← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · MercuryMan
Thread ID: 8427 | Posts: 47 | Started: 2003-07-25
2003-07-25 01:52 | User Profile
How can one argue against something so noble: Judge a man based on his character not skin color?
I'd describe myself as a paleoconservative sympathizer, but not one, because I haven't found a better argument opposing King's or even those supporting Aparteid's end in S. Africa. Yes, I am aware that there was a communist movement, and that many jews are liberal and have had contact with communist movements, but when you get down to the racial debate, it's one thing where they have higher ground.
Perhaps Kevin MacDonald's CoC is right. So what? If you cannot defend what was abolished then who cares what group led the change? It's about leveling the playing field...that's all CRA 1964 did.
-Merc
2003-07-25 02:12 | User Profile
MLK, Jr. was propped-up by Marxist Jews pushing an agenda. A Jew wrote most of his speeches.
Equality = communism = came from Jews.
[url=http://cptwc.matriots.com/JewsCivilRights.html]http://cptwc.matriots.com/JewsCivilRights.html[/url]
2003-07-25 02:12 | User Profile
Hello, MercuryMan! I am glad to see that my posts on the Vryheidsfront forum have had some effecft. Either way, let me be the first to welcome you and respond to your post.
Originally posted by MercuryMan@Jul 24 2003, 19:52 * How can one argue against something so noble: Judge a man based on his character not skin color?*
"Judging a man by his color" is a strawman that anti-racists wish to pass off as the defining characteristic of White Nationalist ideology. White Nationalists do not "judge people by their color" , but rather prefer their own race/ethnic group, as all bonafide nationalists do. Furthermore, race,contrary the popular misinformation is [url=http://www.eugenics.net/papers/Gottfredson.htm]much more than skin color.[/url] As for paleoconservatives, they support voluntary segregation because they are the last vanguard of constitutional freedoms,such as the right of association.
I'd describe myself as a paleoconservative sympathizer, but not one,
Hopefully that will change with time.
** because I haven't found a better argument opposing King's or even those supporting Aparteid's end in S. Africa.**
I describe myself as someone who fits a WN/paleoconservative mold, but was and still am against apartheid, evnthough South Africans, both black and White were [url=http://www.cycad.com/cgi-bin/pinc/dec98/articles/gt-apartheid-foundation.html]far better off[/url] under the apartheid regime than they are now, because I am a nationalist, not a supremacist. * By the same token, Afrikaner Nationalists, such as the ones found at the Vryheidsfront do not advocate a return to apartheid, but rather the creation of a soveriegn volkstaat* The Jewish-controlled media intentionally obfuscates the distinction between the two concepts, branding every White who displays a semblance of racial or national consciousness a "supremacist".
Yes, I am aware that there was a communist movement, and that many jews are liberal and have had contact with communist movements, but when you get down to the racial debate, it's one thing where they have higher ground.
I don't believe so. The idea of desegregation was to elevate the socioeconomic status of Negroids at the expense of the Whites' right of association. All it has done is destroy this right; Negroes are no better off today than they were in the 1950's, in fact what with the complete collapse of the Negro family and their astronomic crime rates, one could make the argument that now they are worse off than they were then.
**Perhaps Kevin MacDonald's CoC is right.ÃÂ So what?ÃÂ If you cannot defend what was abolished then who cares what group led the change? It's about leveling the playing field...that's all CRA 1964 did. **
The civil rights movement was based on the now debunked fanatsy that all Negroid problems were a direct consequence of white racism, and was willing to sacrifice sacrosanct constitutional rights in order to remove "racism" from America. I fail to see how it "held the higher ground." Indeed the idea was not to stop "judging a man on his skin color", but to invariable judge a man in a more favorable light if his skin color was dark-hence affirmative action and multiculti.
By the way, you might be interested to learn that "Doctor" Martin Luther King plagiarized much of his world-renowned "I have a Dream" speech, more than 50% of his doctoral dissertation, as well as most of his other work. See [url=http://chem-gharbison.unl.edu/mlk/plagiarism.html]here[/url] for details.
2003-07-25 02:15 | User Profile
*Originally posted by MercuryMan@Jul 24 2003, 19:52 * ** How can one argue against something so noble: Judge a man based on his character not skin color?
I'd describe myself as a paleoconservative sympathizer, but not one, because I haven't found a better argument opposing King's or even those supporting Aparteid's end in S. Africa. Yes, I am aware that there was a communist movement, and that many jews are liberal and have had contact with communist movements, but when you get down to the racial debate, it's one thing where they have higher ground.
Perhaps Kevin MacDonald's CoC is right. So what? If you cannot defend what was abolished then who cares what group led the change? It's about leveling the playing field...that's all CRA 1964 did.
-Merc **
Racial liberalism is a movement to extreminate the white race that's your moral "high ground" . If you are paleo-conservative then Kolbe Bryant is a Swede you sound like a troll but that's ok cause you dont seem to be a really smart troll so welcome aboard goofy. :P
2003-07-25 02:26 | User Profile
*Originally posted by MercuryMan@Jul 25 2003, 01:52 * ** How can one argue against something so noble: Judge a man based on his character not skin color?
I'd describe myself as a paleoconservative sympathizer, but not one, because I haven't found a better argument opposing King's or even those supporting Aparteid's end in S. Africa. Yes, I am aware that there was a communist movement, and that many jews are liberal and have had contact with communist movements, but when you get down to the racial debate, it's one thing where they have higher ground.
Perhaps Kevin MacDonald's CoC is right. So what? If you cannot defend what was abolished then who cares what group led the change? It's about leveling the playing field...that's all CRA 1964 did.
-Merc **
Mercuryman, What has been instituted since 1964 isn't 'Judge a man based on his character not skin color?'
2003-07-25 02:42 | User Profile
Put another way:
Jews: "Black people are equal to you White people!"
Debbie DayCareCenter: "Really? Are you serious?"
Jews: "Yes! Here are some academic studies about that issue, written by Sol Goldbergwitzbloom and Henry Rosenfeldbergstein!"
Debbie: "Welllll....ok, if you say so!"
[Franco responds: slap, slap!]
Amerikwa 2003: brought to you by The Shiny People. :)
[edited]
2003-07-25 02:44 | User Profile
Prodigal son,
Thanks for the welcome.
I disagree that blacks are worse off now than before. The idea was to allow for the possibility that a black can rise up in society if he has the will power. At least allow him the opportunity. Whether he makes it or not is a welfare debate.
Our whole society has experienced a rise in crime because we are so well off. The Children of the 60's grew up with abundance and so lost the strict Calvinist/Protestant work ethic.
