PDA

View Full Version : Lol, the Phora and WN


Ace Rimmer
02-06-2007, 11:07 PM
Apparently the Phora thinks that the Jews are White,holocaust was not fake and that Hitler was a bad person.

Talk about the WN forum, it's for kikes and kike-a-likes only :D

Kodos
02-07-2007, 12:56 AM
http://www.sfist.com/attachments/sfist_chuck/bodysnatchers.jpg

Starr
02-07-2007, 12:59 AM
Those polls are actually pretty split, which might say only about half of the membership are "kike a likes":rofl: . It is good for discussion purposes.

the racial polls are often more heavily in tune with wn ideology.
like this:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?p=299235#post299235

Vasily Zaitsev
02-07-2007, 01:00 AM
The Phora is not a WN forum.

Keystone
02-07-2007, 01:11 AM
The Phora is not a WN forum.
Of course not. It's a racist forum.

il ragno
02-07-2007, 01:22 AM
I stopped participating in polls - particularly those started by Ix, or asking the same race/Hitler-based questions for the umpteenth time - some time ago.

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
02-07-2007, 03:12 AM
Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh cry about it my ideology is going to sweep over racial realism and there is nothing you can do about it.

You may mistake me for one of you. This would be your problem, as I'm going to be quite glad to see the destruction of the contemporary inner circles of so-called white nationalism, which will happen, so that it can be rebuilt in a way that suits the agenda of me and people like me.

il ragno
02-07-2007, 03:58 AM
I'm going to be quite glad to see the destruction of the contemporary inner circles of so-called white nationalism, which will happen, so that it can be rebuilt in a way that suits the agenda of me and people like me.

So which chapter of H.E.A.T.W.A.V.E. are you District Council Leader of?

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
02-07-2007, 04:00 AM
I'm an independent paleoconservative and race realist who makes allies with political parties and organizations that share my goals. My aim is to strengthen their will power and build their confidence, as every supporter helps. That way, the organizations won't fall into the grasp of people like the one who started this thread.

I realize many organizations are pressured by a lobby of people who want to turn them into stormfront-style organizations, and I support these organizations to counterbalance some of this pressure. Of course, I'm not the only person to do this. I don't want organizations that agree with me now to stop agreeing with me, lol.

Osmium14
02-07-2007, 04:09 AM
I realize many organizations are pressured by a lobby of people who want to turn them into stormfront-style organizations, and I support these organizations to counterbalance some of this pressure.

Me too. I support American Renaissance. I have an annual subscription for the Print Edition, $36 a year, First Class mail. Jared Taylor is a good man, I've read and listened to a lot of his stuff. I even read books about WN that talk about him and has quotes from him. He truly wants to help our people.

"My greatest concern is the survival of my people, which I think of as Americans of European extraction. We're the people who built this nation." --Jared Taylor, June 2001 (Quote taken from the book, Into a World of Hate by Nick Ryan, p. 185)

Captain Marinesko
02-07-2007, 08:26 AM
I usually didn't pay much attention to the Phora, until I found it was a place where they actually have real debate and free speech. Prior to that of course, I saw a LOT of hate directed at the Phora by VNN and SF types. It became clear as to why when I arrived. They don't have an echo chamber here. Once you get these WNs out of their echo chamber, they fall apart like a house of cards.

Ace Rimmer
02-07-2007, 12:26 PM
The Phora is not a WN forum.

Never said so.It was always described as such by outsiders.

Steppenwolf
02-07-2007, 01:55 PM
None of the polls mentioned are necessarily related to White nationalism / pan-Europeanism.

Vasily Zaitsev
02-07-2007, 03:06 PM
Never said so.It was always described as such by outsiders.

Ah. I see.

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
02-07-2007, 04:47 PM
Apparently the Phora thinks that the Jews are White,holocaust was not fake and that Hitler was a bad person.

Talk about the WN forum, it's for kikes and kike-a-likes only :D
You'd be suprised that most racist Americans probably agree with all three of these statements, its only the internet extremists who disagree. But most just typical working class racist Americans would agree. I'm talking about regular people who are racist but don't join nsm groups or stuff like that.

Starr
02-07-2007, 07:46 PM
You'd be suprised that most racist Americans probably agree with all three of these statements, its only the internet extremists who disagree. But most just typical working class racist Americans would agree. I'm talking about regular people who are racist but don't join nsm groups or stuff like that.


With the first one some might agree and some might not. I think most racist Americans would at least see jews as being different than they are on some level and not really just in the way of their religion being different. The other two examples are probably believed by them, yes, but it is probably also with a sort of indifference. What they see and focus on are things they see as having a direct impact on their life, like the nonstop immigration from south of the border, not whether hitler was good or bad or whether the holocaust is 100% accurate in every regard.

Dr. Gutberlet
02-07-2007, 09:54 PM
I have stated numerous times that I have Jewish friends. Oh my!

///M power
02-07-2007, 10:00 PM
Apparently the Phora thinks that the Jews are White,holocaust was not fake and that Hitler was a bad person.

Talk about the WN forum, it's for kikes and kike-a-likes only :D

looks like the kikes are doing a good job here.
:viking: :viking: :viking:

///M power
02-07-2007, 10:02 PM
I have stated numerous times that I have Jewish friends. Oh my!

yes, you also like Haim Ben Pesach:)

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
02-07-2007, 10:08 PM
With the first one some might agree and some might not. I think most racist Americans would at least see jews as being different than they are on some level and not really just in the way of their religion being different. The other two examples are probably believed by them, yes, but it is probably also with a sort of indifference. What they see and focus on are things they see as having a direct impact on their life, like the nonstop immigration from south of the border, not whether hitler was good or bad or whether the holocaust is 100% accurate in every regard.
Most people who are racist are also very patriotic. Not only do they not focus on Hitler, they hate him.

