PDA

View Full Version : Let's all join this forum


Pages : [1] 2

Nyx
01-27-2007, 01:06 AM
The thugs who attacked Jared Taylor post here:

http://media.locals.ca/localsconf/index.php

They have posted their pictures here:

http://media.locals.ca/localsconf/viewtopic.php?t=88243

Also:

http://media.locals.ca/localsconf/viewtopic.php?t=87412&highlight=

Johnson
01-27-2007, 02:10 AM
Ixy,

I don't think these people are particularly threatening or even worth confronting.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/nevilleishot/HPIM1508.jpg

sugartits
01-27-2007, 02:12 AM
They have posted their pictures here:

http://media.locals.ca/localsconf/viewtopic.php?t=88243


Most of the men have a fairy feminine appearance.

What a bunch of dorks.


Someone says:

"I know you guys think this is a really impressive display of solidarity, and in some ways it is, but really you're all being fucking stupid. I know you all have a false sense of security because of your strength in numbers and the fact this site is very public. The comments are fine, the fun little flamewar between their forum and ours is fine, but putting your pics up with your full names and addresses? Totally fucking stupid.

Have any of you ever actually met any of the people from the hardcore side of white supremacy? Do you think because they're not on TV any more and have been reduced to the internet that they're not a threat? Well they are, they've just been driven underground.

I had the misfortune to share a discourse with several members of the Heritage Front in Kitchener a decade ago. Believe me, there are people associated with stormfront that wouldn't hesitate to make an example out of one of you. And the way they operate is they'll wait until this shit is long forgotten, trust me.

Sean, even though it's cached in a million places now, you should either delete this post, or at least the names and addresses. The above threat is the most serious one, and don't forget other opportunistic elements of the crime world."

Starr
01-27-2007, 02:16 AM
Troll them, ix, you are the master.:rofl: Do the Shawn Goldstein character, perhaps.:rofl:
I would only last about two seconds on there.

sugartits
01-27-2007, 02:18 AM
We should all go to Halifax, knock on their doors and throw pies in their faces.

edit: even better, ring the bell and run away!

Helios Panoptes
01-27-2007, 02:22 AM
Most of the men have a fairy feminine appearance.

What a bunch of dorks.


Someone says:

"I know you guys think this is a really impressive display of solidarity, and in some ways it is, but really you're all being fucking stupid. I know you all have a false sense of security because of your strength in numbers and the fact this site is very public. The comments are fine, the fun little flamewar between their forum and ours is fine, but putting your pics up with your full names and addresses? Totally fucking stupid.

Have any of you ever actually met any of the people from the hardcore side of white supremacy? Do you think because they're not on TV any more and have been reduced to the internet that they're not a threat? Well they are, they've just been driven underground.

I had the misfortune to share a discourse with several members of the Heritage Front in Kitchener a decade ago. Believe me, there are people associated with stormfront that wouldn't hesitate to make an example out of one of you. And the way they operate is they'll wait until this shit is long forgotten, trust me.

Sean, even though it's cached in a million places now, you should either delete this post, or at least the names and addresses. The above threat is the most serious one, and don't forget other opportunistic elements of the crime world."

Which page is that on?

Dances with Wolves
01-27-2007, 02:26 AM
:viking: Let Il Ragno at 'em, there will be no mercy!

Mike
01-27-2007, 02:30 AM
These people are pressing their luck. All they have to do is bait the wrong person.

Dances with Wolves
01-27-2007, 02:31 AM
Haha an adminstrator has to approve the account. LAMERS!

Leonard Smalls
01-27-2007, 02:32 AM
We should all go to Halifax, knock on their doors and throw pies in their faces.

edit: even better, ring the bell and run away!

Yeah, cow pies.

Dances with Wolves
01-27-2007, 02:35 AM
Sandwiches. Knuckle sandwiches. Boot Parties. Ya'll come back now, hear?

Straight Satan
01-27-2007, 02:39 AM
These people are pressing their luck. All they have to do is bait the wrong person.

I don't care for Duke any more, but that guy's arms are as big around as my head.

Helios Panoptes
01-27-2007, 02:43 AM
The newest registered user is Helios Panoptes...............

Leonard Smalls
01-27-2007, 02:49 AM
I don't care for Duke any more, but that guy's arms are as big around as my head.

No shit. I guess he made good use of his time in the pen.

Helios Panoptes
01-27-2007, 03:15 AM
If any of you post, link to the threads here.

Der Sozialist
01-27-2007, 03:16 AM
The newest registered user is Der_Sozialist

Der Sozialist
01-27-2007, 03:20 AM
On further inspection, the website seems to be a chit-chat forum for punks of some sort. I am not sure if this website is specifically devoted to ant-racist activism considering there are no individual phora for such discussion.

Helios Panoptes
01-27-2007, 03:27 AM
I intended to post on the Jared Taylor thread, but I see that it has been locked.

Ix, start some troll threads.

Der Sozialist
01-27-2007, 03:29 AM
I intended to post on the Jared Taylor thread, but I see that it has been locked.

Ix, start some troll threads.
Has your account been approved yet?

Helios Panoptes
01-27-2007, 03:32 AM
Has your account been approved yet?

Yes, I am logged in. Check your email, it came pretty soon after I registered.

Fenrisulfr
01-27-2007, 03:36 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/nevilleishot/HPIM1508.jpg


I don't feel like joining another forum, but can you post more funny photos of their members?




:Bluvens:

Der Sozialist
01-27-2007, 03:38 AM
Yes, I am logged in. Check your email, it came pretty soon after I registered.
I did-- nothing so far. Perhaps the administrator has yet to get to my account. Either way, I will get back to that website tomorrow.

EDIT: I just noticed--They did send a message but my filter sent it directly into the spam folder. However, my account is listed as inactive until further approval.

Helios Panoptes
01-27-2007, 03:42 AM
http://media.locals.ca/localsconf/viewtopic.php?t=88460

:rofl:

Helios Panoptes
01-27-2007, 03:52 AM
I did-- nothing so far. Perhaps the administrator has yet to get to my account. Either way, I will get back to that website tomorrow.

EDIT: I just noticed--They did send a message but my filter sent it directly into the spam folder. However, my account is listed as inactive until further approval.

Ignore that. I received the same message, then to check if I was active, I clicked reply and got a blank box into which to enter a message. I have also voted on a poll.

Vasily Zaitsev
01-27-2007, 03:59 AM
Ignore that. I received the same message, then to check if I was active, I clicked reply and got a blank box into which to enter a message. I have also voted on a poll.

You're going to get very bored, very quickly there.

It's a forum for pop music enthusiasts whose opinions are based on nothing more than fashion.

Also, given the gross number of people who voted to involve the RCMP in their tiff with Stormfront, it's a magnet for faggots.

Der Sozialist
01-27-2007, 04:04 AM
You're going to get very bored, very quickly there.

It's a forum for pop music enthusiasts whose opinions are based on nothing more than fashion.

Also, given the gross number of people who voted to involve the RCMP in their tiff with Stormfront, it's a magnet for faggots.
I think our presence will add some conflict to the website—thereby making it interesting. Judging from some of their responses, these people are predisposed to hysterics.

I still cannot log on, unfortunately—I will try again tomorrow.

Starr
01-27-2007, 04:10 AM
This is me in makeup, aside from a race traitor, I'm also a cross dresser

LMWAO! is this person actually for real or has someone else been trolling there?

OVERWATCH
01-27-2007, 04:38 AM
...............

Your account has been created. However, this forum requires account activation by the administrator. An e-mail has been sent to them and you will be informed when your account has been activated

Mentious
01-27-2007, 04:59 AM
I set up an account too. The women there in particular need some positive White missionary work. Account not activated yet.

Mike
01-27-2007, 05:04 AM
Is there any way we can persuade Mental Ward Kendall to sign up there?

Björn
01-27-2007, 06:06 AM
I set up an account too. The women there in particular need some positive White missionary work. Account not activated yet.

This can be understood in two ways...

I like both! :D

Dances with Wolves
01-27-2007, 06:08 AM
Is there any way we can persuade Mental Ward Kendall to sign up there?
Doubtful. Feindall's forte is disrupting WN forums, or in the Phora's case, free speech forums.

Helios Panoptes
01-27-2007, 10:23 AM
I don't recall when I last saw a more ragtag assemblage of human refuse: http://www.rockinhalifax.net/messageboard/viewtopic.php?t=18588&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

The relevant SF thread: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/jared-taylor-attackers-brad-religion-357944.html?highlight=jared+taylor

tempus fugit
01-27-2007, 12:09 PM
I don't recall when I last saw a more ragtag assemblage of human refuse: http://www.rockinhalifax.net/messageboard/viewtopic.php?t=18588&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

The relevant SF thread: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/jared-taylor-attackers-brad-religion-357944.html?highlight=jared+taylor

Agreed.....yuck!

I assumed that Canada, being cold and less populated, would have a MORE masculine ethic.

delete
01-27-2007, 01:05 PM
Agreed.....yuck!

I assumed that Canada, being cold and less populated, would have a MORE masculine ethic.

They are city people almost all of them. City people grow weak all over the world.

Vasily Zaitsev
01-27-2007, 02:03 PM
They are city people almost all of them. City people grow weak all over the world.

Quoted for truth.

The cultural divide in Canada is really striking, actually. Rural Canadians are, traditionally, very masculine and self-sufficient. Hunting, fishing, woodscraft, and hockey are their classical pastimes. Canadian city dwellers, on the other hand, have always had a reputation among North Americans for their effeteness.

An excellent illustration of this divide is in comparing Canadian and American gun politics. Urban American liberals who want to ban guns have to couch their arguments in terms of crime and safety. Canadian liberals speak very openly about banning guns for the sake of dismantling "rural, patriarchal culture." It takes a severely feminized social climate to get away with saying things like that.

OVERWATCH
01-27-2007, 04:05 PM
Still awaiting approval.

Don Quixote
01-27-2007, 04:09 PM
Still awaiting approval.They're on to you, 88. Even dimwits like these must realise something's up when there is a sudden onslaught of new and unknown members at their little yoghurt-knitting circle.

Helios Panoptes
01-27-2007, 06:47 PM
I am not from the area and I am able to post. It said in the email that I had to wait for my account to be activated, but I was able to post immediately despite this.

Der Sozialist
01-27-2007, 07:05 PM
I am not from the area and I am able to post. It said in the email that I had to wait for my account to be activated, but I was able to post immediately despite this.
I saw your post; my account is still inactive though. BTW, did you see some of the responses?

I'm going to piss on your leg.


its funny how you can take facts and twist them.

There ain't much you can twist out of " HEY I AM TAKING PICTURES OF YOU AND POSTING THEM ON THE INTERNET SOMEWHERE WHERE THE MOST LIKELY RESULT WILL BE YOU GETTING HURT"
THERE AINT MUCH YOU CAN TWIST OUT OF STALKING EXCEPT "WELL I LIKE YOU VERY MUCH "

OR "THIS HOUSE IS SO PRETTY< AND SO IS THIS GUYS BACK, ETC"

but... oh, there were 30 people there? well , how many of htem do you see are holding him and pulling him out of the room. per hapse 1 or two.

Is he getting hurt? NAH! he's 50 years odl, but he's super tough, apparently, or htey just weren't being violent.

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A MOTHERLY FIGURE PULLING YOU WITH FORCE OUT OF THE ROOM WHERE YOU WERE GOING TO SAY THINGS YOU SHOULDn"T AND A BAND OF HOODLUMS KICKING AND PUNCHING AND DRAGGING A GUY OUT.

i think? am i wrong?

they werent' violent.

I don't understand how his being 55 is relevant considering he appears to be in good physical health (55 =/= 80) and all they did was pull him out of a room. My Dad's 54, and he could totally take that. Obviously I'd be pissed, but not because of his age. He's not a frail old grandpa or anything.


EDIT: Next time someone gets a chance to post, they should post a link to the phora. I am guessing that they stopped activating accounts after helios.

Helios Panoptes
01-27-2007, 07:12 PM
No, I hadn't checked the site. I just got online a few minutes ago. That was a fairly tepid post on my part. These are fragile souls we're dealing with.

Do you fellows have access to proxies? Maybe if they cannot place you in the US for certain, they will approve you.

I would recommend trying to log in again just to be sure you haven't been activated unbeknownst to you.

Helios Panoptes
01-27-2007, 07:54 PM
EDIT: Next time someone gets a chance to post, they should post a link to the phora. I am guessing that they stopped activating accounts after helios.

Those of you who cannot log in should post your names here. I will start a thread on the Halifax forum complaining of the failure to approve new members.

I set up an account too. The women there in particular need some positive White missionary work. Account not activated yet.

At least you should be able to log in because you registered before me.

Response: http://media.locals.ca/localsconf/viewtopic.php?p=1296279#1296279

Daniel Shays
01-27-2007, 08:15 PM
Rural Canadians are [. . .] self-sufficient. That is to say isolated from society.
woodscraft Is an obsolete and ridiculous trade. As an artform it cannot help but be hostile to socialism due to its peasant nature.
Canadian liberals speak very openly about banning guns for the sake of dismantling "rural, patriarchal culture."That culture was dismantled by the industrial revolution. Rural individualists (libertarians, conservatives, survivalists) exist only because imperialism has retarded their assimilation into the urban working-class. Patriarchy and feminism are both indulgences of the middle and upperclasses.

OVERWATCH
01-27-2007, 08:53 PM
Those of you who cannot log in should post your names here. I will start a thread on the Halifax forum complaining of the failure to approve new members.


DEVS SOL INVICTVS

Der Sozialist
01-27-2007, 09:13 PM
DEVS SOL INVICTVS
They have as of now, completely deleted my account and I believe yours too.

tempus fugit
01-27-2007, 09:13 PM
I have never seen such effeminate men in my life...ever.

These guys are more effeminate than Chelsea fags who, while queer, can still kick ass.

Really speaks well for our race. :(

Helios Panoptes
01-27-2007, 09:22 PM
The following users have had their accounts deleted:

Mentious
DEVS SOL INVICTVS
Der_Sozialist

Why were these posters not approved?

http://media.locals.ca/localsconf/viewtopic.php?p=1296457#1296457

Helios Panoptes
01-27-2007, 09:34 PM
I will be surprised if I'm not banned soon. I'll start in with the proxies if they ban me.

Oblisk
01-27-2007, 09:38 PM
:confused::confused::confused:

Helios Panoptes
01-27-2007, 09:49 PM
These imbeciles are completely incapable of sustaining a debate. :rofl:

Der Sozialist
01-27-2007, 09:57 PM
BTW, which person here registered as Jonathan112?

Lily
01-27-2007, 10:00 PM
Damn I'm not even racist and I think these guys are losers.

I'm going to piss on your leg.
That is a puerile response. How old are you - 10? You're welcome to come back when you're old enough to make an intelligent contribution. Until then, do something you're more suited for than arguing with me on the internet, such as asking your mother why your body isn't changing as fast as your friends'.

Classic. :D

EDIT: Is IntoTheFire Ix?

Nyx
01-27-2007, 11:47 PM
http://media.locals.ca/localsconf/viewtopic.php?p=1296743#1296743

Nyx
01-27-2007, 11:59 PM
http://media.locals.ca/localsconf/viewtopic.php?p=1296777#1296777

Nyx
01-28-2007, 12:14 AM
All three of my posts were deleted.

OVERWATCH
01-28-2007, 12:35 AM
I have made two accounts: DEVS SOL INVICTVS, and Genghiz Khan, neither of which have been approved. It appears that they will not be approved either, as these 'tards have shown that they are afraid of that which they are incapable of- testing the mettle of their views against divergent opinion. This is, of course, not news, but I had hoped that I could upbraid these cowardly punks for shoving around a 50+ year old man.

Helios, if you would be so kind, please send my regards as to the "heroics" of a mob a assaulting 50+ year old man. Thx.

Dances with Wolves
01-28-2007, 12:38 AM
mine hasn't been approved either. I guess that's "liberal" democracy for you :)

Helios Panoptes
01-28-2007, 01:16 AM
I have made two accounts: DEVS SOL INVICTVS, and Genghiz Khan, neither of which have been approved. It appears that they will not be approved either, as these 'tards have shown that they are afraid of that which they are incapable of- testing the mettle of their views against divergent opinion. This is, of course, not news, but I had hoped that I could upbraid these cowardly punks for shoving around a 50+ year old man.

Helios, if you would be so kind, please send my regards as to the "heroics" of a mob a assaulting 50+ year old man. Thx.

All of your accounts have been deleted, I'm afraid.

It looks like Der Sozialist broke through.

Starr
01-28-2007, 01:29 AM
This is why I didn't even bother. These people are idiots who absolutely cannot defend their views if they are put to the test. They just "believe"(with all the fervor of a religious fundy) because that is what they have been taught for their entire life. That is why someone like Taylor must scare the hell out of them.

they just need an outlet for their thuggery and to believe they are actually some kind of revolutionaries when all they are doing is taking it upon themselves to "enforce" socially acceptable views. They are the most radical of conformists.

OVERWATCH
01-28-2007, 01:51 AM
All of your accounts have been deleted, I'm afraid.

It looks like Der Sozialist broke through.

I have re-registered.

Helios Panoptes
01-28-2007, 01:58 AM
I have re-registered.

Lol, you're already deleted. Try a completely innocuous name, like your first name.

P.S. They know about the Phora, so don't post the name.

Dances with Wolves
01-28-2007, 02:21 AM
The Der man got in because he has "Sozialist" in his name :D

Helios Panoptes
01-28-2007, 02:26 AM
The Der man got in because he has "Sozialist" in his name :D

No, they deleted that account. He got in with a different name, which is benign. If you want to register, I'd recommend waiting a few hours and trying a name with no political associations at all. Even that might not work, as Carl Rylander got deleted.