Television put everyone on the same page, rather than subverted society. Don't you think it odd that the cultural shift began in the late 60's? That's precisely when America had TV, Vietnam, the Beetles... products of an abundant society. Only America could afford to send troops half way around the world to fight communism.
I'm sorry, I just don't think that voluntary segregation is a match for equality of opportunity.
I know King was heavily influenced by communists, but that doesn't mean that they were wrong on racial injustice, regardless if it was a plot to subvert America.
2003-07-25 03:01 | User Profile
First of all, Mercury Man, let me say welcome to the Original Dissent forum. Hope you stick around!
How can one argue against something so noble: Judge a man based on his character not skin color?
I would like think that I strive to judge men based on their character and not their skin color...however, the fact of the matter is that the only people currently doing so are whites! Every other group, blacks, Hispanics, Indians, Jews [who are NOT white], recognizes their group interests and acts on them. Whites don't, and that is why we're in danger of losing EVERYTHING our ancestors strived to accomplish. I don't want to become a minority in my own country or become a stateless people like the Kurds.
**Yes, I am aware that there was a communist movement, and that many jews are liberal and have had contact with communist movements, but when you get down to the racial debate, it's one thing where they have higher ground. **
I don't believe the Jews have higher ground here! The Jews supported the Civil Rights Movement and similar Communist movements in other countries, because it helped their interests, not out of some altruistic love for oppressed people! They realized that they could use the 'minorities' as a battering ram against white society, both physically [check black on white crime stats!] and mentally, thru the notion of a 'collective guilt', an unending debt that ALL whites must pay to ALL blacks, browns, etc, for their supposed crimes. When you have a racially aware white nation, Jews stick out like sore thumbs, HOWEVER, when you kill the racial awareness of whites [and begin importing masses of non-whites, see the 1965 Immigration Reform Act], Jews are just another face in the multicultural multitude, and when you have whites continually bowing and scraping the floor to atone for their guilt, Jews find it all to easy to step over all over them and replace the whites, in the society that WE CREATED, as the elites.
Now, we're not just subsidizing the Jew's terror state of Israel to the tune of 3 bil per year [and fight their wars!], we're forced to endure 'conservatives' who embrace diversity and Communist frauds like MLK, Jr at every turn, and smile and accept the fact that our media, universities, govt., etc, are all controlled by Jews, who have managed to make the smearing of whites and white interests not just de rigueur, BUT MANDATORY, for anyone who wishes to have any say in our institutions, and MUCH of this sorry state of affairs can be traced to such noble and ostensibly utopian movements such as Civil Rights, anti-apartheid, which totally destroyed white racial consciousness and paved the way for the Judaization of our society.
Well, there you have it. I'm sure the others can also clue you in.
You seem willing to question, which is good! Keep it up. :punk:
2003-07-25 04:22 | User Profile
Note: the underlined text in my message consists of links to articles or graphs that support my assertions.
Originally posted by MercuryMan@Jul 24 2003, 20:44 * *Prodigal son, Thanks for the welcome. I disagree that blacks are worse off now than before. **
Black crime rates, STD rates, illegitimacy rates, etc... have increased astronomically since the end of segregation-in contrast, their purchasing power has decreased sharply. Furthermore, this is in large part due to desegregation. When blacks were segregated in relatively affluent Southern towns, they were in close proximity to white employers who provided them with a livelyhood, and White law enforcement that prevented them from murdering and cannibalizing each other as they now do in the projects and Africa. When newly desegregated blacksmovedinto Northern cities, the predictable phenomenon of White flight, due to White ethnocentrism, occured. The blacks were once again segregated, if informally. The only difference was, now they were segregated into festering bankrupt ghettoes as opposed to affluent suburbs. This de facto segregation in Northern inner cities that now exists in America hurts Negroes far more than the Southern style of segregation ever did.
**The idea was to allow for the possibility that a black can rise up in society if he has the will power.ÃÂ At least allow him the opportunity.ÃÂ Whether he makes it or not is a welfare debate.ÃÂ **
Actually, the idea was to artificially launch blacks into positions of power for which the were completely unsuited, and marginalize whites at the same time, as this quote clearly illustrates:
...
"We must realize that our party's most powerful weapon is racial tensions. By propounding into the consciousness of the dark races that for centuries they have been oppressed by whites, we can mold them to the program of the Communist Party. In America we will aim for subtle victory. While inflaming the Negro minority against the whites, we will endeavor to instill in the whites a guilt complex for their exploitation of the Negros. We will aid the Negroes to rise in prominence in every walk of life, in the professions and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negro will be able to intermarry with the whites and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause."
Israel Cohen, A Racial Program for the Twentieth Century, 1912. Also in the Congressional Record, Vol. 103, p. 8559, June 7, 1957 ...
In contrast, the Southern style of segregation sought to create a society where the races could exist sepearately, but equally. The biggest problem with this approach is that "equality" exists only in mathematics. It's pretty much a settled matter that blacks are on average [url=http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/images/jpr21-chart7.jpg]much less intelligent[/url] than whites, have a much stronger propensity towards [url=http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/images/jpr21-chart5.jpg]crime[/url], and are far more [url=http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/images/jpr21-chart1.jpg]sexually active[/url]. While these obvious, tangible differences do not justify exploitation, supremacism, or genocide, they do help explain why, despite the best efforts of Whites, blacks remain completely non-competetive intellectually, as well as culturally and socially backward.
**Our whole society has experienced a rise in crime because we are so well off.ÃÂ **
That's a non sequitur. Please demonstarte how increased affluence correlates positively with increased crime rates (if anything, the exact opposite is true).
I'm sorry, I just don't think that voluntary segregation is a match for equality of opportunity.
Segregation sought to give Negroes equal opportunity for advancement. The problem is, no amount of politicking or social intervention will make the large differences in ability between blacks and whites disappear.
I know King was heavily influenced by communists, but that doesn't mean that they were wrong on racial injustice, regardless if it was a plot to subvert America.
Again, you are making the mistake of assuming that Negroid backwardness and lack of achievement is due to "lack of opportunity" and "injustice."
I encourage you to read the following articles:
[url=http://www.eugenics.net/papers/Gottfredson.htm]Egalitarian Fiction and Collective Fraud, by Linda Gottfredson, PhD[/url]
[url=http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol2no1/jpr-taxonomic.html]Is Race a Valid Taxonomic Construct? by J. Philippe Rushton, PhD[/url]
2003-07-25 16:59 | User Profile
Originally posted by MercuryMan@Jul 24 2003, 22:44 * At least allow him the opportunity.ÃÂ Whether he makes it or not is a welfare debate.*
Could you clarify what you mean by "welfare debate"?
