posted by mwdallas@Dec 12 2002, 22:19 > Yeah, okay a single (one) source doesn't imply mono(one)causality. Gotcha.**
Sophistry.
You were not speaking of a single source of causation; you were speaking of a single source of force.**
Tautology is more like it.
You were not speaking of a single source of causation; you were speaking of a single source of force.
An ultimate cause: monocausality.
Even if there is only one agent exerting "force", many other causes may be involved.
Which you have yet to list.
Best, P
2002-12-12 22:32 | User Profile
If "race-mixing" is not imposed by fraud or force, and if it's between consenting adults, then what's your beef with it, beyond your own personal preference, that is?
What's my beef?
I object to the imposition of race-mixing by force and fraud, and race-mixing that does not involve consenting adults.
2002-12-12 22:33 | User Profile
Which you have yet to list.
And why would I have listed them?
You're a bit lacking in logic, P.
2002-12-12 22:35 | User Profile
Tautology is more like it.
Surely, you don't really believe that.
You must be winding my watch.
2002-12-12 22:35 | User Profile
An ultimate cause: monocausality.
Those are not the same.
2002-12-12 22:52 | User Profile
Originally posted by mwdallas@Dec 12 2002, 22:24 > And how would it be natural if it was applied through fraud? In fact, fraud implies just as strongly that race-mixing would be otherwise unnatural. **
You're straining my credulity. The fact that something can be imposed by force or fraud hardly implies that it must always be imposed by force or fraud.
The fact that something may be voluntary in some circumstances hardly implies that it cannot be imposed by force or fraud in other circumstances. Your "arguments" to the contrary are all non-sequiturs.**
If it is being imposed involuntarily (ie, through fraud or force) above some 'normal level,' (which it seems that you're implying) then that excess must be somehow be unnatural. You're trying to be more **sophist**icated by doing it in the aggregate, but it's still the same thing.
Best, P
2002-12-12 22:54 | User Profile
Originally posted by mwdallas@Dec 12 2002, 22:32 > If "race-mixing" is not imposed by fraud or force, and if it's between consenting adults, then what's your beef with it, beyond your own personal preference, that is?**
What's my beef?
I object to the imposition of race-mixing by force and fraud, and race-mixing that does not involve consenting adults.**
OK, we agree on that.
Are you cool with race-mixing between consenting adults?
Best, P
2002-12-12 22:56 | User Profile
Originally posted by mwdallas@Dec 12 2002, 22:33 > Which you have yet to list.**
And why would I have listed them?
You're a bit lacking in logic, P.**
Because you're claiming other causes.
The cause I listed for Tex's example was a general decline in morality, the likes of which have happened before in Western history. Do you disagree with this, and how? Or are we in agreement.
Best, P
2002-12-12 22:58 | User Profile
Originally posted by mwdallas@Dec 12 2002, 22:35 > Tautology is more like it.**
Surely, you don't really believe that.
You must be winding my watch.**
No, I am not. If you're saying there is **one** ultimate cause, then in the final analysis you have a monocausal situation.
Best, P
2002-12-12 23:23 | User Profile
If you're saying there is one ultimate cause, then in the final analysis you have a monocausal situation.
Of course, this is not the argument you made. The argument you made was that if there is one source applying the force there is only one source of causation. The ol' bait-and-switch doesn't work with me.
Now, you resort to some semantic game, relying on the ambiguity of the notion of "ultimate cause". Whatever.
2002-12-13 15:51 | User Profile
Originally posted by mwdallas@Dec 12 2002, 23:23 > If you're saying there is one ultimate cause, then in the final analysis you have a monocausal situation.**
Of course, this is not the argument you made. The argument you made was that if there is one source applying the force there is only one source of causation.**
Yes, strange argument, that. How does this differ from my statement? If one person, or group of persons, is doing the deceiving or forcing, then you have one cause.
The ol' bait-and-switch doesn't work with me.
No one's done any baiting or switching.
Now, you resort to some semantic game, relying on the ambiguity of the notion of "ultimate cause". Whatever.
"Whatever" is right. There's no ambiguity in the term "ultimate cause." That's why I chose it. It cuts through the fog and gets to the bottom line. If anyone's semantic games here, it's you, my good MW.
Best, P