Also, you could try naming yourself after Trotsky. :D

Der Sozialist
01-28-2007, 02:49 AM
It looks like Der Sozialist broke through.
Yes, and after 7 posts, I was banned. Apparently, calling people cocksuckers is permitted but calling them imbeciles is not.

OVERWATCH
01-28-2007, 02:57 AM
That shitty, ill-managed bored is not worth the time. Leave them a link to the Phora. Should any decide to join, we will then process and delete the deficient mouth-breathers, keeping the more articulate ones (if there indeed are any) .

Helios Panoptes
01-28-2007, 03:31 AM
That shitty, ill-managed bored is not worth the time. Leave them a link to the Phora. Should any decide to join, we will then process and delete the deficient mouth-breathers, keeping the more articulate ones (if there indeed are any) .

It is done: http://media.locals.ca/localsconf/viewtopic.php?t=88700

I do not expect to see any of them turn up. They are incapable of putting their views to the test in fair, dispassionate debate and they know it.

Der Sozialist
01-28-2007, 04:15 AM
The Der man got in because he has "Sozialist" in his name :D
I actually was surprised that they did not accept my present moniker—which certainly does not indicate any Spam Bot or WN tendencies. Either way, I was Zeta after they nixed:

Alpha
Beta
Gamma
Delta
Epsilon

Der Sozialist
01-28-2007, 04:20 AM
It is done: http://media.locals.ca/localsconf/viewtopic.php?t=88700

I do not expect to see any of them turn up. They are incapable of putting their views to the test in fair, dispassionate debate and they know it.
I still do not know why they banned me—was it because I called that guy a imbecile or alluded to the notion that he was not secure with his own masculinity?

I have to use a Proxy to even access their website now.

The admin is not giving a reason or responding to your threads. I believe I lasted longer on a certain Jewish forum longer when I trolled them pretending to be a jihadi (note: this was several years ago when I was still in high school and somewhat immature).

OVERWATCH
01-28-2007, 04:42 AM
Off topic stuff moved here (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=10572)

Mentious
01-28-2007, 04:44 AM
Thank you. I swear the gay trolls are constantly gunnin' for me. (I wonder why.) And it really messes up threads when they go off topic like that.

Hippias
01-28-2007, 07:18 AM
I registered yesterday, but I was not sent the confirmation email by the board's admin.

Mentious
01-28-2007, 07:30 AM
They seem very chicken about encountering real live "racists" (Oh my!) and having them swarm their board. They obviously must be watching this thread here at Phora. With a statistics tracker you can see who is visiting your website, that is, where they are coming from. (Because of the original link in post 1.)

SlagMaster
01-28-2007, 07:32 AM
We should all go to Halifax, knock on their doors and throw pies in their faces.



I was thinking along the same lines, but using fecal matter instead of pies,
but that might just excite them into a higher state of Homo-Scat-Activity ...

Mentious
01-28-2007, 07:36 AM
Julian Lee: I set up an account too. The women there in particular need some positive White missionary work. Account not activated yet.
Ugly A: Is that what the kids call it these days? Giving up on the celibacy?:rofl:
No, I was referring to the need to spread some racial self-understanding and pride among those White women, hopefully through some positive interaction with decent Whites, both men and women, who speak sincerely and positively. Nothing sexual was intended at all. And no, I would not give up on chastity because it gives so many benefits.

Richard Parker
01-28-2007, 07:37 AM
It is done: http://media.locals.ca/localsconf/viewtopic.php?t=88700

I do not expect to see any of them turn up. They are incapable of putting their views to the test in fair, dispassionate debate and they know it.

Wow.

You guys still think that that Mootstormfront is a bunch of blowhards? :D

Helios Panoptes
01-28-2007, 07:55 AM
50 posts in one day...I have the flu, so there's not much else for me to do. I have a headache and I am bored half to death with these Canucks. I can't stand their nonsense anymore. There are some amusing exchanges, though. I will go through my posts and find the best ones, when I feel like I can tolerate the effort.

Helios Panoptes
01-28-2007, 07:57 AM
It is amazing that I am not banned yet. I've been ridiculing them all day long.

Richard Parker
01-28-2007, 08:07 AM
It is amazing that I am not banned yet. I've been ridiculing them all day long.

I just had a look, you're getting in pretty deep with them.

Soon you'll be a regular and, in a few months, a veteran. :p

Helios Panoptes
01-28-2007, 08:10 AM
I just had a look, you're getting in pretty deep with them.

Soon you'll be a regular and, in a few months, a veteran. :p

I don't think I'll see tomorrow on that board. Plus, I've had all of it that I can take. I insulted a few people, yes, but there's nobody there to debate. It's a waste of time, really, but it might be good for an elaborate hoax troll down the line.

Helios Panoptes
01-28-2007, 08:26 AM
Newest registered user is "poorhaus." He will be surprised to find that, unlike on his forum, everyone's account doesn't get deleted for supposedly being a spambot(as if that's the real reason).

Mentious
01-28-2007, 08:32 AM
I just found some of your posts there Helios. What a complete riot. Like this one:

"TORSO, The Phora is not for you, anyway. You're not smart or civil enough. The Phora is for people who like to dispassionately and reasonably debate subjects that interest them. The Phora is not for inarticulate, lowlife imbeciles who talk about shanking people. It's nice to see you admit that you're a violent, thuggish psycho, though."

"I do not derive my ideology from punk music slogans."
--Helios on the Canadian Self-Hating Nebish website

One of the nebishes responds to that:
"neither do i, i'm just saying, stop being a nazi, or whatever kind of racist shit you are, fuck off, and go somewhere else
how about we ethnic cleanse your god damn ass, it probably needs it"

Another nebish says: "hey Helios Panoptes, do the words "nazi punks, fuck off!" mean anything to you ? go try to sell that shit somwhere else."

Helios responds: "You seem to be having a psychotic episode. Here is a website for you:" and directs him to a pharmacy.

Helios really shines there folks. Go and see.

These people live in some kind of bubble and have a big shortage of brain cells. Everythings a "nazi" and that's about it.

Oblisk
01-28-2007, 09:00 AM
I bet they don't know what Nazi stands for.

tempus fugit
01-28-2007, 12:00 PM
You owned them Helios, and as time goes on, the more the memory of that exchange will appear a victory.

I've never seen men act so woman-like.

Lily
01-28-2007, 12:39 PM
Hawking, please don't insult women that way.

OVERWATCH
01-28-2007, 03:44 PM
I particularly liked when that one subhuman 'torso' self-righteously condemned racists as "thugs", while, in the same post, wishing that Jared Taylor had been stabbed .



It's obvious you and you're fucking internet nazi thug crew are trying to stir shit up, and thus you should be banned. Give it up already.

....

And don't try to pull the "some punks kicked a helpless old man out from a friendly meeting". Fuck you. It's a shame no one has shanked that worthless piece of shit, along with the rest of you.

Don Quixote
01-28-2007, 05:35 PM
Go Helios, go! :viking:

What a collection of sad and sorry specimens of humanity.

ironweed
01-28-2007, 05:53 PM
Holy crap. My favorite stanza:

We used to be scared of you,
With your Luftwaffe, your gobbledygoo.
And your neat mustache
And your Aryan eye, bright blue.
Panzer-man, panzer-man, O You--



Nazi

You do not do, you do not do
black and brown who
I have lived among
for many years, poor and all the colors of the world
we're not scared of you

Nazi, we have had to shame you.
You've lived beyond your time--
Heart-heavy, ignoring the gold,
Ghastly statue with a salute
you're no big deal

Bald head in the freakish Atlantic
Where it pours grey rain into the blue
In the waters off Halifax harbour
It's sad but no one will pray for you
Ach, du.

We used to be scared of you,
With your Luftwaffe, your gobbledygoo.
And your neat mustache
And your Aryan eye, bright blue.
Panzer-man, panzer-man, O You--

Not God but a swastika
So black no sky could squeak through.
Every woman adores a Fascist,
The boot in the face, the brute
Brute heart of a brute like you.

Can't you see there's a stake in your fat black heart
And the villagers never liked you.
They are dancing and stamping on you.
They always knew it was you.
Nazi, Nazi, you bastard, you're through

Lieutenant William Bligh
01-28-2007, 09:36 PM
I set up an account too. The women there in particular need some positive White missionary work. Account not activated yet.

That forum is sick. There are Whites on there wishing that White people would have even less children than they are currently having.

It's like you think the Balrog is bad until you meet the Nazgul.

Kriger
01-29-2007, 02:10 PM
I see poorhaus is viewing this thread. I wonder will he summon the courage to post?

poorhaus
01-29-2007, 02:14 PM
"Let's all join this forum"? I'm expected to allow that, as a moderator? It's a clear attempt to hijack my boards with irrelevant, deliberately inflammatory, and straight-up boring discussion. Locals is not what I'd refer to as a "highbrow" discussion forum, as some parts of the Phora are referred to. It's mostly young people, discussing local music in the Halifax area. If you're only there to discuss non-music-related topics, and you do so en masse with the clear intent of trolling, I see no reason why I should allow it. I'm assuming the only reason Zeta got approved was because a different administrator rejected their first five or so attempts.

Further, I'm not allowing proxies, either. Unlike other boards, we offer no real expectation of anonymity on Locals. Since we all live in the same place - save for a few expats and interlopers from the Phora and Stormfront - we all know each other in real life, or mostly, anyway. I see quite a few of our users on a weekly basis. You can't walk into a bar with a mask on, and you can't use a proxy on Locals to conceal your identity.

Pat yourselves on the back all you want for allowing me to join, but the circumstances are obviously quite different. I'm here by invitation, and I intend to stay on-topic. You're on our boards against our wishes, and you have no interest in contributing any sort of relevant discussion whatsoever. Plus, you're obviously a bunch of egomaniacal kooks with an axe to grind. "All-seeing sun-god"???? Egads, man, check yourself. "The storm-tossed fury of unleashed minds"?? Get over yourselves.

Kriger
01-29-2007, 02:21 PM
Greetings, poorhaus. You are off to a rousing start.

Would you like to expound on the Jared Taylor incident for us?

poorhaus
01-29-2007, 02:27 PM
Greetings, poorhaus. You are off to a rousing start.

Would you like to expound on the Jared Taylor incident for us?

Indeed I would. Despicable and hole-ridden as Jared Taylor's ideology may be, the stunt that Brad and Aaron pulled was both foolhardy and counter-productive. They've brought way more media attention to Taylor's cause than he could possibly have garnered by himself, and the gesture of dragging him from the room not only discredits their cause but is also completely redundant, as the hotel put the kibosh to the event anyway, as soon as they realized they had a so-called "race realist" on their hands.

That said, we are still having oodles of fun Photoshopping Jared Taylor's face onto increasingly ridiculous situations.

ivory bill
01-29-2007, 02:43 PM
Holy crap. My favorite stanza:

We used to be scared of you,
With your Luftwaffe, your gobbledygoo.
And your neat mustache
And your Aryan eye, bright blue.
Panzer-man, panzer-man, O You--

I presume credit was given to Sylvia Plath.

OVERWATCH
01-29-2007, 03:31 PM
Indeed I would. Despicable and hole-ridden as Jared Taylor's ideology may be, the stunt that Brad and Aaron pulled was both foolhardy and counter-productive. They've brought way more media attention to Taylor's cause than he could possibly have garnered by himself, and the gesture of dragging him from the room not only discredits their cause but is also completely redundant, as the hotel put the kibosh to the event anyway, as soon as they realized they had a so-called "race realist" on their hands.

That said, we are still having oodles of fun Photoshopping Jared Taylor's face onto increasingly ridiculous situations.

Greetings.

I see that you oppose this attack against an old man, on utilitarian grounds, with respect to your ideology. Will you also condemn this attack on principle, that it is an assault upon one's person and an illegal disruption of a lawful gathering?

Winston
01-29-2007, 03:34 PM
Indeed I would. Despicable and hole-ridden as Jared Taylor's ideology may be, the stunt that Brad and Aaron pulled was both foolhardy and counter-productive. They've brought way more media attention to Taylor's cause than he could possibly have garnered by himself, and the gesture of dragging him from the room not only discredits their cause but is also completely redundant, as the hotel put the kibosh to the event anyway, as soon as they realized they had a so-called "race realist" on their hands.

That said, we are still having oodles of fun Photoshopping Jared Taylor's face onto increasingly ridiculous situations.

Nice to know you're having fun with Taylor. Now how about putting some of that effort into explaining what the holes are in Taylor's ideology? I'd like to see you give it your best.

delete
01-29-2007, 03:40 PM
Indeed I would. Despicable and hole-ridden as Jared Taylor's ideology may be, the stunt that Brad and Aaron pulled was both foolhardy and counter-productive. They've brought way more media attention to Taylor's cause than he could possibly have garnered by himself, and the gesture of dragging him from the room not only discredits their cause but is also completely redundant, as the hotel put the kibosh to the event anyway, as soon as they realized they had a so-called "race realist" on their hands.

That said, we are still having oodles of fun Photoshopping Jared Taylor's face onto increasingly ridiculous situations.

You don't criticize Brad and Aaron for using jewish tactics, you say that using jewish tactics is counter productive in this incidence.

tempus fugit
01-29-2007, 03:43 PM
What are the racial and religious demographics of Halifax?

Winston
01-29-2007, 03:52 PM
What are the racial and religious demographics of Halifax?


Here's the information you require:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Regional_Municipality%2C_Nova_Scotia#Demographics

No wonder they're pro-diversity, they don't have any. I noticed in the photo thread that their little group is disgustingly white.

Helios Panoptes
01-29-2007, 04:57 PM
"All-seeing sun-god"???? Egads, man, check yourself.

C'mon, that is a good username. Unlike many names I see, it is uncommon. Try :google:. My posts here and on your forum are right near the top of the list.

shanemac
01-29-2007, 04:58 PM
"Let's all join this forum"? I'm expected to allow that, as a moderator? It's a clear attempt to hijack my boards with irrelevant, deliberately inflammatory, and straight-up boring discussion. Locals is not what I'd refer to as a "highbrow" discussion forum, as some parts of the Phora are referred to. It's mostly young people, discussing local music in the Halifax area. If you're only there to discuss non-music-related topics, and you do so en masse with the clear intent of trolling, I see no reason why I should allow it. I'm assuming the only reason Zeta got approved was because a different administrator rejected their first five or so attempts.

Further, I'm not allowing proxies, either. Unlike other boards, we offer no real expectation of anonymity on Locals. Since we all live in the same place - save for a few expats and interlopers from the Phora and Stormfront - we all know each other in real life, or mostly, anyway. I see quite a few of our users on a weekly basis. You can't walk into a bar with a mask on, and you can't use a proxy on Locals to conceal your identity.

Pat yourselves on the back all you want for allowing me to join, but the circumstances are obviously quite different. I'm here by invitation, and I intend to stay on-topic. You're on our boards against our wishes, and you have no interest in contributing any sort of relevant discussion whatsoever. Plus, you're obviously a bunch of egomaniacal kooks with an axe to grind. "All-seeing sun-god"???? Egads, man, check yourself. "The storm-tossed fury of unleashed minds"?? Get over yourselves.

I vote we give this guy a taste of his own medicine and ban the fucker. :bbbat:

ivory bill
01-29-2007, 05:02 PM
Here's the information you require:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Regional_Municipality%2C_Nova_Scotia#Demographics

No wonder they're pro-diversity, they don't have any. I noticed in the photo thread that their little group is disgustingly white.

Sounds like a town in need of a heaping helping of Somali Bantus. I'll bet the White citizens of Lewiston, ME. would be willing to share some of theirs.

Kriger
01-29-2007, 05:03 PM
I vote we give this guy a taste of his own medicine and ban the fucker. :bbbat:

That's letting him off too easy, Shanemac.

I see Moxie Crimefighter is waiting in the shadows to make himself known.

He's gone again already.

Oh well.

Moxie CrimeFighter
01-29-2007, 05:08 PM
Firstly, It would be "herself," and secondly, I'm in the middle of writing a paper so I can't devote much time to a good, old fashioned internet argument. I'll be on later.

cyborg
01-29-2007, 05:08 PM
Locals is not what I'd refer to as a "highbrow" discussion forum, as some parts of the Phora are referred to. It's mostly young people, discussing local music in the Halifax area.

Locals sounds anti-diversity, anti-tolerant and non-inclusive toward outsiders. Everyone has the right to go anywhere and express themselves in what manner they wish. Right?

You can't walk into a bar with a mask on, and you can't use a proxy on Locals to conceal your identity.

Rumor has it that the most useful conformist government tools can walk into a hotel with a mask on without reprisal.

Plus, you're obviously a bunch of egomaniacal kooks with an axe to grind. "All-seeing sun-god"???? Egads, man, check yourself. "The storm-tossed fury of unleashed minds"?? Get over yourselves.

Good observation. Try it sometime. :)

shanemac
01-29-2007, 05:15 PM
OK... well if he is allowed to stay (a courtesy he did not extend to Phoraites who tried to join his forum), he should be forced to answer promptly and in detail, the questions which are directed towards him.

Otherwise can his ass.

I'll start....

Despicable and hole-ridden as Jared Taylor's ideology may be,


What part of JT's ideology do you disagree with?

Kriger
01-29-2007, 05:22 PM
OK... well if he is allowed to stay (a courtesy he did not extend to Phoraites who tried to join his forum), he should be forced to answer promptly and in detail, the questions which are directed towards him.

Otherwise can his ass.

I'll start....



What part of JT's ideology do you disagree with?

Just to catch you up on things, Shanemac, he was invited here to express his views. Read through the thread, and you will see what this is all about.

cyborg
01-29-2007, 05:31 PM
Adult children do not accept accountability for the cognitive dissonance they create within. No logical rationale justifies this internal discord. We will instead continue to observe reaction against the external (Phora, Taylor, etc.).

tempus fugit
01-29-2007, 05:33 PM
Here's the information you require:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Regional_Municipality%2C_Nova_Scotia#Demographics

No wonder they're pro-diversity, they don't have any. I noticed in the photo thread that their little group is disgustingly white.