**Our whole society has experienced a rise in crime because we are so well off.ÃÂ The Children of the 60's grew up with abundance and so lost the strict Calvinist/Protestant work ethic.
Television put everyone on the same page, rather than subverted society.ÃÂ Don't you think it odd that the cultural shift began in the late 60's?**
I think abundance can be blamed for cultural decadence, but rising crime certainly
doesn't follow mere affluence. The Children of the 60's, as you call them, were led
by a certain ideology developed by a certain people having defined cultural goals.
The fact that they were able to achieve their goal- among them, apparently,
the "racial justice" you champion- was in fact enabled by their affluence and lack
of a work ethic. The rise in crime can be shown by a perusal of the Uniform Crime
Report to be largely the result of increased criminality among blacks and the rising
rate of third-world immigration to the U.S. The "Children of the 60's" aren't leaving
their desks on Wall Street or their Ivy League classrooms to participate in the
criminality you identify- the savages they ennobled through the CRA and through
changing U.S. immigration policy are doing a fine job on their own.
Additionally, America had TV long before the late '60's, and radio long before that. "Everyone" was on the same page, until the culture shapers came along to tell us that white picket fences, strong family ties, traditional Christianity and ethnic loyalty were in fact the product of diseased minds rather than a natural state of affairs.
Don't you think it odd that just before and during the cultural shift of the 1960's , cultural marxists spouting Frankfurt School ideology began to hold sway? Don't you think it odd that parallelling those wondermous cultural shifts of the 1960's were huge changes in U.S. immigration policy- changes which were informed by the same ideology and brought about by the same people who brought us the racial justice of the Civil Rights Act? Don't you wonder why that even though given "equality of opportunity" and far more, blacks as a group commit many more murders among themselves and against whites than do whites?
I'm sorry, I just don't think that voluntary segregation is a match for equality of opportunity.
Now that we've accomplished equality of opportunity and much more, perhaps we should ask if the benefits of attaining equality of opportunity is a match for the benefits of becoming the next South Africa or Brazil.
I know King was heavily influenced by communists, but that doesn't mean that they were wrong on racial injustice, regardless if it was a plot to subvert America.
What is your definition of racial justice, in the context of the American experience? Do you separate the "racial justice" motivations of the "communists" from their "subvert America" motivations? If so, how?
And welcome to OD.
2003-07-26 01:45 | User Profile
Weisbrot and others,
By welfare debate I mean the argument of how to set blacks up for success. CRA 1964 eliminated the barrier and so theoretically minorities can rise. I like that. It's a noble thing and even though it is difficult, at least they can rise now. But now we've moved on and are questioning if simply eliminating the de jure barriers is enough. It's a very complicated issue as you know, with good arguments on both sides. Should we give them more welfare and affirmative action to give them a better chance? Is that noble or perhaps going too far?
Ok stepping back for a moment. I know where you all are coming from, so let me tell you where I stand. I don't like ideology; liberal or conservative. I go for practicality and reason. I sympathize with passionate conservative ideology, but don't support it because it lacks strategy. You have to be in a certain frame of mind to support practicality, compromise and strategy. What I see here is a lot of complaining.
I've asked for the alternative reasonable argument against King's simple request that the black man at least be given a chance, and all I see are answers that point to communism and Frankfurt school subversion. That's not good enough. Once again, there were some who wanted to subvert America, but I contend other factors like rock music, Vietnam, affluence, and coping with a new multicultural America, did the real damage. But we should strive to make it work because it can.
The main point is, arguing MLK was wrong because he was communist or because jews had insincere motives is not an argument at all, but smear by association. Do you see this? I could put up the most eloquent argument, but you would just dismiss all of it as communist. But can't a communist be right on one thing? Can a national socialist? Forget communists and jews for a second and defend a state's right to put blacks in the back of the bus...it just cannot be done by a sincere person. Slavery and segregation needed to change as America modernized.
Perhaps we can agree that at one time slavery and segregation were justified, but they outlived their legitimacy.
-Merc
2003-07-26 02:21 | User Profile
Merc, howdy -
Assuming you're white,
Tell me, have you spent much time among blacks? I'm not talking about that nice fellow in the office down the hall, I mean living for years in heavily black areas, or attending a majority black school, something like that.
2003-07-26 03:01 | User Profile
Originally posted by MercuryMan@Jul 25 2003, 19:45 * *Weisbrot and others,
By welfare debate I mean the argument of how to set blacks up for success.ÃÂ CRA 1964 eliminated the barrier and so theoretically minorities can rise.ÃÂ I like that.ÃÂ It's a noble thing and even though it is difficult, at least they can rise now.**
"Minorities" (Blacks) could rise back in segregation times. In fact, most of the truly accomplished black intellectuals flourished during the segregated era. However no amount of social intervention will eliminate biological differences between the races, a fact which you seem incapable of understanding.
Should we give them more welfare and affirmative action to give them a better chance?ÃÂ Is that noble or perhaps going too far?
Again, no amount of irresponsible social intervention and bleedingheart rhetoric will eliminate genetic differences in ability; all interventionist programs, like affirmative action do is place grossly unqualified blacks into high-level jobs, and breed racial resentment.
Ok stepping back for a moment.ÃÂ I know where you all are coming from, so let me tell you where I stand.ÃÂ I don't like ideology; liberal or conservative.ÃÂ I go for practicality and reason.
"Practicality and reason" should tell you that destrying the freedom of association will not make genetic differences between the races disappear.
What I see here is a lot of complaining.
All I see in your posts is complete ignorance of the issues discussed and a complete disregard for evidence contradicting your fantasy that all black backwardness is due to "white racism".
**I've asked for the alternative reasonable argument against King's simple request that the black man at least be given a chance, and all I see are answers that point to communism and Frankfurt school subversion.ÃÂ That's not good enough. **
That's either a boldfaced lie or a demonstration of your poor ability to read. I've provided plenty of evidence and cogent arguments to answer your cticisms in my second post in this thread. Please red over it carefully, and click on each link. I am usually very generous to anti-racists in a debate, but when someone like you starts obnoxiously iignoring my posts simply because they utterly debunk the ridiculous strawmen that you build your arguments on, I become offended.
**ÃÂ Slavery and segregation needed to change as America modernized.ÃÂ
Perhaps we can agree that at one time slavery and segregation were justified, but they outlived their legitimacy.**
Please quit lumping slavery and voluntary segregation together. I don't see anyone here supporting slavery, or any other type of supremacism for that matter, so please stop building strawmen. What we do defend is a person's constitutional right to associate and socialize with whom he sees fit.
2003-07-26 03:07 | User Profile
Ruffin,
As a matter of fact yes. I ride the train and bus and get more than my required daily dose of diversity. Would I like the train or bus to be more white? Sure. I'd also like to see people dress with a little more pride. Heck I wish I had a private jet, but not at the expense of denying blacks the ability to rise. I don't fancy white guilt, but they are humans for heaven's sake. I just cannot support a system where even the best black is still lower than the vilest white.
Now discrimination based on dress code I would ardently support, effectively rooting out much of the ghetto and trash atmosphere.
-Merc
2003-07-26 03:23 | User Profile
MLK believed that once Jim Crow, segregation and other racially explicit laws were abolished, the races would eventually achieve social and economic parity. If blacks and whites were in fact equal in ability and behavior, he would have been right. But they're not, so he was wrong as far as that goes.
Today, we do not judge individuals of different races by the "content of their character," or their abilities, habits, or qualifications. Such a meritocracy would consign blacks, with their lower average intelligence and their predeliction to crime, substance abuse, and general social pathology, to positions of less prestige, trust, and income than whites. In short, such a state of affairs would violate legal principles of "disparate impact." So we have quotas, race-norming, and other devices to produce something like equality of result, and equality of demographic representation. These devices are not a "headstart" to help people who had been held back for so long, as Dr. King suggested. It takes more than a headstart to keep a paraplegic neck-to-neck with a healthy runner. They are, rather, an ongoing governmental task, like levy repair or sewage control or defense. The only difference is that instead of assigning money and labor from the private sector to the public to fulfil those civic roles, we are transferring wealth, jobs, university slots, etc. from whites to blacks. And this transfer will be a permanent feature of our society as long as whites and blacks live in the same polity and as long as we require that blacks are represented in our economic, social and political life to an extant comparable with their share of the population.
Was King right to want to end segregation? Yes - I'm a white nationalist, not a white supremacist. Whites should not dominate blacks as they did. But whites and blacks cannot be both free and equal as King hoped. What we can do is have racial self-rule in entirely separate countries.
2003-07-26 04:50 | User Profile
How can one argue against something so noble: Judge a man based on his character not skin color?
First, recognize that "skin color" is a proxy for race, or genetic distance/similarity. Physical appearance is obvious; color has been a convenient label and correlates well with other genetic features, but it's never been what people are most concerned about. It's just shorthand for something more complex. What you wrote means the same thing as:
"Judge a man based on his charcter, not his genetic distance from you."
Does that still sound noble? It should -- because the meaning hasn't changed.
But one might wonder, are you concerned with men only? What about women? Is the following also a noble sentiment: "Judge a woman based on her character, not her genetic distance from you"? I don't see why not.
What about children?
"Judge a child based on his charcter, not his genetic distance from you." Do you go along with that? Do you act accordingly?
Rousseau did -- he put his children in an orphanage and devoted his attention and resources to helping humanity indiiscriminately. Everyone else devotes a disproportionate amount of his tme and resources to his own children. How do you defend that decision? Though it's more attenuated, the principle governing your original statement is precisely the same as that governing this situation. You favor your children because they are closely related to you, and it is entirely appropriate and natural for you to favor other members of your own race. A race is nothing more than a very extended family. Indeed, with members of other races helping one another out, you owe other members of your race a duty to cooperate with them to advance your common racial (extended family) interests against the similar interests of other races (extended families).
Wanting to help black folks is fine, but only after you fulfil your obligations to your white brothers and sisters. We are in big trouble right now, and we're counting on you.
2003-07-26 05:26 | User Profile
Merc - I've lived most of my life in the deep South. For several years I "attended" a majority black school, complete with cops stationed in the hallways and a weekly riot. I don't mean to belittle or underestimate your experience but I think that riding to and from work with them is not necessarily as enriching an experience as being immersed in them all day, every day, for decades, especially for a child who's trying to learn (scholastics). The best thing I can say about it is that it makes a child grow up fast, but I still think it's something that only adults should have to experience.
I've heard a lot of racial idealism from people who haven't put in the time they think they have. It may or may not apply in your case but I think it's a valid distinction. I know you know that the fiercest opponents of Southern oppression of blacks lived in Boston.
2003-07-26 17:50 | User Profile
Ruffin, Even though black schools are terrible especially for whites, does not mean we should abandon what is true and noble.
mwdallas, I would treat my kids better than other's kids, white or black. I don't see any obligation to treat white kids who aren't my own any better than blacks. And I don't think whites are in as much trouble as you say.
Lewis Wetzel, MLK didn't ask for racial preferences. That's why I support him. Like feminism, the quest for racial equality has expired and now is being led by ideologues. So I separate reasoned liberalism from radical liberalism. Also you think racial rule in separate countries is the answer? Come on! We're not a bunch of Indian tribes here...
Leveller, I realize what has been instituted since CRA 1964 is not what MLK preached. But all the more reason to join mainstream conservatives since they fight the racial preferences, busing, and big welfare. You don't need to be a paleo for that.
2600, I strongly sympathize with your statement that whites are the only group striving to judge others by their character not skin color. That is mostly true, but not an excuse to forgo what is noble, reasoned, and right. Whites are on top and have two options: survival of the fittest or lend a helping hand. Which one you choose depends on your attitude. It's true that many elites choose the latter because they don't understand the pain the common man endures, but it's equally true that many common men choose the former because they become bitter.
Prodigal son, You know I support the Vryheidsfront. I do because their case is different. They have in common a very distinct culture, history, and religion. White separatism only brings together disgruntled Irish, Scots, Germans, Italians, Dutch, English, but more interesting muts of all these. I cannot support that.
Now here is where I lay down my cards. The world will never be perfect so it is important to believe in something that is beyond this world. For some it may be Hinduism, cults, or other kind of spirituality. Others may prefer science. For me it's Christianity. I believe it puts life in the right perspective. All I can do is present a reasoned argument for the things I believe in and with that a willingness to compromise should I lose. Call it naive but I believe in giving man the benefit of the doubt. I prefer to have an optimistic attitude.
What I see on a lot of these forums is the opposite. Many on this site know their stuff very well, but there is something missing. Love? Peace of mind? Humility?
The way some of you describe black intelligence compared to whites, you'd think there would be a lot fewer white trailer parks! This site takes on a religion of its own where passion rules over reason as Plato would say.