LOL...so they are 97% Christian/non religious, and <5% non-white, and they have an opinion about these issues??!?!?!!?

Thanks Integrity!

Kriger
01-29-2007, 05:34 PM
Firstly, It would be "herself," and secondly, I'm in the middle of writing a paper so I can't devote much time to a good, old fashioned internet argument. I'll be on later.

My apologies.

Moxie should have been the clue.

Kriger
01-29-2007, 05:44 PM
By the way, did you know that Moxie was originally an elixer created by Dr. Augustin Thompson in 1876 under the product name "Moxie Nerve Food"?

It was claimed to cure maladies anywhere from softening of the brain to loss of manhood.

It was later carbonated and rivalled Coca Cola in popularity. Made of Gentian root, it is still sold in New England.

Moxie CrimeFighter
01-29-2007, 05:47 PM
I'm well aware of that, in fact a friend of mine (and another regular halifaxlocals poster) is borderline obsessed with the stuff and goes so far as to make special trips to Maine to pick up a case or two. Personally, I think it tastes like cough syrup...

Winston
01-29-2007, 07:12 PM
I vote we give this guy a taste of his own medicine and ban the fucker. :bbbat:

Absolutely not! We aren't afraid of him, let him speak. I'm looking forward to watching him flounder like those before him.

Winston
01-29-2007, 08:02 PM
I'd like to hear some of you actually address more of the major points in my rebuttal to Taylor's views, instead of falsely trying to paint me as a hypocrite with absurd little quips and rhetoric. Am I going to get some real debate here?

You haven't made any points yet, and I just searched your posts to make sure.

poorhaus
01-29-2007, 08:11 PM
You haven't made any points yet, and I just searched your posts to make sure.

I've made several salient points, and been met only with rhetoric, ad hominem, shoddy strawmen, and poor grammar. Read it again.

Boleslaw
01-29-2007, 08:24 PM
Here's the information you require:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Regional_Municipality%2C_Nova_Scotia#Demographics

No wonder they're pro-diversity, they don't have any. I noticed in the photo thread that their little group is disgustingly white.

You know I've always wanted to visit Nova Scotia; it seems like such a wonderful place.

In fact one of my favorite bands, Great Big Sea, is from there. Hey, poorhaus, have you had any interaction with them?

BTW, welcome to the Phora.

Winston
01-29-2007, 08:28 PM
I've made several salient points, and been met only with rhetoric, ad hominem, shoddy strawmen, and poor grammar. Read it again.

So far they have been weak even by liberal standards. So weak, in fact, that I can't even recognize them as arguments.

poorhaus
01-29-2007, 08:28 PM
You know I've always wanted to visit Nova Scotia; it seems like such a wonderful place.

In fact one of my favorite bands, Great Big Sea, is from there. Hey, poorhaus, have you had any interaction with them?

BTW, welcome to the Phora.

Thanks for the welcome. I've never met the Great Big Sea guys, as they're from Newfoundland, not Nova Scotia. I sort of liked the more Newfie-traditional records they put out earlier in their career, but I'm not fond of their poppier stuff.

poorhaus
01-29-2007, 08:30 PM
So far they have been weak even by liberal standards. So weak, in fact, that I can't even recognize them as arguments.

Do I have to lead you through it by the nose? Address the doctor-shortage issue. How many people have to die waiting for treatment before we recognize the untapped wealth of medical skill in this country?

Boleslaw
01-29-2007, 08:38 PM
Thanks for the welcome.

No problem. I figure the more diversity of opinions we have here, the better. I usually get along with peoples of various different perspectives. Plus, I usually tend to be aloof when it comes to inter-forum disputes like this.


I've never met the Great Big Sea guys, as they're from Newfoundland, not Nova Scotia. I sort of liked the more Newfie-traditional records they put out earlier in their career, but I'm not fond of their poppier stuff.

Sorry, my mistake. I often confuse the two areas. I certainly agree with you that their more traditional folk music is of far better quality then some of their more popular stuff. Sad how success for musicians often leads to the degeneration of their music. Ive seen this too many times. :(

Count Eustace II
01-29-2007, 08:38 PM
Do I have to lead you through it by the nose? Address the doctor-shortage issue. How many people have to die waiting for treatment before we recognize the untapped wealth of medical skill in this country?

First answer why there is a shortage of doctors in Canada in the first place. A doctor is a noble profession. Why aren't more Canadians interested in the job?

Rob Roy MacGregor
01-29-2007, 09:16 PM
The thugs who attacked Jared Taylor post here:

http://media.locals.ca/localsconf/index.php

They have posted their pictures here:

http://media.locals.ca/localsconf/viewtopic.php?t=88243

Also:

http://media.locals.ca/localsconf/viewtopic.php?t=87412&highlight=
Oh.... I'm afraid! :rolleyes:

http://ckdu.dal.ca/~mcatano/headshot.jpg

poorhaus
01-29-2007, 09:28 PM
Oh.... I'm afraid! :rolleyes:

http://ckdu.dal.ca/~mcatano/headshot.jpg

He looks tougher now that he has a beard. :)

Der Sozialist
01-29-2007, 09:32 PM
I've made several salient points, and been met only with rhetoric, ad hominem, shoddy strawmen, and poor grammar. Read it again.
The treatment that you received, here, seems rather benign compared to the treatment Helios and I received on your forum when it was under your supervision. I was also banned, for no apparent reason, while I was responding to some of the insinuations directed against Helios by Ger.

What kind of administrator are you when you allow a poster to go into lurid detail about sodomizing someone’s mother while banning someone for calling that person an imbecile?

Also, you should notice the flag in my profile—I am not a NAZI.

OVERWATCH
01-29-2007, 09:39 PM
The more thoughtful/serious posts since the arrival of our new members, from this thread, have been split here (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=19870) into the Lyceum.

Nyx
01-29-2007, 09:42 PM
You don't criticize Brad and Aaron for using jewish tactics, you say that using jewish tactics is counter productive in this incidence.Jewish tactics? What the hell are you talking about?

poorhaus
01-29-2007, 10:06 PM
The treatment that you received, here, seems rather benign compared to the treatment Helios and I received on your forum when it was under your supervision. I was also banned, for no apparent reason, while I was responding to some of the insinuations directed against Helios by Ger.

What kind of administrator are you when you allow a poster to go into lurid detail about sodomizing someone’s mother while banning someone for calling that person an imbecile?

Also, you should notice the flag in my profile—I am not a NAZI.

One more time - you were trolling, I was invited. Each board acted appropriately.

poorhaus
01-29-2007, 10:07 PM
Jewish tactics? What the hell are you talking about?

Hear, hear!

poorhaus
01-29-2007, 10:58 PM
The more thoughtful/serious posts since the arrival of our new members, from this thread, have been split here (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=19870) into the Lyceum.

Cool. That's where I'll be posting, if anyone's interested.

Helios Panoptes
01-29-2007, 11:06 PM
One more time - you were trolling, I was invited. Each board acted appropriately.

Do you believe that name calling and nonsense about sodomizing my mother is not trolling? Perhaps, I am myopic, but as I see it, it contributes nothing to discussion and it serves only as flamebait(ineffective flamebait, like I care...). It's not even witty or humorous. In addition, it violates one of your rules about civil and decent conduct. Several of your posters repeatedly behaved in a way that was neither civil, nor decent, yet at no point did you step in to tell them to cool it. Am I mistaken? Did you warn them in private?

poorhaus
01-30-2007, 05:26 AM
I thought it was a fair response, given your obvious intent. I decided to let the users have at you instead of just banning you right away. For the record, nobody was warned in private save for a few users who made really, really dumb remarks about the Taylor situation.

Helios Panoptes
01-30-2007, 05:33 AM
I thought it was a fair response, given your obvious intent. I decided to let the users have at you instead of just banning you right away. For the record, nobody was warned in private save for a few users who made really, really dumb remarks about the Taylor situation.

As I stated earlier on your forum, why do you have rules if do not intend to enforce them? If you want to allow users to act in a manner that is uncivil and indecent, that is your business. However, you have a rule that states that users should conduct themselves with civility and decency. Answer me a question: is calling someone "cocksucker" and talking about sodomizing his mother civil and decent?

Kriger
01-30-2007, 07:40 AM
Indeed I would. Despicable and hole-ridden as Jared Taylor's ideology may be, the stunt that Brad and Aaron pulled was both foolhardy and counter-productive. They've brought way more media attention to Taylor's cause than he could possibly have garnered by himself, and the gesture of dragging him from the room not only discredits their cause but is also completely redundant, as the hotel put the kibosh to the event anyway, as soon as they realized they had a so-called "race realist" on their hands.

That said, we are still having oodles of fun Photoshopping Jared Taylor's face onto increasingly ridiculous situations.

Hmmmm....despicable and hole-ridden. Obviously a personal opinion.

Just what do you profess to "know" about either Jared Taylor or his "ideology"? And what, in your opinion, is his "cause"?

As for the "oodles of fun", how old are you anyway. Fourteen, maybe? Do your parents know what their little boy is up to on the internet? Like sodomizing someone's mother? Does your mummy know you talk like this to strangers? Would you or your mummy like someone to talk like this about your mummy? Do you understand that in the adult world, not the make-believe one of little boys, men are held responsible for their words and their actions?

AJCrowley
01-30-2007, 08:42 AM
I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'll take a crack at responding anyway.
Just what do you profess to "know" about either Jared Taylor or his "ideology"? And what, in your opinion, is his "cause"?
I don't know much about his ideology, except that he preaches separation of the races. I can only assume that he understands that such a separation is unlikely to happen voluntarily. A world with enforced racial segregation doesn't sound very pleasant to most rational people.
As for the "oodles of fun", how old are you anyway.
It was fun. Plenty of adults enjoy image manipulation. I don't understand your problem with this.
Do you understand that in the adult world, not the make-believe one of little boys, men are held responsible for their words and their actions?
Do you understand that on the internet, people shit talk all the time? Sometimes it's fun, sometimes it's annoying, but when it devolves into thinly veiled threats against peoples' personal safety, it's always really fucking weak.

Starr
01-30-2007, 08:54 AM
A world with enforced racial segregation doesn't sound very pleasant to most rational people.

Explain how it is worse than a world with forced racial integration? Not all that long ago, this is sometime that would not have sounded pleasant to most rational people. Explain how it is worse than watching your elected officials do nothing while hordes of immigrants force their way into your country.

You are right that if you posed the question of racial segregation to people that they would react in the way you suggest, but how many people self segregate to some extent? How many white people do you think would choose to live in a majority black neighborhood. How many whites who are able abandon their old neighborhoods when scores of non-whites and all of the issues they seem to bring with them, time and again, move in?

Vasily Zaitsev
01-30-2007, 09:06 AM
http://i15.tinypic.com/2r28bbp.jpg

Racial integration did not happen peacefully. Pictured above is the desegregation of a school in Little Rock, AR at bayonet-point. Though I don't oppose state violence for progressive ends, it sounds like you do, AJ.

As for Taylor, to my knowledge he doesn't support repatriation or the establishment of racial/ethnic republics inside the US. I think the extent of his program is the abolition of all race-based legislation and then letting events unfold from there.

AJCrowley
01-30-2007, 09:10 AM
Explain how it is worse than a world with forced racial integration? Not all that long ago, this is sometime that would not have sounded pleasant to most rational people. Explain how it is worse than watching your elected officials do nothing while hordes of immigrants force their way into your country.
Immigration is an entirely different issue, and one on which we may have slightly more similar views. However, immigration is not (at least to me) an issue of race.

However, "forced racial integration" does not seem to me to be a valid argument. You're arguing a case of restriction against a case of freedom, with the rationale for your case being your freedom to restrict others.
You are right that if you posed the question of racial segregation to people that they would react in the way you suggest, but how many people self segregate to some extent? How many white people do you think would choose to live in a majority black neighborhood. How many whites who are able abandon their old neighborhoods when scores of non-whites and all of the issues they seem to bring with them, time and again, move in?
I'd go as far as to say that most people self segregate to an extent, but your assumption is that the segregation is based upon race, which I believe is a fallacy - it's based upon class. Poor white people live in the same neighbourhoods as other poor people (black or otherwise), not the same neighbourhoods as rich or middle class white people, and conversely, rich or middle class black people tend to live with other rich or middle class people, the division is a matter of class, and not at all of race.

AJCrowley
01-30-2007, 09:12 AM
Though I don't oppose state violence for progressive ends, it sounds like you do, AJ.
Define "progressive". If it's subduing a destructive mob, then I absolutely condone the use of force. However, if force is being used in the marginalization of a people based upon race, creed, sexual orientation, or class, then I find it hard to justify.

Vasily Zaitsev
01-30-2007, 09:15 AM
Define "progressive". If it's subduing a destructive mob, then I absolutely condone the use of force. However, if force is being used in the marginalization of a people based upon race, creed, sexual orientation, or class, then I find it hard to justify.

Progressive, as in moving society in the direction it wishes to go. Shooting a rabble of looters is basic policing. I was thinking more in a social engineering sense. Like the desegregation of that Little Rock school.

By the way, welcome to the Phora.

AJCrowley
01-30-2007, 09:18 AM
Progressive, as in moving society in the direction it wishes to go. Shooting a rabble of looters is basic policing. I was thinking more in a social engineering sense. Like the desegregation of that Little Rock school.
It's a tough issue, and one to which I don't see a straightforward answer, obviously each case should be judged on its individual merits, but when violent (particularly deadly) force is used against a non violent opposition, then we begin to venture into the realm of tyranny.
By the way, welcome to the Phora.
Thank you.

Starr
01-30-2007, 09:19 AM
However, "forced racial integration" does not seem to me to be a valid argument. You're arguing a case of restriction against a case of freedom, with the rationale for your case being your freedom to restrict others.

forcing people to live together and the use of force to achieve this as shown in the post above yours is not freedom. What would happen in this day and age if a man opened up some type of business, and chose to hire and serve only whites? This would not be allowed to happen. The actions that would be taken against him would infringe upon those freedoms you talk about.

What would happen if residents in an all white neighborhood wanted to keep out blacks? what happened with those who did in the past? Their rights and freedom of association were stripped from them for what amounts to nothing more than a failing social experiment.

Vasily Zaitsev
01-30-2007, 09:24 AM
It's a tough issue, and one to which I don't see a straightforward answer, obviously each case should be judged on its individual merits, but when violent (particularly deadly) force is used against a non violent opposition, then we begin to venture into the realm of tyranny.

Starr and I are essentially making the same point, though for different reasons.

The racial integration of the US happened violently and at the expense of a largely non-violent resistance (the Klan's violence, though ideologially based, was essentially apolitical due to its not being directed at the power structure and the Minutemen were too small to matter). Today it is upheld by violence because it is enshrined in law. All law eventually rests on the state's monopoly on force.

Do you think this is just?

AJCrowley
01-30-2007, 09:28 AM
forcing people to live together and the use of force to achieve this as shown in the post above yours is not freedom.
Agreed. I believe that for the most part, society is at a point where integration doesn't have to be forced upon most people, at least in the part of the world in which I live.
What would happen in this day and age if a man opened up some type of business, and chose to hire and serve only whites? This would not be allowed to happen. The actions that would be taken against him would infringe upon those freedoms you talk about.
I'd like to believe that this wouldn't happen - that someone wouldn't turn down a good candidate based on their race, and wouldn't turn away business. However, I can be incredibly naive. Hardcore free market capitalists would tell you that the market would take care of such a situation, but free market capitalists say a lot of things which have been demonstrated time and again to be false.

"Freedom" is a difficult subject, because often given one person a freedom takes away another's freedom. This is arguable in most cases, even when it's bullshit. Do I believe that someone should be able to run a business and refuse to serve people based on their race? Absolutely not, but this is an issue that can be sorted out by the legal system, and not at gunpoint.

AJCrowley
01-30-2007, 09:33 AM
Starr and I are essentially making the same point, though for different reasons.

The racial integration of the US happened violently and at the expense of a largely non-violent resistance (the Klan's violence, though ideologially based, was essentially apolitical due to its not being directed at the power structure and the Minutemen were too small to matter). Today it is upheld by violence because it is enshrined in law. All law eventually rests on the state's monopoly on force.

Do you think this is just?
Sometimes.

For example, in Hussein's Iraq (I have no love for the man, it's just a convenient example), women were given much more freedom than in many other countries in the region. The majority of the public are hardcore religious types, and if they have their way (which they are beginning to), women will become a highly marginalized section of their society. In this case, I believe it's better to enforce what's "right" versus the will of society (tyranny of the majority, and all that). So while I abhor the use of force if not necessary, sometimes I believe that it can be justified, particularly when protecting the rights of a section of society that's being marginalized.

Starr
01-30-2007, 09:40 AM
Do I believe that someone should be able to run a business and refuse to serve people based on their race? Absolutely not

Why? Shouldn't a person be able to decide who they want to do business with?

but this is an issue that can be sorted out by the legal system, and not at gunpoint.

the legal system would most likely force this person to either allow non-whites into their establishment or close them down. what would happen if he attempted not to comply with either? These laws are quite obviously backed up at gunpoint or with force. you cannot seperate the two. You know this and therefore agree with force on this issue since you believe it is justifiable. What is the difference between forcible segregation and forcible integration? Why do you call the former wrong while you seem to look at the latter as neccessary for your ideas about "freedom" Either could be said to take away the freedoms of some to give to others.

Vasily Zaitsev
01-30-2007, 09:42 AM
Sometimes.

For example, in Hussein's Iraq (I have no love for the man, it's just a convenient example), women were given much more freedom than in many other countries in the region. The majority of the public are hardcore religious types, and if they have their way (which they are beginning to), women will become a highly marginalized section of their society. In this case, I believe it's better to enforce what's "right" versus the will of society (tyranny of the majority, and all that). So while I abhor the use of force if not necessary, sometimes I believe that it can be justified, particularly when protecting the rights of a section of society that's being marginalized.