I'm trying to get the point across that mainstream conservatives aren't cowards or lackeys for the jews. The world isn't that black and white. Mainstream conservatives dislike the MTV culture, but believe it's not worth letting yourself fall into a bitter state of mind.
Of course mainstream conservatives and even some liberals prefer to be among people like themselves, but not at the expense of making a law, thereby denying even the best black a chance to move in. America has reached a unique point where de fact segregation is a sort of compromise. MLK just wanted that compromise and got it, now the rest is open for debate.
As for me I choose to get out into the real less-than-perfect-world, be the best I can be, which is what any man should be able to do, and in the meantime help Western Christian culture when the time and ingredients are right.
Sincerely, -MercuryMan
2003-07-26 19:52 | User Profile
*Originally posted by MercuryMan@Jul 26 2003, 11:50 * ** Ruffin, Even though black schools are terrible especially for whites, does not mean we should abandon what is true and noble. **
Merc, what could possibly be more true and noble than protecting one's children from a Zimbabwean existence? Have some, move them into the war zone, and watch your perspective change.
The rest of this tripe is too worn out for a 60s era teenage girl from Massachusetts to still buy.
2003-07-26 20:19 | User Profile
Franco comments on this thread:
[rustle] [rustle]
[rip]
[FLUSH!] [sounds of water swirling]
2003-07-26 20:23 | User Profile
[url=http://www.martinlutherking.org/]Michael "Martin" Luther King, Jr[/url] is the most overrated person in American history. He didn't have an original idea in his head. He plagarized everything. If he were alive today, I'm sure he'd still be supporting affirmative-action and pushing for reparations.
The way some of you describe black intelligence compared to whites, you'd think there would be a lot fewer white trailer parks! This site takes on a religion of its own where passion rules over reason as Plato would say.
Ah yes, I was just waiting for the good ol' "trailer park remark." :thd:
2003-07-26 20:27 | User Profile
*Originally posted by MercuryMan@Jul 26 2003, 11:50 * ** You know I support the Vryheidsfront. I do because their case is different. They have in common a very distinct culture, history, and religion. White separatism only brings together disgruntled Irish, Scots, Germans, Italians, Dutch, English, but more interesting muts of all these. I cannot support that.
**
Merc - the fact is, Whites in America, think of themselves as White before whatever their ethnic group is - and in fact, most are of mixed ethnic origin. In America, the term "White" does not simply denote a racial grouping but an ethnic group. In fact the case is very simmilar to that of the Afrikaners, who themselves are of mixed Dutch, German, French German, etc... derivation.
2003-07-26 20:31 | User Profile
*Originally posted by MercuryMan@Jul 26 2003, 11:50 * **
The way some of you describe black intelligence compared to whites, you'd think there would be a lot fewer white trailer parks! **
And how many white trailer parks are there, Merc? What is the poverty rate for Whites vis-a-vis the poverty rate for blacks? I can provide you with hundreds of peer reviewed sources (in fact, have already provided you with several), written by accredited scholars confirming the figures I give for Black IQ. Your remark about trailer parks is based on nothing more than watching too much Jerry Springer.
** This site takes on a religion of its own where passion rules over reason as Plato would say.ÃÂ
**
Apparently you don't see the irony of how well that remark applies to you personally. You simply choose to disregard whatever evidence I provide in order to continue attacking your strawman.
2003-07-26 20:42 | User Profile
MercuryMan,
Any scrapping of racial preferences in college admissions would lead to an immediate, precipitous fall in black and latino admissions. If you are against the preferences, you are implicitly in favor of this fall as the inevitabe outcome. Most anti-AA conservatives hide from this by claiming that admissions will equalise in the future. Most people around here are aware that this is simply false, but even if it was true, it wouldn't be true in the near future. Now what is the modern conservative to do when accused of acting against the racial interests of the groups who lose out under this new arrangement (they always are accused of doing so). A consistent colorblind conservative should be hostile to any claims of non-whites to having any group interests at all. The anti-preferences conservatives never do this however. They are always ready to demonize white group interest, and they are never ready to demand that everyone else reciprocates.
That's why the much touted 'colorblind society' isn't really virtuous, because it was never on the cards, and can't be created, and even those who claim to be in favour of it aren't actually willing to try. It's simply in opposition to human nature.
I'll end with a couple of questions: Do you think a black TV station is unreasonable in a colorblind society? Do you think a white TV station is unreasonable in a colorblind society?
2003-07-27 10:02 | User Profile
*Originally posted by MercuryMan@Jul 26 2003, 11:50 * ** Prodigal son, You know I support the Vryheidsfront.ÃÂ I do because their case is different.ÃÂ They have in common a very distinct culture, history, and religion.ÃÂ White separatism only brings together disgruntled Irish, Scots, Germans, Italians, Dutch, English, but more interesting muts of all these.ÃÂ I cannot support that.
**
Of course, one could make an argument from the fact that a great many self-described "White Nationalists" do not consider Italians, Spaniards, etc.. "white". However, this is nothing new, not is it limited to American Whites. For example, many of my Boer acquaintances from the former Transvaal consider the Cape Dutch [url=http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?p=191661#post191661]liberal mongrels.[/url] (IMHO, this is a stereotype that is not too far removed from the truth in most cases.) Does that mean that the Afrikaners are not an ethnic group, and you have no moral cause to support the Vryheidsfront? You decide...
2003-07-27 15:39 | User Profile
Prodigal Son,
Many Americans are no more mixed than many Europeans. Just look at Britain, it's people are a mix of English, French, Scots, Irish, Danes, Welsh, and Cornishmen ruled by a German Royal Family. In the past as many as six Languages were spoken in Britain at the same time. The French are mix of Latins, Normans, Germans, and Celts and in France the Languages Breton(Celtic), French(Romance), and German are spoken.
2003-07-28 02:43 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Faust@Jul 27 2003, 09:39 * ** Prodigal Son,
Many Americans are no more mixed than many Europeans. Just look at Britain, it's people are a mix of English, French, Scots, Irish, Danes, Welsh, and Cornishmen ruled by a German Royal Family. In the past as many as six Languages were spoken in Britain at the same time. The French are mix of Latins, Normans, Germans, and Celts and in France the Languages Breton(Celtic), French(Romance), and German are spoken. **
Faust - my point is, that due in part to the mixed ethnic (not racial) origin of American whites, as well as to the fact that they identify as part of the same group, the term "White" in America is not so much racial as it is ethnic.
2003-07-28 03:10 | User Profile
**I strongly sympathize with your statement that whites are the only group striving to judge others by their character not skin color. That is mostly true, but not an excuse to forgo what is noble, reasoned, and right. **
You know, I thought I was going to answer Mercuryman's points, and try to have a reasoned discussion, but then this...
What is "noble, reasoned, and right" is to protect YOUR OWN! NOT someone else's to the detriment of your own. Your responsibility SHOULD be to your people! You should become explicitly aware that yes, white people ARE closer to you than other races! That white people's civilization is closer to the one you would want to create and live in, especially if you have children! If not, move to Zimbabwe, get all noble and close to the locals, and see your wife raped, tortured and murdered, your friends and children destroyed by the "noble blacks" who just need not to be discriminated against!
You have clearly NOT done your homework on any of these topics! Go read the Color of Crime -- go see how the black folks that you would protect and "help rise" (what cr@p!) as if they were the same TYPE of humans as you are.
Conclusions in the Color of Crime: ââ¬Â¢ There is more black-on-white than black-on-black violent crime. ââ¬Â¢ Of the approximately 1,700,000 interracial crimes of violence involving blacks and whites, 90 percent are committed by blacks against whites. Blacks are therefore up to 250 times more likely to do criminal violence to whites than the reverse. ââ¬Â¢ Blacks commit violent crimes at four to eight times the white rate. Hispanics commit violent crimes at approximately three times the white rate, and Asians at one half to three quarters the white rate. ââ¬Â¢ Blacks are twice as likely as whites to commit hate crimes. ââ¬Â¢ Hispanics are a hate crime victim category but not a perpetrator category. Hispanic offenders are classified as whites, which inflates the white offense rate and gives the impression that Hispanics commit no hate crimes. ââ¬Â¢ Blacks are as much more dangerous than whites as men are more dangerous than women.
From another source I don't have at my fingertips at the moment: "It was not white privilege when the United States Department of Justice reports in their 1999 National Crime Victimization Survey that there were 192,182 crimes of violence committed against European Americans by an identified racial group that only makes up approximately 13 % of the population. And, there were 8,198 crimes of violence by European Americans against that same group, while European Americans comprised almost 70% of the population."
Even if you "decide" on the basis of your love for humanity and your preference to believe that blacks are only criminals because of their situations... let's pretend that fully HALF of these crimes were not crimes, were false claims by racist people or racist cops. Let's keep the 'white' crime rate (which includes Hispanic criminals, because the FBI counts Hispanics AS White when they commit crimes) at the actual reported number. So you've STILL got 96,091 black on white violent crimes and only 8,198 white on black crimes. So, yeah, they're just like you and me!! You fail your children, your fail your family by pretending that peace-love-dove can possibly work with a group that is CLEARLY NOT capable of living in a white civilization!
And before you say, oh, it's the poverty... WHERE is the massive crime in Appalachia, where there is massive poverty, but not much govt-al handholding and transfer of wealth (oh, and do more research than just watching the movie Deliverance, okay?)
Talk about naive and intentionally BLIND!
2003-07-28 03:22 | User Profile
Actually, MLK did support affirmative action. This interview excerpt was published in Testament of Hope: Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, edited by James M. Washington, (Harper, 1986)
On "Preferences" Reporter: "Do you feel it's fair to request a multi-billion dollar program of preferential treatment for the Negro, or any other minority?"
Dr. King: "I do indeed...Within common law, we have ample precedents for special compensatory programs. ... America adopted a policy of special treatment for her millions of veterans...They could negotiate loans from banks to launch businesses. They could receive special points to place them ahead in competition for civil service jobs...There was no appreciable resentment of the preferential treatment being given to the special group." -- (Interview,1965, p.367)
I guess Martin was the original "quota king".
2003-07-28 03:24 | User Profile
Originally posted by Fernando Wood@Jul 27 2003, 21:22 * *Actually, MLK did support affirmative action. This interview excerpt was published in Testament of Hope: Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, edited by James M. Washington, (Harper, 1986)
On "Preferences" Reporter: "Do you feel it's fair to request a multi-billion dollar program of preferential treatment for the Negro, or any other minority?"
Dr. King: "I do indeed...Within common law, we have ample precedents for special compensatory programs. ... America adopted a policy of special treatment for her millions of veterans...They could negotiate loans from banks to launch businesses. They could receive special points to place them ahead in competition for civil service jobs...There was no appreciable resentment of the preferential treatment being given to the special group." -- (Interview,1965, p.367)
I guess Martin was the original "quota king".**
Talk about a "level" playing field :lol: .
As I said before: the Civil "Rights" movement was about inavriably judging people in a more favorable light if the color of their skin was dark (and their features non-European).
2003-07-28 03:38 | User Profile
For Mercury and others, read this:
Myths of Martin Luther King by Marcus Epstein
[url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/epstein9.html]http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/epstein9.html[/url]
2003-07-29 01:52 | User Profile
**mwdallas, I would treat my kids better than other's kids, white or black. I don't see any obligation to treat white kids who aren't my own any better than blacks. **
I know that. My point is that those two facts are wholly inconsistent. You do not believe in the principle that supposedly underlies the "noble" sentiment.
2003-07-29 02:06 | User Profile
**Actually, MLK did support affirmative action. **
Thank you, Fernando. I thought was the case, but I did not know where to find the documentation.
2003-07-29 02:09 | User Profile
MercuryMan:
Even though black schools are terrible especially for whites, does not mean we should abandon what is true and noble.
I certainly don't see what is "noble" about not protecting my own children for the sake of a popular platitude.
What exactly is true and noble about forced integration? Blacks feel bad and are disadvantaged when they can't catch up or compete to a traditionally "White" education. Whites feel resentful and are disadvantaged when education is slowed down for Blacks. Toss ethnic strife and violence into the mix, and I don't see anything "noble". All I see are popular platitudes and feel-good remedies to soothe and create guilt complexes. Wake up, Man. You've been brainwashed.
2003-07-29 02:11 | User Profile
Leveller, Your reasoning is incorrect when you assume abolishing affirmative action leads to an immediate and abrupt decline in minorities on campus. There are other ways to ensure minorities remain. Read President Bush's amicus curiae: [url=http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/race/affirm/sp011503.htm]http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/race/affirm/sp011503.htm[/url] The fourth paragraph from the bottom describes fair methods to prevent any abrupt decline of minorities on campuses.