Though in a minoritarian fashion (not that there's anything wrong with that), you support progressive violence. I agree with you on that front, actually. Violence for social engineering, even if it contradicts the will of the majority, is often justified. Of course, I'm not a democrat in the general sense of the word.

However, now that we've established that you support state violence for social engineering you can no longer use the potential for forceful relocation as a stick to beat Jared Taylor's ideology with. It's actually something you two might have in common. So why, then, do you disagree with the man?

Saddam, by the way, was exactly what Iraq needed. The US invasion of his country was a gigantic mistake.

Kriger
01-30-2007, 09:45 AM
I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'll take a crack at responding anyway.

I don't know much about his ideology, except that he preaches separation of the races. I can only assume that he understands that such a separation is unlikely to happen voluntarily. A world with enforced racial segregation doesn't sound very pleasant to most rational people.

It was fun. Plenty of adults enjoy image manipulation. I don't understand your problem with this.

Do you understand that on the internet, people shit talk all the time? Sometimes it's fun, sometimes it's annoying, but when it devolves into thinly veiled threats against peoples' personal safety, it's always really fucking weak.

It might be a good idea to know what you are talking about before you jump in the middle of others communications.

From all indications, you have arrived full of shit. Spare me your sermons of righteousness. And kindly keep your shit for those who request it.

AJCrowley
01-30-2007, 09:46 AM
Why? Shouldn't a person be able to decide who they want to do business with?
To an extent. However, there are social standards (albeit changeable) of what constitutes fair reason to refuse service to someone.
the legal system would most likely force this person to either allow non-whites into their establishment or close them down. what would happen if he attempted not to comply with either? These laws are quite obviously backed up at gunpoint or with force. you cannot seperate the two.
Well if they choose to ignore court orders, it becomes a different crime. I can't see a situation where deadly force would be used, unless the owner holed up in their shop and started shooting at the people trying to remove them, in which case, deadly force is not being used to close down a business, but to deal with someone that's shooting at the police.

AJCrowley
01-30-2007, 10:04 AM
Though in a minoritarian fashion (not that there's anything wrong with that), you support progressive violence. I agree with you on that front, actually. Violence for social engineering, even if it contradicts the will of the majority, is often justified. Of course, I'm not a democrat in the general sense of the word.

However, now that we've established that you support state violence for social engineering you can no longer use the potential for forceful relocation as a stick to beat Jared Taylor's ideology with. It's actually something you two might have in common. So why, then, do you disagree with the man?

Saddam, by the way, was exactly what Iraq needed. The US invasion of his country was a gigantic mistake.
No, I've said that in certain circumstances, I can get behind the use of state violence, but it should really be a last resort, and the circumstances under which I'm talking about condoning it are in protecting the rights of people, not infringing. We could get into "Jared's right to live in an all white community", but that's a circular argument, and there's not much point in getting into that if you truly believe that to be his right.

To take things slightly back to the original topic, I believe it was wrong to prevent Taylor from speaking. I don't agree with anything he says, and from what I know of his philosophy, I find it quite reprehensible, but I do believe in a certain amount of freedom of speech, and people deciding who's allowed to express their opinions, and who's not worries me quite a bit. Ultimately, I believe that in silencing Taylor, they've done nothing but bring publicity to what would have otherwise been a quiet event. Anyone likely to be "converted" by Taylor is not likely to be "saved" by this either, as for every Jared Taylor you silence, there's a dozen more waiting in the wings to speak up. If anyone truly has any interest in any political ideology at all, it's not hard to find a lot of like minded people on the internet.

As for people getting banned from the Locals forum, please bear in mind that it's a forum primarily constituted of people who know each other and socialize in real life. It's really not the place for such debates as this, and anyone who sincerely believes that the colour of their skin makes them superior to anyone else is not likely to be welcomed there. I really don't know who (or indeed if anyone) here really believes that, but the whole thing was primarily seen as being between Locals, and Stormfront, which is a white supremacist website.

Back to our slightly off topic discussion, we agree 100% on the Iraq thing. Saddam was a nasty bastard, but a nasty bastard is exactly what it took to keep that country stable. I think Bill Maher put it quite succinctly when he said something to the effect of "There's something worse than living under a dictator, and that's living in chaos.". Now they've dug themselves a hole that they can't get out of, and the only way that I can see it ending is for them to leave in disgrace (though I'm sure they'll downplay it as much as possible), and allow Iraq to self destruct, then likely divide into three or four smaller countries, which will probably remain fairly unstable for the forseeable future.
And kindly keep your shit for those who request it.
I'm having a discussion, and you have every right to not interact with me, so feel free not to read, or simply to fuck right off.

Kriger
01-30-2007, 10:19 AM
I'm having a discussion, and you have every right to not interact with me, so feel free not to read, or simply to fuck right off.

Then quit addressing me in your posts. And I will quit responding.

Not too difficult to comprehend.

Jake Featherston
01-30-2007, 10:22 AM
Despicable and hole-ridden as Jared Taylor's ideology may be, the stunt that Brad and Aaron pulled was both foolhardy and counter-productive. They've brought way more media attention to Taylor's cause than he could possibly have garnered by himself, and the gesture of dragging him from the room not only discredits their cause but is also completely redundant, as the hotel put the kibosh to the event anyway, as soon as they realized they had a so-called "race realist" on their hands.

I think we can all agree that the criminal activity/"stunt" which you attribute to "Brad and Aaron" back-fired, in that it benefitted Jared Taylor and the cause of White Nationalism generally, as well as that of Freedom of Speech in Canada (a cause almost as beleagured as White Nationalism in the degenerate nanny state Canada is rapidly transforming into, alas). The real question is, do you agree with the moral character of their actions? Do you believe people who express opinions you do not like should be subjected to thuggish physical harassment, and have their personal property torn to bits in front of them? Do you believe it is OKay to use fascistic (and illegal) techniques to oppose political ideas not to your liking?

Oh, and without all the ruckus caused by the "Brad and Aaron" social millieu, it is extremely unlikely the hotel would have taken particular note of Mr. Taylor's intended topic, and thus wouldn't have had any reason (however silly) to shut down what would have otherwise been a quiet, orderly political event. And even if the hotel management had known of the ideological content of Mr. Taylor's presentation, they'd have probably not cared, so long as it was a quiet and ordely affair. They are in the business of hoteling, after all, not in serving as unpaid muscle for the de facto secret police, ala "Brad and Aaron."

AJCrowley
01-30-2007, 10:23 AM
Then quit addressing me in your posts. And I will quit responding.

Not too difficult to comprehend.
I never said that I minded you responding. You said something that I chose to respond to in order to get into the conversation, then you were a dick to me.

Feel free to respond to anything or everything I say, hell, you're even free to be a dick to me if you choose, I doubt that my respect is something that you expect or require. In my opinion, it's just more fun when we're civil.

Jake Featherston
01-30-2007, 10:26 AM
I vote we give this guy a taste of his own medicine and ban the fucker. :bbbat:

No, this is a free speech forum. We're better than that.

Kriger
01-30-2007, 10:26 AM
I never said that I minded you responding. You said something that I chose to respond to in order to get into the conversation, then you were a dick to me.

Feel free to respond to anything or everything I say, hell, you're even free to be a dick to me if you choose, I doubt that my respect is something that you expect or require. In my opinion, it's just more fun when we're civil.

Quit addressing me in your posts.

AJCrowley
01-30-2007, 10:27 AM
Quit addressing me in your posts.
Sure thing.

Vasily Zaitsev
01-30-2007, 10:27 AM
No, I've said that in certain circumstances, I can get behind the use of state violence, but it should really be a last resort, and the circumstances under which I'm talking about condoning it are in protecting the rights of people, not infringing. We could get into "Jared's right to live in an all white community", but that's a circular argument, and there's not much point in getting into that if you truly believe that to be his right.

I don't agree with Taylor, actually. Your point that I was addressing all long was this one:

I don't know much about his ideology, except that he preaches separation of the races. I can only assume that he understands that such a separation is unlikely to happen voluntarily.

Being that you are at least a limited supporter of state violence for programs you see as just, you cannot hold the same against another. Basically, I was attempting to eliminate the quoted objection because I had the feeling it was irrelevant and I was curious about what it is you dislike about Taylor's ideology.

To take things slightly back to the original topic, I believe it was wrong to prevent Taylor from speaking. I don't agree with anything he says, and from what I know of his philosophy, I find it quite reprehensible, but I do believe in a certain amount of freedom of speech, and people deciding who's allowed to express their opinions, and who's not worries me quite a bit. Ultimately, I believe that in silencing Taylor, they've done nothing but bring publicity to what would have otherwise been a quiet event. Anyone likely to be "converted" by Taylor is not likely to be "saved" by this either, as for every Jared Taylor you silence, there's a dozen more waiting in the wings to speak up. If anyone truly has any interest in any political ideology at all, it's not hard to find a lot of like minded people on the internet.

"Good... bad... I'm the guy with the gun." -Ash Williams

I'm not actually terribly interested in the moral implications of Taylor's being prevented to speak. The behavior of the people who pushed him out of the room was juvenile, but young people do dumb things. The only thing I found offensive about the situation was the fact that a man in his fifties was ganged up on by a group of people in their physical primes. That, however, is not a point I care to belabor. As an aside, if the Canadian government had shut the event down on the grounds of Section 319(1) of the Canadian Criminal Code I would have had no moral objections. Though I prefer to see any bourgeois republic weakened and thus generally oppose all legislation thay empowers them, I understand that as sovereign governments they will go about their business.

As for people getting banned from the Locals forum, please bear in mind that it's a forum primarily constituted of people who know each other and socialize in real life. It's really not the place for such debates as this, and anyone who sincerely believes that the colour of their skin makes them superior to anyone else is not likely to be welcomed there. I really don't know who (or indeed if anyone) here really believes that, but the whole thing was primarily seen as being between Locals, and Stormfront, which is a white supremacist website.

Understandable, and I basically said as much in a Shoutbox conversation with Helios. Your forummates didn't exactly distinguish themselves in their treatment of him, but the site has a focus and its admins have an obligation to maintain that. Incidentally, I never attempted to register.

As for race, stick around here for a while and read some of our discussions on the topic. Like all forums, we have our fair share of idiots from across the political spectrum. But we also have a good number of posters--racist, non-racist, and anti-racist--who understand that race is about a whole lot more than skin color.

Back to our slightly off topic discussion, we agree 100% on the Iraq thing. Saddam was a nasty bastard, but a nasty bastard is exactly what it took to keep that country stable. I think Bill Maher put it quite succinctly when he said something to the effect of "There's something worse than living under a dictator, and that's living in chaos.". Now they've dug themselves a hole that they can't get out of, and the only way that I can see it ending is for them to leave in disgrace (though I'm sure they'll downplay it as much as possible), and allow Iraq to self destruct, then likely divide into three or four smaller countries, which will probably remain fairly unstable for the forseeable future.

Saddam was a secularizer and a developer. Even in his post-Gulf War I hobbled condition he was able to keep the religious kooks in Al-Qaeda from operating on Iraqi soil out of pure fear. The Muslim world needs more Saddams and fewer Abdullahs.

Jake Featherston
01-30-2007, 10:30 AM
LOL...so they are 97% Christian/non religious, and <5% non-white, and they have an opinion about these issues??!?!?!!?

I grew up in an environment that was well over 95% White myself, and was thus an anti-racist until age 19. Nothing makes you despise being subjected to the presence of Black & Mexican people like being around them.

Jake Featherston
01-30-2007, 10:34 AM
By the way, did you know that Moxie was originally an elixer created by Dr. Augustin Thompson in 1876 under the product name "Moxie Nerve Food"?

It was claimed to cure maladies anywhere from softening of the brain to loss of manhood.

It was later carbonated and rivalled Coca Cola in popularity. Made of Gentian root, it is still sold in New England.

I've seen it for sale at my local Beverages & More, in their gourmet soda (for lack of a better term) section. Now that I know its history, I'll have to remember to pick up a bottle.

Jake Featherston
01-30-2007, 10:45 AM
He looks tougher now that he has a beard. :)

He'd almost have too....

By the way, I'm not sure I see how a shortage of doctors in Canada (and, I take it, the supposed under-utilization of immigrants with medical training, assuming I'm in any way getting your drift) impacts on a discussion pertaining to White Nationalism, anti-racism, Jared Taylor, etc. I don't even see it as remotely a racial issue. While it may be true the University of Nigeria (or wherever) and other such places that may be training doctors at a level below the standards the Canadian government considers acceptable are primarily located in non-White countries, and thus primarily have non-White graduates, that is hardly the fault of the Canadian government, or White people, for that matter. I'm sure some White man with a crackerjack degree from the University of Kosovo or whatnot would also be denied a license to practice medicine in Canada.

AJCrowley
01-30-2007, 10:50 AM
Being that you are at least a limited supporter of state violence for programs you see as just, you cannot hold the same against another. Basically, I was attempting to eliminate the quoted objection because I had the feeling it was irrelevant and I was curious about what it is you dislike about Taylor's ideology.
Well I doubt he would see it as unjust. Righteousness is a relative thing, and intelligent people tend to have a strong sense of what is right based on their own beliefs. Whatever Taylor is, he's not stupid, and I doubt very much that he sees himself as a bad person. While racism is still something that I see as a problem in Canada, it's certainly less of a problem there than it is in many parts of the U.S. Racism is something that I perceive as a problem, and don't believe that anybody should be judged or marginalized based on the colour of their skin. You mentioned that it's about more than skin colour, but I believe there we're getting into the realms of nationalism, class discrimination, and cultural difference, which I believe are far more complex topics than simple racism, which I find very hard to view as anything other than ignorance. Based upon things I've read, I believe that many racists have simply drawn a parallel between class or culture and skin colour, which doesn't hold true.

As for what I dislike about Taylor's ideology, he insists that he's not a white supremacist, which he may or may not really believe, but he talks about his wish to live in an all white society, which I don't see as either practical or ethical. As you pointed out earlier, most people are subject to a degree of self imposed segregation, and as I said, I believe that it's based upon class, not race. I can't understand why he'd object to having a person of a different race living in his neighbourhood if they're from a similar background to himself. Does he object to living with anyone of a different race? Is it skin colour and "genetic purity", or is it an issue of cultural stereotypes?
As for race, stick around here for a while and read some of our discussions on the topic. Like all forums, we have our fair share of idiots from across the political spectrum. But we also have a good number of posters--racist, non-racist, and anti-racist--who understand that race is about a whole lot more than skin color.
It's a novelty for now, and I'm craving some debate. I doubt I'll stick around for long though (although you never know). I once administered a political forum that had a tendency to lean to what I consider to be the far right, and my experience is that everyone's set in their beliefs, and eventually it just get frustrating to see the same crazy (in my opinion) views spouted over and over, and any debate is ultimately an exercise in futility, nobody's likely to change their mind over such ideologies because of a thread on some forum. People tend to remain long term members of forums where there's not so much ideological conflict, or they're at least one the side of the majority.
Saddam was a secularizer and a developer. Even in his post-Gulf War I hobbled condition he was able to keep the religious kooks in Al-Qaeda from operating on Iraqi soil out of pure fear. The Muslim world needs more Saddams and fewer Abdullahs.
Agreed. One thing that worries me about Bush's America is his tendency (and the tendency of much of the citizenry) to see things in absolute black and white. The real world is not black and white, and sometimes it's better to leave the bad man in charge, because if you remove him, someone worse will replace him.

tempus fugit
01-30-2007, 10:54 AM
As for what I dislike about Taylor's ideology, he insists that he's not a white supremacist, which he may or may not really believe, but he talks about his wish to live in an all white society, which I don't see as either practical or ethical. As you pointed out earlier, most people are subject to a degree of self imposed segregation, and as I said, I believe that it's based upon class, not race. I can't understand why he'd object to having a person of a different race living in his neighbourhood if they're from a similar background to himself. Does he object to living with anyone of a different race? Is it skin colour and "genetic purity", or is it an issue of cultural stereotypes?

Halifax is such a place.

Jake Featherston
01-30-2007, 10:56 AM
Do I believe that someone should be able to run a business and refuse to serve people based on their race? Absolutely not, but this is an issue that can be sorted out by the legal system, and not at gunpoint.

Its great that you're not in favor of the summary execution of people who would prefer to limit their restaurant's patrons to their fellow Whites, but what you perhaps do not realize is that if one does not comply with the legal system, then the guns invariably are unholstered by agents of the state, thus there is no difference between "the legal system" and "at gunpoint."

AJCrowley
01-30-2007, 11:01 AM
Halifax is such a place.
Most cities I've been to are such places. Neighbourhoods are divided up by class. In many cases there's also a strong correlation between class and colour, but it's clearly a class thing, not a colour thing. Nobody that can afford to live in a nice area would choose to live in a high crime, impoverished area. Certainly in Halifax, the predominance of the black population in such areas has a basis in local history, and the fact that many black families were relocated to certain areas, and were historically disadvantaged, and have a hard time getting out of poverty because of poor schooling, and the "thug culture", which idolizes crime and violence, and is by no means an exclusively black thing.

AJCrowley
01-30-2007, 11:04 AM
Its great that you're not in favor of the summary execution of people who would prefer to limit their restaurant's patrons to their fellow Whites, but what you perhaps do not realize is that if one does not comply with the legal system, then the guns invariably are unholstered by agents of the state, thus there is no difference between "the legal system" and "at gunpoint."
More so in the US. I like in the UK and in Canada. I wouldn't go so far as to say that you wouldn't get a gun pulled on you by agents of the state for refusing to comply, but it would certainly take more work to get to that point than in the US. I remember being pulled over in Maine, and getting out of the car (I've only ever been pulled over before in the UK, where that's is what you do), and just being astounded that the cop actually pulled his gun on me and told me to get back in the car (well, more the gun part than the instruction to return to the car).

Starr
01-30-2007, 11:12 AM
Certainly in Halifax, the predominance of the black population in such areas has a basis in local history, and the fact that many black families were relocated to certain areas, and were historically disadvantaged, and have a hard time getting out of poverty because of poor schooling, and the "thug culture",

It is the same pattern with blacks the world over. Wherever there are blacks a disproportionate amount of them are impoverished and crime ridden. These theories of anti-racists could possibly hold a little more water if black crime and poverty was not a constant and universal phenomenon, whether we are talking about black third world nations or black communites within first world nations, the same issues of crime, violence and squalor are always present. What accounts for this if race plays no factor, whatsoever? Countless attempts to lift them up to the level of whites has been attempted over and over again, even to the point of giving them preferences over whites, giving them a head start of sorts, and still it is a failure.

AJCrowley
01-30-2007, 11:16 AM
It is the same pattern with blacks the world over. Wherever there are blacks a disproportionate amount of them are impoverished and crime ridden. These theories of anti-racists could possibly hold a little more water if black crime and poverty was not a constant and universal phenomenon, whether we are talking about black third world nations or black communites within first world nations, the same issues of crime, violence and squalor are always present.
These conditions are present wherever there is poverty, not wherever there are black people. Do you believe that black people have more of a propensity towards crime than white people? Or that middle or upper class black people have a propensity towards crime?

I see this issue as a root cause of much racism, and I firmly believe that it's largely caused by the attribution to skin colour of things caused by economic class. I see it as frighteningly similar to that chart that links the decrease in pirates to the increase in average global temperature, and the conclusion that global warming is caused by the lack of pirates.

Jake Featherston
01-30-2007, 11:20 AM
the "thug culture", which idolizes crime and violence, and is by no means an exclusively black thing.

It is not exclusively Black, no, but its popularization via the mass media began within the context of what was then an almost exclusively Black musical sub-culture i.e., (c)rap/"hip-hop." There are plenty of White criminal degenerates floating around south San Jose (where I live) and most of them are quite conciously imitating Blacks ("Whiggers"). When most of your criminals are either Black, or the imitators of Blacks, its not unreasonable to wonder how much better things might be in the absence of Blacks. That's a reasonable characterization of one aspect of where Jared Taylor is coming from, and its hardly accurate to stigmatize such thoughts as merely born of "ignorance."

I live in an area that's about 70% White, and yet the guy who raped my ex-wife (while we were married) was a Mexican. The guy who (anally) raped my present wife (albeit a year or two before we met) was Black. According to the U.S. Dept. of Justice, approximately 60% of all U.S. murders, rapes, and robberies are commited by Blacks (yet 38% of welfare recipients are Black, as compared to 37% being White - although that last statistic is about a decade old, and has thus probably changed at least a few points since then; never-the-less, it implies a similar number of impoverished Whites as compared to impoverished Blacks, yet the 1/8th of the population which is Black commits nearly 3/5ths of the murders, rapes, and robberies). Social realities like that can't properly be dismissed as mere "ignorance."

Jake Featherston
01-30-2007, 11:32 AM
These conditions are present wherever there is poverty, not wherever there are black people. Do you believe that black people have more of a propensity towards crime than white people? Or that middle or upper class black people have a propensity towards crime?

Middle class Blacks are more violent and crime-prone, on average, than middle class Whites, yes indeed. I saw a report on PBS about how this one Black, middle class neighborhood, in Los Angeles County, had a crime-rate far in excess of what would ordinarily be expected within a middle class enclave (there aren't many middle class Black enclaves to study, so that one report is all I've got to work with, but it jibes with my personal experience). Working class White neighborhoods can be a little rough. Working class Black neighborhoods are like Third World war zones; its laughable to even try to compare them. In one, you risk your car stereo getting ripped off, in the other, you risk getting a bullet in your brain. They are very different environments. Categorically different. Euro-Caucasoids and Afro-Negroids are members of two different sub-species of homo sapiens; neither is objectively superior to the other, but each is subjectively superior to the other by its own, prevailing standards.

AJCrowley
01-30-2007, 11:32 AM
It is not exclusively Black, no, but its popularization via the mass media began within the context of what was then an almost exclusively Black musical sub-culture i.e., (c)rap/"hip-hop." There are plenty of White criminal degenerates floating around south San Jose (where I live) and most of them are quite conciously imitating Blacks ("Whiggers"). When most of your criminals are either Black, or the imitators of Blacks, its not unreasonable to wonder how much better things might be in the absence of Blacks. That's a reasonable characterization of one aspect of where Jared Taylor is coming from, and its hardly accurate to stigmatize such thoughts as merely born of "ignorance."
Yes, it was popularized via the mass media to appeal to black youth, and white youth these days tend to imitate the fashions of black youth. I don't believe that this culture was marketed exclusively by black people, though largely through them. Even if you could pin the glorification of violent crime entirely on black people, do you think that it's fair to tar an entire race with the same brush based upon the social irresponsibility of a few?
I live in an area that's about 70% White, and yet the guy who raped my ex-wife (while we were married) was a Mexican. The guy who (anally) raped my present wife (albeit a year or two before we met) was Black.
I'm really sorry to hear that. There's no reason for anyone to ever do that to another human being. If anyone ever raped, or attempted to rape my significant other, I would cut their cock and balls off, without qualms or hesitation.

Back on topic, I really don't believe that different races have any kind of genetic predisposition to commit crime. Again, I believe it's a cultural and class thing, and I think it's an awful thing to do to put the actions of a few on an entire race of people. Maybe I just have a greater sense of empathy than you, but it would really piss me off to be judged or marginalized in any way because of my heritage.

Kriger
01-30-2007, 11:33 AM
I've seen it for sale at my local Beverages & More, in their gourmet soda (for lack of a better term) section. Now that I know its history, I'll have to remember to pick up a bottle.

It's still quite popular in Maine and Pennsylvania. One of the odd asides is that it was one of the few products allowed to advertise in Mad magazine. Not sure what type of socio/political statement that is.

In the meantime, the phrase to remember is: "Make mine MOXIE".

That's my off-topic trivia contribution for the day.

Jake Featherston
01-30-2007, 11:45 AM
I think it's an awful thing to do to put the actions of a few on an entire race of people. Maybe I just have a greater sense of empathy than you, but it would really piss me off to be judged or marginalized in any way because of my heritage.

While its difficult to know what the precise numbers are, I've done some math on ths subject, and Black criminality is anywhere from 500% to 1,000% more frequent than White criminality, on a per capita basis. At some point, such a massive disparity becomes part of a larger social phenomenon, and can't merely be brushed aside as the actions of a few bad apples. When 12% of the U.S. population commits 60% of U.S. murders, rapes, and robberies, and shows every indication of getting worse, rather than better, it starts to become reasonable to do a little generalizing. Blacks were liberated a little over 40 years ago in this country, and ever since then a substantial portion of their community has engaged in what amounts to low-intensity warfare against the White majority. I recall doing a report in school where I demonstrated the number of homocides in Los Angeles County over a single, 48-hour period, was greater than all the IRA-related killings in Northern Ireland over the previous year! Its very unlikely they'd have been liberated, had this result been known in advance. It was a mistake that demands correction.

AJCrowley
01-30-2007, 11:57 AM
While its difficult to know what the precise numbers are, I've done some math on ths subject, and Black criminality is anywhere from 500% to 1,000% more frequent than White criminality, on a per capita basis. At some point, such a massive disparity becomes part of a larger social phenomenon, and can't merely be brushed aside as the actions of a few bad apples. When 12% of the U.S. population commits 60% of U.S. murders, rapes, and robberies, and shows every indication of getting worse, rather than better, it starts to become reasonable to do a little generalizing. Blacks were liberated a little over 40 years ago in this country, and ever since then a substantial portion of their community has engaged in what amounts to low-intensity warfare against the White majority. I recall doing a report in school where I demonstrated the number of homocides in Los Angeles County over a single, 48-hour period, was greater than all the IRA-related killings in Northern Ireland over the previous year! Its very unlikely they'd have been liberated, had this result been known in advance. It was a mistake that demands correction.
Surely a better, and more universally acceptable solution would be more effective law enforcement, and a realistic penal system that permanently removes violent criminals that cannot be rehabilitated from society. Far too much effort is given to punishing the perpetrators of victimless crime, while violent offenders are simply punished then released back into society with little or no regard as to the likelyhood of their reoffending. In the places I live, the criminal justice system for youths is one of the biggest problems, and kids know that they can commit crimes with total impunity, and anybody who makes a move to stop them will be prosecuted for assault.

I'm all for removing "undesirables" (i.e. violent criminals) from society, but don't think that "undesirable" should be defined by race, religion, sexual orientation, or anything other than a person's actions.

il ragno
01-30-2007, 11:59 AM
It's still quite popular in Maine and Pennsylvania. One of the odd asides is that it was one of the few products allowed to advertise in Mad magazine. Not sure what type of socio/political statement that is.

In the meantime, the phrase to remember is: "Make mine MOXIE".

That's my off-topic trivia contribution for the day.

Now who's up for a nice hot mug of Postum?

Kriger
01-30-2007, 12:25 PM
Now who's up for a nice hot mug of Postum?

Well, this particular saga began with page #11 of this thread and Moxie CrimeStopper, who I referred to as he, but not he, said she, and so, gentleman that I am on occasion, I offered apologies for mistaking she for he.

And then, in friendly atonement for my ignorant offense, I asked did she know that Moxie was......

She informed that she did.

And there it is, in all it's profound relevance of kharmic meetings on the internet.

Moxie being she not a he and aware of the origin of the term Moxie. The unifying factor being that she is a local from local, and working on a paper. Too busy to argue, thank you, but she will be back.

Can you tell I have been spending far too much time in the Revisionism forum attempting to reason with...uh, well, anyway, attempting to reason.

tempus fugit
01-30-2007, 12:57 PM
Nice dodge....there are an extraordinarily small number of non-whites in Halifax......"self-imposed segregation"?

AJCrowley
01-30-2007, 01:02 PM
"self-imposed segregation"?
Specifically people who can afford to live elsewhere generally choosing not to live in impoverished neighbourhoods, not based upon racial divisions, but on economic divisions.

delete
01-30-2007, 01:56 PM
Specifically people who can afford to live elsewhere generally choosing not to live in impoverished neighbourhoods, not based upon racial divisions, but on economic divisions.

So what do you think the whites in sout africa should do?

It is not white people who are acting like animals in south africa.
The Oprah Winfrey Show (http://www2.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/200604/tows_past_20060420_b.jhtml)
South Africa has been called the rape capital of the world. "It is almost impossible for us to imagine the frequency in which these horrific crimes happen, not only to women, but also especially to the children," Oprah says. Shocking statistics:


In South Africa, more than 1 million women and children are raped every year. (The London Times, October 14, 2004)
Each and every day in South Africa, at least 50 children are victims of rape. (South African Press Association, June 2005)
More than 90 percent of rape victims know their attackers. (South African Press Association, June 2005)
A young girl born in South Africa has a greater chance of being raped than of learning how to read. (BBC News, April 2002)
In South Africa, one in four girls faces the prospect of being raped before her 16th birthday, according to the child support group, Childline South Africa.

AJCrowley
01-30-2007, 02:04 PM
So what do you think the whites in sout africa should do?
I don't think the whites or the blacks in South Africa should do anything as races, but as citizens of a country. Some hard justice for violent offenders wouldn't go amiss. If the police are unwilling or unable to effectively uphold the law, I'm not against the odd bit of vigilante justice.

tempus fugit
01-30-2007, 02:43 PM
The music community here is really strong (I'm a musician and sound technician), it's a nice size and has a relatively temperate climate, cost of living is relatively cheap

Specifically people who can afford to live elsewhere generally choosing not to live in impoverished neighbourhoods, not based upon racial divisions, but on economic divisions.

So, is the cost of living in Halifax "relatively cheap" or sufficiently expensive to maintain such racial purity?

Why would anyone want to live in such an lily white, non-diverse place, particularly when one is so pro-diversity?

AJCrowley
01-30-2007, 03:27 PM
So, is the cost of living in Halifax "relatively cheap" or sufficiently expensive to maintain such racial purity?
I find Halifax to be an expensive place to live. You can get shitty student digs for next to nothing, but a decent place will cost you the same as in much larger cities, where the average wage is higher.
Why would anyone want to live in such an lily white, non-diverse place, particularly when one is so pro-diversity?
I never said I was "pro" anything. It's my opinion that the term "diversity" has been hijacked by people who have taken the concept of political correctness to its extreme. I think race is far more of an issue than it should be, and the "diversity" crowd are guilty of making it an issue (though perhaps not on the same level as racists).

Just because I don't believe in judging a person by the colour of their skin, it doesn't mean that I should specifically seek to live in a city with a more racially diverse population, when I'm perfectly content where I am.

tempus fugit
01-30-2007, 03:33 PM
That is sensible. However, when the non-white population in your area rises from 3% to 30%, you may sing a different tune.

AJCrowley
01-30-2007, 03:48 PM
That is sensible. However, when the non-white population in your area rises from 3% to 30%, you may sing a different tune.
Unlikely. I've lived in cities that are closer to those numbers, and it really didn't bother me. Even for a lot of people that do have a problem with it, I think the problem is more cultural than racial. When someone immigrates into another country, of course they have a right to preserve their cultural identity, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a degree of assimilation too.

tempus fugit
01-30-2007, 04:10 PM
These conditions are present wherever there is poverty, not wherever there are black people. Do you believe that black people have more of a propensity towards crime than white people? Or that middle or upper class black people have a propensity towards crime?

I see this issue as a root cause of much racism, and I firmly believe that it's largely caused by the attribution to skin colour of things caused by economic class. I see it as frighteningly similar to that chart that links the decrease in pirates to the increase in average global temperature, and the conclusion that global warming is caused by the lack of pirates.

Serious question:

If presented with real world evidence that it IS a race thing, and NOT a RACISM thing, or a class thing, would you be willing to change your mind?

AJCrowley
01-30-2007, 04:33 PM
Serious question:

If presented with real world evidence that it IS a race thing, and NOT a RACISM thing, or a class thing, would you be willing to change your mind?
Honestly? No. Statistics can be manipulated, and even if what you're saying was an indisputable truth, I still refuse to judge a person by their race.

Richard Parker
01-30-2007, 04:56 PM
AJCrowley and poorhaus, welcome to the Phora. I'm a fellow non-racist, and from Ontario.

When I first took a look at your board I got the impression that you guys all have your hearts in the right place but were a bit too extreme in your arguments to be effective debaters.

However I am happy to see you are holding your own here.

Again, welcome. :beerchug:

delete
01-30-2007, 06:04 PM
Honestly? No. Statistics can be manipulated, and even if what you're saying was an indisputable truth, I still refuse to judge a person by their race.

Would you send your daughter on an vacation to South Africa alone?

Starr
01-30-2007, 07:39 PM
Honestly? No. Statistics can be manipulated, and even if what you're saying was an indisputable truth, I still refuse to judge a person by their race.


Is it just with race that you would want to judge each person individually? Would you or do you judge groups of ex-cons or convicted felons individually? It would only make sense to assume that, while there are going to be many decent ones among them that are trying to turn their life around, there is also going to be a much larger percentage of them, on average, compared to other segements of the population, who present dangers to society. If you knew this to also be true of blacks due to their genetics, wouldn't you be a little more apprehensive around blacks in particular and possibly also not be to thrilled with the thought of living around them and having your family live around them?

Count Eustace II
01-30-2007, 07:48 PM
AJCrowley and poorhaus, welcome to the Phora. I'm a fellow non-racist, and from Ontario.

When I first took a look at your board I got the impression that you guys all have your hearts in the right place but were a bit too extreme in your arguments to be effective debaters.

However I am happy to see you are holding your own here.

Again, welcome. :beerchug:

It's cool that Crowley and poorhaus have joined the debate on the Phora and have conducted themselves in a mature fashion. I strongly disagree with their views but it's been interesting to read through this thread.

I have the feeling that although Canada and the United States share a national border and many cultural similiarities, the fact that Canada didn't have a large population of negro slaves like the US did and subsequently a disastrous Civil War and then later on a Civil Rights movement that effectively gave negroes exclusive rights over the rights of White Americans makes the debate between American White nationalists and Liberal Canadians an exercise in futility.

It's apples and oranges as far as I'm concerned.

Moxie CrimeFighter
01-30-2007, 08:10 PM
It's worth noting that the demographic information available for Halifax refers to the greater Halifax Regional Municipality, which is a very large geographic area and encompasses a number of smaller, more rural communities which are certainly very, very white and may give a somewhat distorted idea of the racial makeup of Halifax Proper. I would never say that Halifax isn't a woefully white town (oh boy, is it ever), but especially in the downtown/north area there is a strong black presence. To assume that Haligonians have no experience dealing with a black population is misinformed.

Nova Scotia actually has one of the oldest black communities in Canada, and we get little if any immigration from African countries, but nevertheless our violent crime stats have risen sharply in the last few years. If black people are so genetically violent, why hasn't that been there all along?

humanfly
01-30-2007, 08:28 PM
SNIP

I have the feeling that although Canada and the United States share a national border and many cultural similiarities, the fact that Canada didn't have a large population of negro slaves like the US did and subsequently a disastrous Civil War and then later on a Civil Rights movement that effectively gave negroes exclusive rights over the rights of White Americans makes the debate between American White nationalists and Liberal Canadians an exercise in futility.

It's apples and oranges as far as I'm concerned.

ah. So, you understand that the same slaves that came to Canada and became free men suddenly became more civilized. Funny how that works.