Also American Enterprise Institute's Karl Zinsmeister (judge him based on what he writes) wrote a convincing article explaining that the minorities who aren't prepared for the elite colleges will naturally end up in the colleges they are prepared for. Read here: [url=http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.17394/article_detail.asp]http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.173...icle_detail.asp[/url]
Now Leveller, a bleeding heart liberal would argue that's not good enough! But mainstream conservatives realize that the compromise to go with affirmative action, however well intentioned, would just be too much. It's a wonderful compromise! Noble, reasoned, and most importantly it can be argued that it is superior to the liberal strategy of pity handouts. That's what makes mainstream conservatism so beautiful-it is a solid dose of reality suited for its particular time period.
By the way that's what legitimate conservatism does: adapts to suit its particular time period. No doubt conservatism in the 1950's was different than "conservatism" in the 1850's.
Regarding your question of black television: I don't think it poses any harm, and they are the underdogs. White television? I don't see any need for it, but I would consider it potentially more dangerous given that virtually all who want it are whites with dangerous ideological leanings toward Nazism. I would much rather see programs devoid of ghetto and voyeuristic trash.
Fernando Wood, The quote in your post on MLK is cleverly abridged so his actual intent cannot be accurately deduced.
Madrid burns, You have a more compelling argument. True, King did support Operation Breadbasket, but if you read Epstein's article closely you will find MLK only agreeing with the statement that if 30% of an area is comprised of Negros, then theoretically, there should be 30% of Negros in the work place.
Furthermore, Operation Breadbasket was not affirmative action. It was a boycott strategy. This I am in complete agreement with. I don't believe in making laws for or against black participation in society. King merely wanted more blacks to be represented in the workforce, but he did not advocate passing a law forcing whites to hire blacks. This consistency is why conservatives use him so much as a model for legitimate conservatism.
-Merc
Galations 5:22-26
2003-07-29 02:47 | User Profile
Wake up, Man. You've been brainwashed
Forget it, Edana. He's beyond hope. He's fallen into a pee-cee coma and will never snap out of it.
[SIZE=1]The fact the he calls himself a "conservative" isn't fooling anyone. I mean, Dubya is a "conservative" too.[/SIZE] <_<
2003-07-29 03:02 | User Profile
Hey, I was in a coma once. Some just need communication.
MercuryMan: Stay, Lurk, and Learn. I'm going to recommend some browsing material for your spare time, [url=http://www.cycad.com/cgi-bin/pinc/index.html]here[/url], [url=http://www.amren.com/archive.htm]here[/url], and [url=http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books.htm]here[/url].
2003-07-29 04:26 | User Profile
Excellent post, Wintermute.
2003-07-29 09:13 | User Profile
And Wintermute wins the thread!
2003-07-29 17:16 | User Profile
Hi all:
I'm new to the forum, but have been lurking for awhile. I peek in from time to time, hoping to hear something new, looking for a sign of intelligence and perceptivity true sentience. Most times disappointed because all I see are the same tired rants, that I've been hearing over and over and over and over again for the last four decades. I don't need my anxiety, anger and negativism reinforced, and apparently negativity is very addictive, but not at all constructive-it doesn't solve the problem and we need solutions and problem solvers.
I know what the problem is, and yes the Jew has used a battering ram against society. But it is my considered opinion that we have forged the battery ram.
We have fertilized the field that the Jew plows.
That aside. Excellent discourse Wintermute, but nothing I haven't heard or said before.
What I want to see, or hear, are viable solutions.
We all know the "problems" and can support them with all sorts of literature and studies.
But solutions?
That is what I'm interested in. Don't look at me, I don't have any, but I also don't find any satisfaction in replowing the same ground, over and over and over again.
What use in plowing the ground, unless you can sow viable seeds that will sprout, be watered and grow.
The rhetoric on this forum has not proven, in my life time, to be viable, and though much seed has been sown, none has taken root that will produce a viable crop.
If it had, then there would not be these rants and this forum, for there is absolutely nothing new here that hasn't been said since before any of you were born.
Solutions not rants are needed.
I have a request. Can anyone provide me the name of one prominent and influential non Jewish economist or theorist, on either side of the ideological argument, conservative, liberal or libertarian, and one that has not been influenced by a Jewish economist?
2003-07-29 20:05 | User Profile
Originally posted by MercuryMan@Jul 29 2003, 02:11 * *Leveller, Your reasoning is incorrect when you assume abolishing affirmative action leads to an immediate and abrupt decline in minorities on campus. There are other ways to ensure minorities remain. Read President Bush's amicus curiae: [url=http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/race/affirm/sp011503.htm]http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/race/affirm/sp011503.htm[/url] The fourth paragraph from the bottom describes fair methods to prevent any abrupt decline of minorities on campuses.
Also American Enterprise Institute's Karl Zinsmeister (judge him based on what he writes) wrote a convincing article explaining that the minorities who aren't prepared for the elite colleges will naturally end up in the colleges they are prepared for. Read here: [url=http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.17394/article_detail.asp]http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.173...icle_detail.asp[/url]
Now Leveller, a bleeding heart liberal would argue that's not good enough! But mainstream conservatives realize that the compromise to go with affirmative action, however well intentioned, would just be too much. It's a wonderful compromise! Noble, reasoned, and most importantly it can be argued that it is superior to the liberal strategy of pity handouts. That's what makes mainstream conservatism so beautiful-it is a solid dose of reality suited for its particular time period. **
Mercury Man,
I claimed 'scrapping of racial preferences' would lead to a fall in minority admissions, not merely ending 'affirmative action' (presumably meaning explicit race quotas). This isn't simply an assumption on my part as you claim, it's the inevitable conclusion from the existence of large and persistent SAT score gaps. SAT tests are the best measure of meritocratic ability in widespread, general use. It's what they were designed for. If meritocratic testing is used as the basis for admission, admission rates for blacks and hispanics will drop noticably.
You say 'There are other ways to ensure minorities remain'. That's true, but I ask you, what is a supposed proponent of 'color-blindness' doing 'ensuring minorities remain'!.
The purpose of the Bush 'friend of the court' slipperiness is to support race preferences, not to oppose them. Disallowing explicit quotas while strongly encouraging other means to achieve exactly the same ends: "Some states are using innovative ways to diversify their student bodies. Recent history has proven that diversity can be achieved without using quotas."