Starr
01-30-2007, 08:36 PM
I would never say that Halifax isn't a woefully white town (oh boy

Strange that you would use a word like "woefully." It sounds as if you believe many whites is not a good thing. Why is that. If I were to refer to a town as being "woefully black", even in jest, as you are probably doing, I would be called an intolerant bigot, probably even by people just like you. Woefully white would not be met with the same condemnation, you would probably even be praised as being progressive and welcoming of diversity(diversity always said to be a good thing, while diversity also always means less whites. Is that racist, in itself?)Double standard?

humanfly
01-30-2007, 08:37 PM
Serious question:

If presented with real world evidence that it IS a race thing, and NOT a RACISM thing, or a class thing, would you be willing to change your mind?

If you could show me proof that if you enslaved a group of white people for several generations, and this did not result in massive increases in drug abuse, violence, crime, lowered intelligence etc. I'd be very interested.

Omniel
01-30-2007, 08:39 PM
If you could show me proof that if you enslaved a group of white people for several generations, and this did not result in massive increases in drug abuse, violence, crime, lowered intelligence etc. I'd be very interested.
So you believe that White people have lowered the intelligence of blacks through slavery?

Starr
01-30-2007, 08:41 PM
If you could show me proof that if you enslaved a group of white people for several generations, and this did not result in massive increases in drug abuse, violence, crime, lowered intelligence etc. I'd be very interested.


You can use that as an excuse for blacks, if you wish, in the U.S. Now what is the excuse in the rest of the world? The African IQ reaches levels that could be classifiable as slightly mentally retarded. Their average IQ in the U.S. is a bit higher(probably the result of them being more mixed than a purer African) so your lowered intelligence argument does not hold any water. Could this reasonable explain their lack of advancement, possibly?

Winston
01-30-2007, 08:45 PM
If you could show me proof that if you enslaved a group of white people for several generations, and this did not result in massive increases in drug abuse, violence, crime, lowered intelligence etc. I'd be very interested.

The differences between blacks and whites have been observed throughout history, including by people who traded in both races as slaves and valued the whites for their higher intelligence. There are many, many threads on this forum going into all of these subjects in more detail that anybody is likely to bother going into on this thread.

Personally I'm hoping Fade turns up because he has the knowledge and usually the will to bring a lot to these discussions.

antibuddha
01-30-2007, 08:57 PM
yet the 1/8th of the population which is Black commits nearly 3/5ths of the murders, rapes, and robberies

I don't know about murders, but what would you say to the idea that most rapes committed by whites are simply not reported as they are often committed on persons familiar to the perpetrator, rather than blacks who seem to do this in more outrageously sensational ways, such as attacking strangers (often of another race). Thus, it looks more bestial and/or like race warfare, whereas "whites" have traditionally tended to institutionalize female sexual exploitation and abuse to legitimize it. As for robberies, sure, convenience store hold-ups are going to be done by blacks in the majority of cases, but are such petty crimes more damaging than white-collar crimes of grand larceny and insider trading regularly committed by whites? You can even argue whites have built a system of a theft through usurious banking practices and capitalist corporatism. Frankly, in my opinion, it comes down to whites (and asians) possessing a long-standing cultural notion of private property and blacks (and hispanics and natives) not. The moralities derive from there, so white people will ignore institutionalized abuse and exploitation if it protects property rights and don't see a big deal about, traditionally, using their own women or other lower-class people like their property, whereas blacks and the like ("savages") do not have this morality and hence will consistently complain about systematic oppression but don't seem to have as many moral qualms or restraints about personalistic violence and attacking/exploiting out-groups openly. Kind of like Nietzsche's genealogy of morality, except rather than master and slave morality, private property and communal property morality.

Omniel
01-30-2007, 09:02 PM
I don't know about murders, but what would you say to the idea that most rapes committed by whites are simply not reported as they are often committed on persons familiar to the perpetrator, rather than blacks who seem to do this in more outrageously sensational ways, such as attacking strangers (often of another race). Thus, it looks more bestial and/or like race warfare, whereas "whites" have traditionally tended to institutionalize female sexual exploitation and abuse to legitimize it.
Doesn't it make you cringe, to perform these silly intellectual acrobatics to deny a basic fact that you have been told it's wrong to admit? Good citizen, yes, Blacks are unfairly targetted as criminals because they are 'outrageously sensational' and so they look 'bestial'? Get a grip.

humanfly
01-30-2007, 09:05 PM
You can use that as an excuse for blacks, if you wish, in the U.S. Now what is the excuse in the rest of the world? The African IQ reaches levels that could be classifiable as slightly mentally retarded. Their average IQ in the U.S. is a bit higher(probably the result of them being more mixed than a purer African) so your lowered intelligence argument does not hold any water. Could this reasonable explain their lack of advancement, possibly?

<SNIP from wikipedia IQ entry>
A study of French children adopted between the ages of 4 and 6 shows the continuing interplay of nature and nurture. The children came from poor backgrounds with I.Q.’s that initially averaged 77, putting them near retardation. Nine years later after adoption, they retook the I.Q. tests, and all of them did better. The amount they improved was directly related to the adopting family’s status. "Children adopted by farmers and laborers had average I.Q. scores of 85.5; those placed with middle-class families had average scores of 92. The average I.Q. scores of youngsters placed in well-to-do homes climbed more than 20 points, to 98."[8] This study suggests that IQ is not stable over the course of one's lifetime and that, even in later childhood, a change in environment can have a significant effect on IQ.

It is well known that it is possible to increase one's IQ score by training, for example by regularly playing puzzle games. Recent studies have shown that training in ones using working memory may increase IQ. (Klingberg et al., 2002)
<END SNIP>

So I would argue that probably there's no problem with the intelligence of Africans or any other ethnic group.

They may have problems with:
.nutrition
.poverty and status
.lack of exposure to the kind of problem solving present on IQ tests
all of which would make a difference in the results of the tests.

I would argue that if you were raised in a third world country, by a poor African family, and had no opportunity for higher learning, you too would score quite low on an IQ test, if you were lucky enough to survive.

Also, an IQ test is very limited. It can't encapsulate the measure of a man. There's much more to life besides raw brain power. Emotional intelligence, will power, physical intelligence, morality, perseverence, loyalty.... none of these are measured by this IQ test you seem to value so highly.

antibuddha
01-30-2007, 09:06 PM
Doesn't it make you cringe, to perform these silly intellectual acrobatics to deny a basic fact that you have been told it's wrong to admit? Good citizen, yes, Blacks are unfairly targetted as criminals because they are 'outrageously sensational' and so they look 'bestial'? Get a grip.

It makes me cringe when people with a chip on their shoulder spit out a lot of high-falutin rhetoric rather than making dispassionate argument and refuse on viewing their own a priori assumptions from a wider perspective, and then further, go on to accuse their "opponents" (who they tend to consistently lump into over-arcing groups like "liberal" or "conservative") of having unfounded and unconscious biases.

EDIT: Also, why do you need to maintain a constant feeling of moral superiority simply in order to justify your viewpoint? I made no criticism of what I called private property morality, yet you, and plenty of other racists here, seem to think your morality has no validity unless it is universal and absolute (hence your constant attempts trying to link it to science, despite value judgements having nothing to do with empirical ones). I am fully expecting some random whining about "postmodern relativism" from this, despite the critique of universal morality going back to ancient greece and the beginning of philosophy and furthermore, absolutist morality having much to do with the current state of multiculturalist integration.

Moxie CrimeFighter
01-30-2007, 09:09 PM
Strange that you would use a word like "woefully." It sounds as if you believe many whites is not a good thing. Why is that.
I say woefully because I believe that Halifax would be more vibrant and interesting were there more cultural diversity. A culturally homogeneous population encourages a homogeneous world view, which quite frankly gets boring. It is not so much that many whites is a "bad" thing, but that a range of cultures and ideas is a good thing.

If I were to refer to a town as being "woefully black", even in jest, as you are probably doing, I would be called an intolerant bigot, probably even by people just like you. Woefully white would not be met with the same condemnation, you would probably even be praised as being progressive and welcoming of diversity
The difference being that you and I are both white. A criticism about ones own ethnic/cultural background (although as I have explained my comment was not intended as insulting towards white people) will always be met with less suspicion than one about someone else's. This is a slippery argument, but I believe it applies here. Besides, an active desire for fewer people of a different race, or being upset that there are there in the first place, is a pretty good example of bigotry.

Your assertion that "diversity means less whites" strikes me as somewhat odd as well- is someone forcing a white family to move out whenever a Japanese family moves into the same town? Whites would go down as a percentage, but not as an absolute number except of their own choices, be it moving out of town or voluntarily throwing themselves off cliffs en masse.

Omniel
01-30-2007, 09:18 PM
It makes me cringe when people with a chip on their shoulder spit out a lot of high-falutin rhetoric rather than making dispassionate argument and refuse on viewing their own a priori assumptions from a wider perspective, and then further, go on to accuse their "opponents" (who they tend to consistently lump into over-arcing groups like "liberal" or "conservative") of having unfounded and unconscious biases.
Actually, it won't take much to rebut my 'high falutin' rhetoric', I just want to hear a cogent justification for racial egalitarianism. I used to be a staunch antiracist, and I couldn't do it. Can you, or not? What is at the core of your antiracist stance? Stop criticising for a moment and tell us what supports your position. Shoot.

Nyx
01-30-2007, 09:18 PM
<SNIP from wikipedia IQ entry>
A study of French children adopted between the ages of 4 and 6 shows the continuing interplay of nature and nurture. The children came from poor backgrounds with I.Q.’s that initially averaged 77, putting them near retardation. Nine years later after adoption, they retook the I.Q. tests, and all of them did better. The amount they improved was directly related to the adopting family’s status. "Children adopted by farmers and laborers had average I.Q. scores of 85.5; those placed with middle-class families had average scores of 92. The average I.Q. scores of youngsters placed in well-to-do homes climbed more than 20 points, to 98."[8]But the participants were not tested in adulthood. Intelligence behaves like height and other genetically influenced traits in that the resemblence between genetic relatives increases with age and is most susceptible to environmental influences at very young ages. Phenotype is more reflective of genotype with age for most genetic traits. The environmental model would predict just the opposite: that as unrelated people are raised together, they should resemble each other more and more; and as related people are raised apart, they should resemble each other less and less. IQ tends to stabilise around adolescence - and this is a strong piece of evidence corroborating the genetics of intelligence: IQ behaves like any other genetically influenced trait.

]They may have problems with:
.nutritionIQ-depressing levels of nutrition have not been found within any segment of the US population. There is also an inverse relationship between so many variables that is difficult to account for the intelligence difference by this factor - for instance, black children have higher bone density and experience earlier dental development, yet have significantly lower brain sizes.

.poverty and statusPoverty and intelligence can be mutually causative, though. Less intelligent people are less likely to get the education required for well-paying jobs and thus are more likely to fall into poverty. The poverty of blacks may very well be an effect, and not the cause, of their lower intelligence.

Moreover, the IQ difference persists when blacks and whites are matched by socioeconomic status. Eskimos and third-world Vietnamese score higher than first-world blacks on every test of cognitive ability.

lack of exposure to the kind of problem solving present on IQ tests
all of which would make a difference in the results of the tests.The IQ difference (as well as brain size differences) between the races is observable before the age of 3, so a factor must be sought which is sufficiently operative before that age. Academic education is not a likely factor. Moreover, the size of the difference is very stable throughout development - Blacks are generally, in average IQ, the same number of points behind whites from age three to adulthood. If education were the critical factor, we would expect the gap to grow with age, not follow the typical developmental pattern. What we instead find is that Blacks go through the normal developmental sequences (in IQ), but they are consistently a few years behind. And Asians are somewhat ahead of whites.

Finally, your hypothesis is refuted by transracial adoption studies, in which Blacks, Whites and Asians are adopted by white middle class families and the racial gradient in intelligence persists.

I would argue that if you were raised in a third world country, by a poor African family, and had no opportunity for higher learning, you too would score quite low on an IQ test, if you were lucky enough to survive.Again, Third World Vietnamese have IQs of 103, and Eskimos - many of whom live in poverty - score 6 points above Englishmen in Raven's matrices.

Also, an IQ test is very limited. It can't encapsulate the measure of a man.It is not intended to do so. It is only intended to measure intelligence. It doesn't measure anything else.

Emotional intelligence, will power, physical intelligence, morality, perseverence, loyalty.... none of these are measured by this IQ test you seem to value so highly.That is correct. IQ tests only measure intelligence - or g - but scores are correlated with many other traits, some of which you have mentioned.

http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/images/jpr21-chart2.jpg
http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/images/jpr21-chart3.jpg
http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/images/jpr21-chart1.jpg

Count Eustace II
01-30-2007, 09:25 PM
ah. So, you understand that the same slaves that came to Canada and became free men suddenly became more civilized. Funny how that works.


Um,most black Canadians were runaway American slaves. Slavery was abolished in Canada by Britain in 1833 without a brutal and bloody Civil War like in America.

And for chrissakes, the fucking black population in Canada is like 1.5%.

You freaks up there simply didn't and don't have the same experience with blacks as the unfortunate white people in the USA did and continue to have on a daily basis. That's what I was getting to in my other post.

If you think blacks are so civilized and not violence-prone you're welcome to visit New York city anytime, or how about Detroit? That's closer to you Canuks anyway.

Der Sozialist
01-30-2007, 09:28 PM
If you think blacks are so civilized and not violence-prone you're welcome to visit New York city anytime, or how about Detroit? That's closer to you Canuks anyway.
New York is closer to the residents from Halifax—I believe humanfly qualifies.

antibuddha
01-30-2007, 09:34 PM
Actually, it won't take much to rebut my 'high falutin' rhetoric', I just want to hear a cogent justification for racial egalitarianism. I used to be a staunch antiracist, and I couldn't do it. Can you, or not? What is at the core of your antiracist stance? Stop criticising for a moment and tell us what supports your position. Shoot.

Thank you for completely illustrating my point about your tendency to lump everyone who you perceive as vaguely disagreeing with you into the same group. Did I say anything about egalitarianism? Did I say I was *for integration*? No, and the last comment I made would lead one to believe I have a low opinion of it. I delineated what I felt is the basic difference between traditionally more-civilized groups' morality and those less civilized (i.e. private property versus communal property, with the former having a higher tolerance for institutionalized violence and less for personalistic violence as opposed to the reverse case of the latter).

Are they "equal" is ridiculous question because it's obvious from the fact I separated them into two groups that they are not "equal" to me, yet of course you mean to say which is "better" (rather than identical, which is what equal means), and I implied that it is *precisely* this type of thinking, trying to incessantly justify your position as being unilaterally "better" in a moral sense, that has led to the current state of affairs. If the universalist morality which blossomed into European Christianity had not risen to prominence among so-called white people, they would not have felt it perfectly acceptable and legitimate to go out and conquer and colonize savages. The rigid, hierarchical systems they created to control them after doing so however were inherently and highly unstable so modern multiculturalism egalitarianism developed to continue the project of white imperialism through integration rather than separation and moral ideas about "universal human rights" which aids economic growth rather than inhibiting it, which of course means death for an economy *based on endless growth*.

If you disagree with me, you have to show one of two things. Either that, contrary to all historical evidence indicating such, Christianity was not a justification for conquest and has not consistently preached the gospel to savages in order to convert them to traditionally white morality, or that somehow, despite all economic evidence, that the systems of colonialism established to maintain white superiority without having to integrate the natives were not incredibly fragile and destined to be replaced. *I'm* waiting to hear that from people who think we can maintain modern civilization without integration and globalism and people who think traditional white morality had nothing to do with bringing things to this state of affairs in the first place, and instead prefer to blame "jews" (who have basically the same morality, but in a more advanced and thusly more materialistic stage, anyway) and constantly toot their own horns about white civilization being just the most super thing ever without accepting any responsibility for what it has created in the modern world.

Moxie CrimeFighter
01-30-2007, 09:34 PM
Um,most black Canadians were runaway American slaves. Slavery was abolished in Canada by Britain in 1833 without a brutal and bloody Civil War like in America.
And? If blacks are genetically violence prone, that shouldn't change a thing.

If you think blacks are so civilized and not violence-prone you're welcome to visit New York city anytime, or how about Detroit? That's closer to you Canuks anyway.
We're from Halifax buddy, New York is closer. Not all Canadians are from Toronto. I've also never had any problems with black people in New York.

Nyx
01-30-2007, 09:39 PM
.nutritionThis may also interest you:

"... there was an extreme famine near the end of WWII in the Netherlands. It resulted in a huge decline in infant mortality and infant weight. Nonetheless, 19 years later, some 20,000 young people who had been conceived and born under these conditions of malnutrition scored every bit as high on IQ test as a comparable population sample which had never been deprived of adequate nutrition." (source: Arthur Jensen, Straight Talk About Mental Tests [1981])

"the study of Korean infants adopted by American parents before the age of 2 years and intelligence-tested at the ages of 6 to 14 years reported by Winick, Meyer, and Harris (1975) found that those who had been severely malnourished as infants had an IQ of 102, those who had been moderately malnourished as infants had an IQ of 106, while those who had been well nourished had an IQ of 112. The results suggest that severe malnourishment in infancy impairs intelligence by 10 IQ points. Nevertheless, even East Asians who had been severely malnourished as infants had an IQ of 102, slightly higher than that of well-nourished Europeans, suggesting that genetic factors are responsible for the higher East Asian IQ." (Richard Lynn, Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis [2006])

Der Sozialist
01-30-2007, 09:42 PM
And? If blacks are genetically violence prone, that shouldn't change a thing.

There are other factors to consider here besides genetic propensity to commit violent crimes. In the case of Blacks, crime increased several-fold after the 1980’s—coinciding with the invention of Crack Cocaine.

But, American Blacks have always committed violent crimes at higher levels than American Whites whenever they were sufficiently segregated from the White population—that is, in areas with high concentrations of Blacks and very little Whites.

We're from Halifax buddy, New York is closer. Not all Canadians are from Toronto. I've also never had any problems with black people in New York.
Indeed, New York is a relatively safe city considering its size. New Orleans, Atlanta, Detroit, or Los Angeles would be better examples.

Omniel
01-30-2007, 09:43 PM
Thank you for completely illustrating my point about your tendency to lump everyone who you perceive as vaguely disagreeing with you into the same group. Did I say anything about egalitarianism? Did I say I was *for integration*? No, and the last comment I made would lead one to believe I have a low opinion of it. I delineated what I felt is the basic difference between traditionally more-civilized groups' morality and those less civilized (i.e. private property versus communal property, with the former having a higher tolerance for institutionalized violence and less for personalistic violence as opposed to the reverse case of the latter).

Are they "equal" is ridiculous question because it's obvious from the fact I separated them into two groups that they are not "equal" to me, yet of course you mean to say which is "better" (rather than identical, which is what equal means), and I implied that it is *precisely* this type of thinking, trying to incessantly justify your position as being unilaterally "better" in a moral sense, that has led to the current state of affairs. If the universalist morality which blossomed into European Christianity had not risen to prominence among so-called white people, they would not have felt it perfectly acceptable and legitimate to go out and conquer and colonize savages. The rigid, hierarchical systems they created to control them after doing so however were inherently and highly unstable so modern multiculturalism egalitarianism developed to continue the project of white imperialism through integration rather than separation and moral ideas about "universal human rights" which aids economic growth rather than inhibiting it, which of course means death for an economy *based on endless growth*.

If you disagree with me, you have to show one of two things. Either that, contrary to all historical evidence indicating such, Christianity was not a justification for conquest and has not consistently preached the gospel to savages in order to convert them to traditionally white morality, or that somehow, despite all economic evidence, that the systems of colonialism established to maintain white superiority without having to integrate the natives were not incredibly fragile and destined to be replaced. *I'm* waiting to hear that from people who think we can maintain modern civilization without integration and globalism and people who think traditional white morality had nothing to do with bringing things to this state of affairs in the first place, and instead prefer to blame "jews" (who have basically the same morality, but in a more advanced and thusly more materialistic stage, anyway) and constantly toot their own horns about white civilization being just the most super thing ever without accepting any responsibility for what it has created in the modern world.

Weird. I'm flummoxed. Can anyone else figure out what this guy trying to say?

Count Eustace II
01-30-2007, 09:45 PM
And? If blacks are genetically violence prone, that shouldn't change a thing.

That's because you Canuks were/are nice to them. And my original argument was that a Canadian and an American will go nowhere in a debate about racial issues, especially black and white issues, because the experiences of the two nations concerning blacks is vastly different.

Now, I've lived in New York City for a very long time, and so when I hear some far out liberal Canadian ranting that blacks aren't prone to violence (big or small), I just have to fucking laugh because that statement is so far from reality that you might as well be a Martian.


We're from Halifax buddy, New York is closer. Not all Canadians are from Toronto. I've also never had any problems with black people in New York.

That's because you're scared of them, that's why. You'd offer up anything to appease an intimidating black and you know it....only thing is, the blacks will hate you no matter what you do, assuming you're white, with a passion that you could never imagine since you have such high egalitarian notions.

What can I say? Everyone's a Liberal until they're mugged by reality.

Nyx
01-30-2007, 09:47 PM
And? If blacks are genetically violence prone, that shouldn't change a thing.Your argument is useless unless you can provide racial crime statistics for Canada.

Moxie CrimeFighter
01-30-2007, 09:48 PM
There are other factors to consider here besides genetic propensity to commit violent crimes. In the case of Blacks, crime increased several-fold after the 1980’s—coinciding with the invention of Crack Cocaine.
All this tells me is that crack cocaine leads to an increase in violent crime, and that black communities had (and may continue to have) a problem with it, if I agree with your link. Are you suggesting that black people are more prone to drug addiction? Otherwise I see that as a community problem, not a race-based one. I doubt white people take crack addiction any better.

But, American Blacks have always committed violent crimes at higher levels than American Whites whenever they were sufficiently segregated from the White population—that is, in areas with high concentrations of Blacks and very little Whites.
I am interested where you are getting this information from. Besides, wouldn't that be a pro-integration argument?

Nyx
01-30-2007, 09:52 PM
If you could show me proof that if you enslaved a group of white people for several generations, and this did not result in massive increases in drug abuse, violence, crime, lowered intelligence etc. I'd be very interested.Acquired characteristics are not inherited. On the other hand, we know, for instance, that blacks have a mean testosterone level that is 20% higher than whites, and that criminality and impulsivity are correlated with testosterone levels.

tempus fugit
01-30-2007, 09:52 PM
I'd call for a cease fire.....these guys are dead in the water.

Nyx
01-30-2007, 09:55 PM
All this tells me is that crack cocaine leads to an increase in violent crime, and that black communities had (and may continue to have) a problem with it, if I agree with your link. Are you suggesting that black people are more prone to drug addiction? Otherwise I see that as a community problem, not a race-based one. I doubt white people take crack addiction any better.Might not the higher mean testosterone level of blacks have something to do with their propensity to violence?"Free testosterone was measured in the saliva of 89 male prison inmates. Inmates with higher testosterone concentrations had more often been convicted of violent crimes. The relationship was most striking at the extremes of the testosterone distribution, where 9 out of 11 inmates with the lowest testosterone concentrations had committed nonviolent crimes, and 10 out of 11 inmates with the highest testosterone concentrations had committed violent crimes. Among the inmates convicted of nonviolent crimes, those higher in testosterone received longer times to serve before parole and longer punishments for disciplinary infractions in prison. In the housing unit where peer ratings were most reliable, inmates rated as tougher by their peers were higher in testosterone.
Source (http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/cgi/content/abstract/49/2/174)

Serum testosterone levels in healthy young black and white men.
Ross R, Bernstein L, Judd H, Hanisch R, Pike M, Henderson B.

Blacks in the United States have the highest prostate cancer rate in the world and nearly twice that of whites in the United States. The 2:1 black-to-white ratio in prostate cancer rates is already apparent at age 45 years, the age at which the earliest prostate cancer cases occur. This finding suggests that the factor(s) responsible for the difference in rates occurs, or first occurs, early in life. Testosterone has been hypothesized to play a role in the etiology of prostate cancer, because testosterone and its metabolite, dihydrotestosterone, are the principal trophic hormones that regulate growth and function of epithelial prostate tissue. This report gives the results of assays of circulating steroid hormone levels in white and black college students in Los Angeles, CA. Mean testosterone levels in blacks were 19% higher than in whites, and free testosterone levels were 21% higher. Both these differences were statistically significant. Adjustment by analysis of covariance for time of sampling, age, weight, alcohol use, cigarette smoking, and use of prescription drugs somewhat reduced the differences. After these adjustments were made, blacks had a 15% higher testosterone level and a 13% higher free testosterone level. A 15% difference in circulating testosterone levels could readily explain a twofold difference in prostate cancer risk.Source (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3455741&dopt=Citation)

Der Sozialist
01-30-2007, 09:55 PM
Are you suggesting that black people are more prone to drug addiction? Otherwise I see that as a community problem, not a race-based one. I doubt white people take crack addiction any better.Yes, the problem of Crack Cocaine is a problem for inner-city Blacks in particular. Low-IQ individuals are more likely to become drug-addicts—and are more likely to resort to violence to support their habit.


I am interested where you are getting this information from. Besides, wouldn't that be a pro-integration argument?
Mixed-communities tend to have lower crime rates than communities with a high percentage of Blacks, and blacks in those communities usually commit violent crimes at a rate lower than Blacks in predominately Black communities.

However, Mixed communities usually have higher crime rates than majority White communities—so, my statement was not "pro-integration".

Moxie CrimeFighter
01-30-2007, 10:01 PM
That's because you Canuks were/are nice to them. And my original argument was that a Canadian and an American will go nowhere in a debate about racial issues, especially black and white issues, because the experiences of the two nations concerning blacks is vastly different.
You're dealing in a language of absolutes, though. You are saying, in my understanding, that blacks are genetically prone to violence. Niceness or mean-ness shouldn't have a bearing. If all you're saying is "black people are violent when you systemically discriminate against them," well, yeah. Most people probably would be, eventually.

Besides, if Canada was so "nice" to black people, Nova Scotia wouldn't have forced the black population onto the worst land available, and the City of Halifax wouldn't have bulldozed the black settlement of Africville in the 1960s to make way for a city dump.

That's because you're scared of them, that's why. You'd offer up anything to appease an intimidating black and you know it....only thing is, the blacks will hate you no matter what you do, assuming you're white, with a passion that you could never imagine since you have such high egalitarian notions.
You assume a lot about me and my experiences.

antibuddha
01-30-2007, 10:08 PM
Weird. I'm flummoxed. Can anyone else figure out what this guy trying to say?

Sigh. This type of crap is only precipitating my leaving here, so I hope you will enjoy going back to arguing endlessly about holocaust revisionism, antisemitism, and racial eugenics or whatever else it is you love to monomanically jabber about on a forum whose purported purpose is a supposed clashing of ideas. However, my point is very simple. Based off your other posts which I have read (which I always do whenever anyone addresses me) you have advocated the virtues of what you have called white civilization many times. I'm making some assumptions of course what you mean by this, but then of course, I have to.

I have said this, that it is ridiculous of you to then be critical of things such as neo-conservatism and neo-liberal "egalitarianism" (which only differ mostly in means, not ends), and people like Sulla incidientally, when these things have developed socioeconomically *out of white* civilization and are at the vanguard for its continuance (blaming jews for this is absurd). One can not maintain a modern high-tech, economically dynamic society without integration, argue against this or be silent. There is only one alternative to that, and it is ultra-fascist style futurism/technocracy in which there is massive centralized control and social and health problems are dealt with through state-administered eugenics and similar technologies. However, many people here make a point about praising the liberties and freedoms of speech, press, thought, and artistic endeavor, etc. which has produced the various cultural aspects that people have come to praise as being the merits of white civilization.

However, a fascist government will not tolerate freedom of speech, thought, press, art, etc. because these things will create instability, whereas our modern "egalitarian" society deals with problems arising from these things through decentralized media propaganda and education and welfare (which you whine about a lot). If you are capable of following me yet, you must also argue against this, or you should can it as far as complaining about "egalitarianism" goes, unless of course you adopt a (truly) antimodernist position which would mean a critique of modern society's technical apparatus and artefacts along with the ideals that uphold it, and I don't see you (or most here) doing that consistently any time soon. You adopt postures and seek out "the enemy" but it's not going to get you a stable technologically modernized, racially separatist and "free" culture.

Omniel
01-30-2007, 10:15 PM
Sigh. This type of crap is only precipitating my leaving here, so I hope you will enjoy going back to arguing endlessly about holocaust revisionism, antisemitism, and racial eugenics or whatever else it is you love to monomanically jabber about on a forum whose purported purpose is a supposed clashing of ideas. However, my point is very simple. Based off your other posts which I have read (which I always do whenever anyone addresses me) you have advocated the virtues of what you have called white civilization many times. I'm making some assumptions of course what you mean by this, but then of course, I have to.

I have said this, that it is ridiculous of you to then be critical of things such as neo-conservatism and neo-liberal "egalitarianism" (which only differ mostly in means, not ends), and people like Sulla incidientally, when these things have developed socioeconomically *out of white* civilization and are at the vanguard for its continuance (blaming jews for this is absurd). One can not maintain a modern high-tech, economically dynamic society without integration, argue against this or be silent. There is only one alternative to that, and it is ultra-fascist style futurism/technocracy in which there is massive centralized control and social and health problems are dealt with through state-administered eugenics and similar technologies. However, many people here make a point about praising the liberties and freedoms of speech, press, thought, and artistic endeavor, etc. which has produced the various cultural aspects that people have come to praise as being the merits of white civilization.

However, a fascist government will not tolerate freedom of speech, thought, press, art, etc. because these things will create instability, whereas our modern "egalitarian" society deals with problems arising from these things through decentralized media propaganda and education and welfare (which you whine about a lot). If you are capable of following me yet, you must also argue against this, or you can it as far as complaining about "egalitarianism" goes, unless of course you adopt a (truly) antimodernist position which would mean a critique of its technical apparatus and artefacts, and I don't see you (or most here) doing that consistently any time soon. You adopt postures and seek out "the enemy" but it's not going to get you a stable technologically modernized, racially separatist and "free" culture.
What a pretentious rant.

Starr
01-30-2007, 10:15 PM
[QUOTE=Moxie CrimeFighter]I say woefully because I believe that Halifax would be more vibrant and interesting were there more cultural diversity. A culturally homogeneous population encourages a homogeneous world view, which quite frankly gets boring. It is not so much that many whites is a "bad" thing, but that a range of cultures and ideas is a good thing.


why is this a requirement to make your city and life more interesting? Tell me what I would be missing out on by not having, blacks or hispanics, for example around? And what is wrong with a range of cultures and ideas in the world? Why does this range of cultures all have to exist within the same country? this leads to more problems than benefits. These very different people with their very different cultures are all going to want their culture to be the dominant one. The result is going to be one of two things, multiculturalism, where these people are going to be in a constant struggle for that domination or assimilation where these people are going to loose a vital part of who they are.

The difference being that you and I are both white. A criticism about ones own ethnic/cultural background (although as I have explained my comment was not intended as insulting towards white people) will always be met with less suspicion than one about someone else's.

Again there is a major double standard with this idea in society. Non whites can criticise whites, they do it all of the time. A lot of blacks blame whites for all of their problems. What happens when whites criticise non-whites?

Besides, an active desire for fewer people of a different race, or being upset that there are there in the first place, is a pretty good example of bigotry.

And how is this any more negative than an active desire for less people of your own race? And why is it only whites who think in these terms. How many non-whites do you hear praising diversity and wanting more people of other races around them? The word bigotry is only used when certain ideas are applied to non-whites. There is an unbelievable amount of hypocrisy in race related issues in society.

Your assertion that "diversity means less whites" strikes me as somewhat odd as well- is someone forcing a white family to move out whenever a Japanese family moves into the same town?

I just find it strange that the most hard core of the diversity mongers would jump for joy about the non-white family moving in. I remember when Bill Clinton gave a speech when he was president about how the nation is becoming more diverse and white people might one day soon no longer be a majority and his audience(mostly white)applauded. It is just bizarre to me that white people seem to dislike other whites to the extent that they view it as a good thing that their numbers are falling in their native lands or in lands that they built and made into what they are. Can you imagine hispanics, blacks or jews applauding their decling numbers? This to me is nothing more than self hate wrapped up in the nicer sounding package you are trying to wrap it up in.

antibuddha
01-30-2007, 10:26 PM
What a pretentious rant.

LOL.

I'll remember this next time I catch you or your pals blathering on about negros, hispanics, jews, liberals, etc. being inherently inferior to yourselves or claiming the innate and absolute superiority of your ethical positions. Also, I'll assume now that you can't argue against me, and that I win, and you're simply posturing more to avoid the issue. Way to go chief.

Omniel
01-30-2007, 10:30 PM
Also, I'll assume now that you can't argue against me, and that I win, and you're simply posturing more to avoid the issue. Way to go chief.
You appear to be jammed way too far up your own posterior for me to debate you, but I heartily encourage anyone else who can be bothered to wade through your self-indulgent wittering.

Nyx
01-30-2007, 10:37 PM
A culturally homogeneous population encourages a homogeneous world view, which quite frankly gets boring. Cultural heterogeneity is compatible with a racialist immigration policy. Is it wise to fight crime by importing people more likely to commit crimes, or to fight poverty by importing people more likely to be poor? Asking such questions - acknowledging that national and racial origins do matter - will not somehow engender cultural homogeneity.

antibuddha
01-30-2007, 10:57 PM
You appear to be jammed way too far up your own posterior for me to debate you, but I heartily encourage anyone else who can be bothered to wade through your self-indulgent wittering.

This is why you clods are annoying. You adopt an attitude of intellectual superiority, except whenever anyone makes a dialectical argument you accuse them of "intellectual acrobatics", "pretentiousness", and "self-indulgence." I'm sorry, but I don't find your naive-realist view of the world and ethics very satisfying and its not my problem if you encounter or did encounter this shit on your little college campus or whatever and can't or don't want to deal with it so just project it everywhere. You are prone to ape the theories of men greater than yourselves, (for istance, Nietzsche) as the underpinnings of your ideology of supremacy and yet you seem to save them from the accusation of Po-mo self-indulgent pomoposity, despite a large majority of what I am saying being derived from Nietzschean perspectivism and a lot of anti-modernist philosophers influenced by him and similar thinkers, all of which have *nothing to do with postmodernism and related philosophies*. All you latch onto is superman comic book nonsense. I made a number of very plain statements, which, whether they were couched in supposedly pretentious intellectual acrobatics or not you should have been able to refute but you didn't.

Furthermore, as much as I would like to claim complete originality for the ideas in my previous posts, they are hardly anything all that new (my take on them is a bit different, and I admit my presentation idiosyncratic), but you seem to want to think I made them up on the spot in order to narcissistically display my superiority to you (despite you engaging in this sort of thing on a normative basis through an ideology of racial supremacy) or that I try to "cover-up" the degeneracy of blacks. Lastly, using the "you're just an insulated upper-class intellectual" argument, will not work if you're going to use that as your lifeline, because I am poor and have grown up around blacks my whole life so I am not "blind" to their behavior nor do I have a boner about vilifying them because I had a couple bad experiences. Are they not as bright? Maybe, I don't care, because we're talking about morality here, and you did nothing to refute my initial idea that perhaps whites tend to commit sexual assault on persons they are familiar with more, and that perhaps we may see usury simply as institutionalized theft (originally the *Church itself* thought so) as opposed to blacks who prefer strangers as victims and tend to be more personalistic and so the latter gets reported more. You just got all hot and bothered about anyone vaguely trying to in any way defend them crazy niggers. Seriously though, I give up.

humanfly
01-31-2007, 12:04 AM
This may also interest you:

SNIP
Nevertheless, even East Asians who had been severely malnourished as infants had an IQ of 102, slightly higher than that of well-nourished Europeans, suggesting that genetic factors are responsible for the higher East Asian IQ." (Richard Lynn, Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis [2006])
hahaha
here's the part where I'm supposed to search for studies to prove the opposite. You argue first that nutrition doesn't make a difference to IQ in Norwegians, and then that it does make a difference to Asians. So which is it?