The opposition to explicit quotas is a worthless sop to anti-AA types, which gives nothing of substance away. In one way, not having explicit quotas strengthens race preferences because it makes them a more diffuse target. Bush would be in real trouble if he actually opposed race preferences (imagine that!). The 'conservative' merely wants to do hypocritically and deviously what the 'bleeding heart liberal' wants to do honestly. An excellent dissection of this can be found here: [url=http://www.vdare.com/sailer/cognitive_dissidence.htm]http://www.vdare.com/sailer/cognitive_dissidence.htm[/url]
The Bush administration, the supreme court, and yourself all support racial preferences - unofficial ones, but only for purely strategic reasons. Proportional representation of races is in opposition to color blindness. The Bush administration, the supreme court, and yourself, all oppose color blindness.
Originally posted by MercuryMan@Jul 29 2003, 02:11 * By the way that's what legitimate conservatism does: adapts to suit its particular time period. No doubt conservatism in the 1950's was different than "conservatism" in the 1850's.*
That nihilistic model of conservatism is what has given us what we effectively have today. 'Conservatives For Multiculturalism'.
Originally posted by MercuryMan@Jul 29 2003, 02:11 * Regarding your question of black television: I don't think it poses any harm, and they are the underdogs. White television? I don't see any need for it, but I would consider it potentially more dangerous given that virtually all who want it are whites with dangerous ideological leanings toward Nazism.*
Black assertion of group interests: 'harmless, underdogs' White assertion of group interests: 'dangerous, nazis'
A perfect fit with the reigning racial ideology, multiculturalism: Non-White group interests are legitimate and to be supported. White group interests are illegitimate and to be repressed.
Spoken like a true modern conservative, but - to return to your original proposition - color blind it isn't.
2003-07-29 21:59 | User Profile
** Nein Gott wrote:
The rhetoric on this forum has not proven, in my life time, to be viable, and though much seed has been sown, none has taken root that will produce a viable crop. **
Viable, Hell! It has not been tried, except in Nazi Germany -- and we killed them for it.
If conned-servatives would get off their asses and shine the spotlight on the Jew and do it daily in every school and magazine and TV show, results could happen. But nooo.....besides, as long as Sally Suburbs has a cushy life in a nice neighborhood, with 2 cars in the driveway and a big-screen TV, what does she care?.... Besides, Jim BibleWacker -- her fave TV preacher -- told her that Jews are our fwends... pass the beandip and the remote, please..... soda?
2003-07-30 02:54 | User Profile
I think Mercury Man is wrong to deny that Martin Luther King would have supported affirmative action, although it is true that the actual governmental policy did not come into force until after his death. We have Richard Nixon, and his Labor Departmentââ¬â¢s Revised Order No. 4 of December 1971, to thank for that. It required:
all contractors to develop "an acceptable affirmative action program," including "an analysis of areas within which the contractor is deficient in the utilization of minority groups and women, and further, goals and timetables to which the contractor's good faith efforts must be directed to correct the deficiencies." Contractors were instructed to take the term "minority groups" to refer to "Negroes, American Indians, Orientals, and Spanish Surnamed Americans." The concept of "underutilization" meant "having fewer minorities or women in a particular job classification than would reasonably be expected by their availability." "Goals" were not to be "rigid and inflexible quotas" but "targets reasonably attainable by means of applying every good faith effort to make all aspects of the entire affirmative action program work. ( Stephen Cahn on the history of Affirmative Action (1995). [url=http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/Cahn.html]http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/Cahn.html[/url] )
So why should King shoulder responsibility for a policy promulgated over three years after his death? Perhaps because the following quote, taken from Marcus Epsteinââ¬â¢s article ââ¬ÅMyths of Martin Luther Kingââ¬Â (thanks, Madrid Burns) shows that King felt that ââ¬Åââ¬â¢underutilizationââ¬â¢ meant ââ¬Ëhaving fewer minorities or women in a particular job classification than would reasonably be expected by their availability.ââ¬â¢Ã¢â¬Â:
In a 1968 Playboy interview, he said, "If a city has a 30% Negro population, then it is logical to assume that Negroes should have at least 30% of the jobs in any particular company, and jobs in all categories rather than only in menial areas." King was more than just talk in this regard. Working through his Operation Breadbasket, King threatened boycotts of businesses that did not hire blacks in proportion to their population.
In his reply to Madrid Burns, Mercury Man paraphrased Kingââ¬â¢s statement while arguing that King only meant to use private action, a boycott, to ensure proportionate hiring. While he may not have specifically called for an affirmative action law (who was in 1968?), I think King would have welcomed Nixonââ¬â¢s action. Why shouldnââ¬â¢t King have supported forcing employers to hire blacks? After all, he supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forced private businesses (otherwise known as ââ¬Åpublic accommodationsââ¬Â) to serve blacks.
Whatever else Martin Luther King was, he was not a libertarian.
2003-07-30 03:49 | User Profile
Thankfully, Uncle Franco knows how to fix the problem, regardless of who created it. Just round up everyone who doesn't fit our ideological model. Simple. Hitler had the right idea. [So did Stalin, I admit, in that one single regard -- although Stalin was a tampon user, a ball-sniffer and a mass-slayer who makes me feel creepy just thinkin' about him... :) ]
2003-07-31 02:50 | User Profile
La foundre folle, Your "thing" happens to be wishy washy thinking, not "words." What if this, what if that... As if figuring out that MLK's wishing for the day his posterity be judged not by skin color but character turns out to favor blacks changes anything! That's no secret. Of course he fought for just black interests, but it's legitimate because blacks were eternally subordinate under the outdated segregation laws.
Cold hard logic says it was time to end the racial hierarchy because it simply could not be defended. The opposition to integration just didn't have as good an argument. Brown v Board of Education showed that even an all white Court couldn't defend segregation. It was unanimus for crying out loud! Maybe 2 of the 9 justices were Jews but does anyone in here think the other 7 were incapable of thinking for themselves? If that is the case then perhaps whites don't deserve to run their own country! It wasn't some jewish conspiracy that overtook America.
Now here is where I am dissapointed in this forum. Most of you have already made up your minds to commit to a racial ideology. Guys like Franco want to "round" people up "like Hitler" did. What in the world is going on here? I sense more than a few in here sympathize with the Nazi regime, so I won't bother trying to argue. Instead I'll end with a question meant to wake some of you up.
Nein Gott asked for strategy. You, who sympathize with Nazism or who call yourselves staunch paleocons, don't have any strategy. Why do you think that is?
I'll save you time: Because you're living in a dreamworld...
-Mercury Man
2 Peter 2:1
2003-07-31 03:59 | User Profile
Save me Lord from the perception of the US government and its agents as moral arbiters.
2003-08-01 09:42 | User Profile
Brilliant job Prodigal. To the guy who started this thread:
[img]http://www.michaelsoft.com/files/images/forumstuff/dude-owned.jpg[/img]