The same researcher suggests that improved nutrition is the reason for the Flynn effect.

The conclusion above: "suggesting that genetic factors are responsible" is absurd, the evidence supports nothing of the sort. It's a wild leap with zero evidence. No one on this board has shown any evidence or proof of any kind beyond leaps of faith... your argument is that blacks score lower on IQ tests, have smaller brain size, are more violent, it's not nutrition, and therefor it must be a genetic trait. What a complete load of pseudo science.

The studies and scientists you cite are controversial and have been accused of racism. Lynn himself currently serves on the board of directors of the Pioneer Fund which has also been accused of racism.

For arguments sake, let's say I accept the hypothesis that blacks have lower IQ's. There are many possible reasons for this beyond genetics, many of which simply haven't been studied enough.

One suggestion is Environmentally-Mediated Intellectual Decline. Unfortunately there are no comprehensive statistics for EMID yet.

Here's an example of some possibilities:
QUOTE
‘Clinical’ outcomes (observable disability which can be traced to particular causes) are often indicative of much broader ‘sub-clinical’ impacts. In the 1970s, Herbert Needleman studied the sub-clinical impacts of lead in 3000 US children. This revealed a strong link between high body-burdens of lead, and behavioural and intellectual difficulties recorded by teachers. In a follow-up study in 1988, Needleman found that the same children had displayed higher drop-out rates, lower class standing, increased absenteeism, and lower vocabulary and grammatical reasoning scores.

There is no comprehensive statistical profile of EMID, but:

Lead may impair intelligence in:

* 10 per cent of poor Parisian children
* 17 per cent of children in the US
* 25 per cent in Mexico City
* 60 per cent in Managua
* 90 per cent in some African cities
END
Read more here
http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Units/gec/gecko/brief-13.htm

but I think you've already made up your mind.

It seems very possible to me that you want to blame victims.

Your arguments weak and suggestions of racial segregation will never be accepted by the wider world. Why don't you try spending your time and superior intelligence on something more productive?

humanfly
01-31-2007, 12:24 AM
SNIP
IQ-depressing levels of nutrition have not been found within any segment of the US population.


Most studies probably focus on macro nutrients. There is some research to indicate micro nutrients as well as environmental toxins play a role. See my above post.

Your arguments are interesting. I wish I had time to do more research in these areas.


Moreover, the IQ difference persists when blacks and whites are matched by socioeconomic status. Eskimos and third-world Vietnamese score higher than first-world blacks on every test of cognitive ability.
SNIP

Again, Third World Vietnamese have IQs of 103, and Eskimos - many of whom live in poverty - score 6 points above Englishmen in Raven's matrices.



This idea of Asians and Eskimos having high IQs I find particularly fascinating. If we assume it's not genetic, and we examine environment and diet the first thing that comes to my mind is a diet higher in Omega 3 fattys acids - fish. Simply googling: IQ omega 3 fatty acids
does suggest a possible link between IQ and omega 3 fatty acids.

I wonder if there have been studies where white children were raised by Asians and showed a corresponding increase in IQ?

Basically what I want is proof: you show me the research that shows scientists have discovered different genetic markers related to intelligence among the races. All you've shown me is correlation; no one has shown any causation.

humanfly
01-31-2007, 12:40 AM
Um,most black Canadians were runaway American slaves. Slavery was abolished in Canada by Britain in 1833 without a brutal and bloody Civil War like in America.

And for chrissakes, the fucking black population in Canada is like 1.5%.

You freaks up there simply didn't and don't have the same experience with blacks as the unfortunate white people in the USA did and continue to have on a daily basis. That's what I was getting to in my other post.

If you think blacks are so civilized and not violence-prone you're welcome to visit New York city anytime, or how about Detroit? That's closer to you Canuks anyway.

I've been to NY many many times. In fact I got married there. I quite enjoyed it. I did notice higher levels of racial tension. I figured they just got done talking with someone like you, and I can't blame them, it's a bit frustrating.

Why don't you visit Toronto, it seems like you Americans could use a lesson in how to do things the right way and get along with each other.
<SNIP Wikipedia Toronto entry>
Toronto's population is cosmopolitan, which reflects its role as a major destination for immigrants to Canada. Because of its low crime rates,[5] clean environment and generally high standard of living, Toronto is consistently rated one of the world's most livable cities by the Economist Intelligence Unit[6] and the Mercer Quality of Living Survey.[7]

With a long history as a major destination for immigrants to Canada, Toronto is one of the world's most multicultural cities. Major ethnic groups include English: 16.86%, Scottish: 11.12%, Irish: 10.48%, Italian: 9.23%, and French: 4.73%. As of 2001, 42.8% of the city's residents belong to a visible minority group,[21] and visible minorities are projected to comprise a majority in Toronto by 2017.[22] According to the United Nations Development Programme, Toronto has the second-highest percentage of foreign-born population among world cities, after Miami, Florida. While Miami's foreign-born population consists mostly of Cubans and other Latin Americans, no single nationality or culture dominates Toronto's immigrant population.

Based on the 2001 Census, the five largest visible minority groups in Toronto are Chinese (10.6%), South Asian (10.3%), Caribbean/African (8.3%), Filipino (3.5%) and Latin American (2.2%).[23]

Starr
01-31-2007, 01:14 AM
Yes, in this article, Toronto sounds like a great example of the phrase "diversity is our stength"

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1227/p07s02-woam.html

Long associated with low homicide rates and safe streets, "Toronto the Good," as this city has long been known, has experienced a sharp increase in handgun shootings over the past year, largely among young black men who belong to gangs.

and this:
http://www.dpna.org/12drugsgangs.htm

humanfly
01-31-2007, 02:41 AM
Acquired characteristics are not inherited. On the other hand, we know, for instance, that blacks have a mean testosterone level that is 20% higher than whites, and that criminality and impulsivity are correlated with testosterone levels.
I might be able to help you with explaining that. I think exercising increases testosterone levels. I bet the black dudes got off their ass and went to the gym, and the white dudes sat on their fat asses and got fatter. I would posit that in this situation, the black dudes were smarter then the the white dudes, being more aggressive increased their survival chances and thus made them genetically superior.

listen, I wanna be racist like you. Do you guys have a certification process? Where did you go to school in this stuff? Is your other name Odin?

humanfly
01-31-2007, 02:57 AM
Yes, in this article, Toronto sounds like a great example of the phrase "diversity is our stength"
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1227/p07s02-woam.html
and this:
http://www.dpna.org/12drugsgangs.htm
Yes, I've been meaning to talk to you about that.

The gangs and guns from the US keep spilling across your border into our country. Why don't you DO something about that?

I can't blame it all on you. Part of this is because we, well, took all the police and community services away from these communities a few years back. I guess that's what happens when kids have nothing to do.

Crime in Toronto is down and declining, it's still the safest city in NA.

Starr
01-31-2007, 03:06 AM
[QUOTE=humanfly]Yes, I've been meaning to talk to you about that.

The gangs and guns from the US keep spilling across your border into our country. Why don't you DO something about that?

To blame anything on guns is a cop out. To throw out a conservative pro-gun cliche, but one that is entirely true, guns do not go off by themselves. Guns are not you problem, certain minorities that, for genetic reasons have a much more difficult time controlling their emotions and behaviors who pull the trigger on those guns, are your problem, just as they are for everyone else who has the pleasure of living around them.

I can't blame it all on you. Part of this is because we, well, took all the police and community services away from these communities a few years back. I guess that's what happens when kids have nothing to do.

If it is anything like it is here, they bitch about the police not doing enough to protect them and then bitch about racism and police brutality when the police do attempt to do something about the crime in their "hoods." loose-loose situation. But, yes I guess you are right when kids have nothing to do it is perfectly reasonable that they will rape, kill, and pillage.:p Think about that statement of yours once. Is that a standard you want to set for the society you live in? Those po' black criminal kids can't be blamed for their violent ways, they are bored and need someone to take care of them, and protect them from themselves and if this is not happening of course they will revert to savagery. I sometimes thing that liberals do have some very "racist" beliefs under the surface.

C

Helios Panoptes
01-31-2007, 03:12 AM
I might be able to help you with explaining that. I think exercising increases testosterone levels. I bet the black dudes got off their ass and went to the gym, and the white dudes sat on their fat asses and got fatter. I would posit that in this situation, the black dudes were smarter then the the white dudes, being more aggressive increased their survival chances and thus made them genetically superior.

listen, I wanna be racist like you. Do you guys have a certification process? Where did you go to school in this stuff? Is your other name Odin?

Exercise does not increase testosterone levels. There is an increase immediately post-exercise, which is due to decreased plasma volume and several other factors, but it doesn't last.

BTW, that is a strange hypothesis. Aren't blacks more obese and more sedentary than whites in the US?

humanfly
01-31-2007, 03:17 AM
[QUOTE]


why is this a requirement to make your city and life more interesting? Tell me what I would be missing out on by not having, blacks or hispanics, for example around?


Someone has to have said this to you before, but I like many different types of black and hispanic art and culture, food, music, wood carvings even.


Why does this range of cultures all have to exist within the same country? this leads to more problems than benefits.

you end up with new sorts of cultures, and a wider range of options? the more diversity, the wider range of problems you can solve.


These very different people with their very different cultures are all going to want their culture to be the dominant one. The result is going to be one of two things, multiculturalism, where these people are going to be in a constant struggle for that domination or assimilation where these people are going to loose a vital part of who they are.

I think I agree with that. If you can get multicultalism right, people don't lose who they are: they gain additional options, different viewpoints. That's what's fun about learning about new religions, new cultures, new foods, new music. you realize that everything's optional. Isn't that fun? More options.

humanfly
01-31-2007, 03:30 AM
Exercise does not increase testosterone levels. There is an increase immediately post-exercise, which is due to decreased plasma volume and several other factors, but it doesn't last.

BTW, that is a strange hypothesis. Aren't blacks more obese and more sedentary than whites in the US?

You're right, exercise doesn't increase testosterone levels. You know what does increase testosterone? Not having sex.

So the black guys weren't having sex, the white guys were.

ewww! buddy just between you and me, I was right, you're kinda sick

Helios Panoptes
01-31-2007, 03:35 AM
You're right, exercise doesn't increase testosterone levels. You know what does increase testosterone? Not having sex.

Perhaps. Source requested, though.

So the black guys weren't having sex, the white guys were.

Lol, why don't you just bow out? This is embarrassing.

shanemac
01-31-2007, 03:44 AM
Yes, I've been meaning to talk to you about that.

The gangs and guns from the US keep spilling across your border into our country. Why don't you DO something about that?

I can't blame it all on you. Part of this is because we, well, took all the police and community services away from these communities a few years back. I guess that's what happens when kids have nothing to do.

Crime in Toronto is down and declining, it's still the safest city in NA.

A large number of the NIGger gangsters in Toronto are Jamaican, not American. That is, they are pure black as coal NIGGERS, rather than the toned down, 25% white browns of America.

http://www.canadafirst.net/jamaicans.html

humanfly
01-31-2007, 04:11 AM
Perhaps. Source requested, though.



Lol, why don't you just bow out? This is embarrassing.

<SNIP>
These data demonstrate that acute abstinence does not change the neuroendocrine response to orgasm but does produce elevated levels of testosterone in males.
<END>
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11760788&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum

Is it embarrassing? I find discussing the topic of racial segregation more embarrassing.

uh, why have you been to jail

humanfly
01-31-2007, 04:12 AM
A large number of the NIGger gangsters in Toronto are Jamaican, not American. That is, they are pure black as coal NIGGERS, rather than the toned down, 25% white browns of America.

http://www.canadafirst.net/jamaicans.html
please ban

Helios Panoptes
01-31-2007, 04:29 AM
<SNIP>
These data demonstrate that acute abstinence does not change the neuroendocrine response to orgasm but does produce elevated levels of testosterone in males.
<END>
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11760788&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum

So, let me get this straight, you propose that the black males were abstinent over a long period of time and this accounts for their increased T levels? First, three weeks is a very long time for a young male to be abstinent. Even during a dry spell with partners, it is very probable that he will masturbate. Second, I have seen zero evidence that blacks males ejaculate(through sex or self-stimulation) less than white males. Actually, it is counterintuitive.

Is it embarrassing? I find discussing the topic of racial segregation more embarrassing.

It is not embarrassing. It is embarrassing to make the argument that you just have with regard to ejaculation accounting for the T difference between blacks and whites.

uh, why have you been to jail

A guy made a stupid argument on the internet, so I tracked him down. He can't walk anymore.

cyborg
01-31-2007, 04:48 AM
Someone has to have said this to you before, but I like many different types of black and hispanic art and culture, food, music, wood carvings even.

Crass materialism. Like a bug or worm seeking out base sensation. This is no human being.

Fenris
01-31-2007, 05:08 AM
I say woefully because I believe that Halifax would be more vibrant and interesting were there more cultural diversity. A culturally homogeneous population encourages a homogeneous world view, which quite frankly gets boring.
Indeed.

Well, enjoy the out-sourcing job-taking gang-raping school-wrecking diversity when it hits Halifax.

It's coming and you've been warned.

koch curve
01-31-2007, 05:46 AM
hey i guess ive never told you this but im pretty glad all of you guys arent a bunch of hipster pseudo-communist faggots

Kriger
01-31-2007, 07:34 AM
I am just wondering if a human fly is like its counterpart in the insect world:

Breeds copiously, produces maggots by the billions, and loves to play in shit, uh, shite, uh, poop, uh, excrement, uh, waste products.

Nyx
01-31-2007, 08:47 PM
You argue first that nutrition doesn't make a difference to IQ in Norwegians, and then that it does make a difference to Asians. So which is it?I never argued that malnutrition cannot lower intelligence. I believe it can. It just isn't as simple as you are making it out to be. IQ-depressing levels of malnutrition - capable of lowering IQ a full standard deviation - have not been found in the African-American population. Then there are several cases of entire populations of malnourished non-blacks with average IQs of 100.

The conclusion above: "suggesting that genetic factors are responsible" is absurd, the evidence supports nothing of the sort. It's a wild leap with zero evidence.Then let my hear your hypothesis. Why is it that malnourished Vietnamese children outscore first-world blacks on every test of cognitive ability, if malnutrition is the causative factor in black cognitive deficiency?

your argument is that blacks score lower on IQ tests, have smaller brain size, are more violent, it's not nutrition, and therefor it must be a genetic trait.That was not the structure of my argument.

The studies and scientists you cite are controversial and have been accused of racism. Lynn himself currently serves on the board of directors of the Pioneer Fund which has also been accused of racism.Their research is no more 'racist' than a measuring stick is 'sexist' for finding average differences in height between men and women.

For arguments sake, let's say I accept the hypothesis that blacks have lower IQ's.Something on which virtually all researchers agree.

There are many possible reasons for this beyond genetics, many of which simply haven't been studied enough.There are many possible reasons, but most of them are contradicted by the evidence.

but I think you've already made up your mind.I think you're the one being dogmatic here. Whereas I believe that both genes and environment are operative factors in the black-white IQ gap, you appear only to be satisfied with a 100% all-or-nothing environmental explanation because it bolsters your egalitarian political ideology.

Your arguments weak and suggestions of racial segregation will never be accepted by the wider world. Why don't you try spending your time and superior intelligence on something more productive?Studying human diversity is worth the effort simply for the sake of enquiry.

Fenris
02-01-2007, 01:00 AM
Woozley Farm on radio in public freakout after Stormfront posts their names. (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/protestors-tracked-down-neo-nazis-360103.html)

OVERWATCH
02-01-2007, 02:05 AM
Woozley Farm on radio in public freakout after Stormfront posts their names. (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/protestors-tracked-down-neo-nazis-360103.html)


Hahhahahahahah! That's what happens when you play the grown-up game of (strongarm) political activism!

shanemac
02-01-2007, 11:27 PM
Where'd they go?

Nyx
02-01-2007, 11:30 PM
Either they were stealth-banned or refuted.

Kriger
02-02-2007, 03:33 AM
Probably have been advised not to have contact with the "evil White racists" who they are freakin out about to the News media.

Evidently, they are "seeing" an evil White Supremacist looking to "get" them in every face in a crowd. Probably hiding under their beds, too.

Just more fuel for the "evil White racist" fire to keep it burning bright.

shanemac
02-02-2007, 04:46 PM
Perhaps they were too horrified by the ubiquitous use of the word "NIGGER"... from which they've been programmed to recoil.

LOL, Fags.

humanfly
02-04-2007, 06:04 PM
SNIP

Then let my hear your hypothesis. Why is it that malnourished Vietnamese children outscore first-world blacks on every test of cognitive ability, if malnutrition is the causative factor in black cognitive deficiency?
SNIP
I think you're the one being dogmatic here. Whereas I believe that both genes and environment are operative factors in the black-white IQ gap, you appear only to be satisfied with a 100% all-or-nothing environmental explanation because it bolsters your egalitarian political ideology.
SNIP

What I'm trying to say is that you have no evidence that genetics plays a role. All you have is correlations of race to intelligence.

There are many other possible explanations and much research still to be done.

One possible factor is lead contamination which I mentioned previously, and is especially high in certain African countries.

Here are over 100 other possible alternative explanations :
http://appliedpersonnelresearch.com/papers/adimpact.pdf