Jews were confederate higher ups, and slave owner. There were even jews in Nathan Forrest's klan. You can argue that there were also blacks in his klan, pro-slavery one, but this is true. My point is, this idea of the jew as a non-white can only come from Europe, as its not an American ideology. And I think you know exactly where I'm hinting about. George Washington welcomed jews. But America did not welcome non-whites. If they saw jews as non-white, that wouldn't make much sense.

The reason the pro-white movement started seeing jews as non-white is only because as membership dipped down and Americans stopped caring about race, the only thing left in the organizations were the neo-nazi outcasts from society. Because of that, people like David Duke pretended to be American racists and hid their true ideology. They will deny it to the roof that they are neo-nazis. But they still are neo-nazis, and they still are influenced by Hitler.

Are they different? No more different than Italians, Irish, or Eastern Europeans.

Osmium14
02-07-2007, 10:18 PM
I will accept Jews as White if a majority or at least the vocal and active part of their people stops promoting non-Whites and committing anti-White crimes. I'm talking about Abe Foxman, AIPAC, and all of the other Jewish organizations. All of which add up to more than $6 billion dollars in budget.

You can't ignore their actions. It's like talking about swimming without getting wet. Almost all Jewish organizations represent American Jews, so where do we place the blame at if we can't blame Jews? The same goes for every organization, whether White, Oriental, Muslim, or Black.

Arrow Cross
02-07-2007, 10:18 PM
I have stated numerous times that I have Jewish friends. Oh my!
Oh, I sincerely hope they didn't see your initial avatar of Martin Bormann then. ;)

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
02-07-2007, 10:30 PM
Almost all Jewish organizations represent American Jews, so where do we place the blame at if we can't blame Jews?
I truly believe the average jew just doesn't care about any of these issues, and is fully open to debate. Because the average jew doesn't care, people like Abraham Foxman are seen as "representatives." By automatically labeling a jewish person as an enemy just because they are jewish, you are basically giving up any chance of persuading them, whereas a good debater would have stood at least a chance.

so where do we place the blame at if we can't blame Jews?
Big business, liberals, the democratic party, the republican party, etc.

I will accept Jews as White if a majority or at least the vocal and active part of their people stops promoting non-Whites and committing anti-White crimes.
The jewish crime rate is very low...some jews have supported non-whites in an attempt not to stick out as much, but that's no reason to collectively attack jewish people. You do realize you can still blame an individual without having to consider them non-white. I don't like George Bush. But I don't respond to this by questioning if George Bush is white. Of course he is white. He's just an *ss.

Osmium14
02-07-2007, 10:51 PM
The jewish crime rate is very low...

Their crime of spreading filthy ideology and "hate speech." The list of -isms: Feminism, Communism, Egalitarianism, Socialism, it goes on and on. Also, they are responsible for other crimes such as forcing White guilt on ourselves through their control of the media. Not allowing White identity, while actively promoting non-White identity. Calling us "racists" and "bigots" for wanting to express our heritage and pride. Insulting Christianity in the media. Not allowing Mel Gibson to make that Christian movie, he had to beg movie studios to distribute it.

If it was just about money, then why not make a Christian movie about Jesus? There's a large market of White Christians in the USA, but the Jews avoid the issue because they don't like Christians.

Weird Al Yankovic said that he learned how to speak Yiddish because "it's like a second language in the entertainment industry." It's clearly obvious who controls the media, even if you aren't in the media business.

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
02-07-2007, 10:57 PM
But who cares who controls the media? The media has acheived popularity with the American people. That is the problem, not that it is jewish. And no-one is stopping anyone from going another route like Mel Gibson. No-one, but public opinion, is stopping another media from forming.

To change the problem, it will take more than changing the media, the average American will have to change too. A lot of people try to dance around this. But pro-white medias already exist, but they just haven't caught on. We need to do a better job, not complain about jews. I believe Amren is doing exactly what I said here, and that is why Amren is becoming fairly successful.

Mike
02-08-2007, 03:01 AM
It's a feedback loop. The controllers of the mass media do respond to the appetites of the public, but the appetites of the public are gradually shaped by the content of the mass media. The difference between the two sides is that the public's appetite is chaotic, unconscious, and manipulable, while the content of the controlled media is systematic, deliberate and ideologically focused. The feedback loop has been going on for the better part of a century, and it will not be easy to overcome for anyone concerned about the future of Whites. A handful of MSM mavericks like Mel Gibson is not enough to repair the damage - at least not yet.

Even intellectually casual observers sometimes can't help but notice that the media keep "pushing the envelope" until the favored subversive cause du jour becomes mainstreamed and unobjectionable, and - more importantly - unobjected to. Race-mixing, axe-grinding feminism, various degenerate homosexual grievances, and the putative holiness of Holocaust remembrance - just to name a few issues - would not be on the radar, much less would they be the destructive insanities that they are today, were the owners of the mass media of different ideological convictions than they are. Granted, a few lobbies have held the line on explicit sexual content and violence, but when it comes to most important ideological matters, the controlled media have been an unmitigated disaster for our civilization.

In short, the media masters are expert psychologists of the crowd, and they have an agenda that goes beyond profit. That agenda has changed the course of the West. Look to the ethnic background of the owners if you wish to understand the exact nature of the ideological focus.

But who cares who controls the media? The media has acheived popularity with the American people. That is the problem, not that it is jewish. And no-one is stopping anyone from going another route like Mel Gibson. No-one, but public opinion, is stopping another media from forming.

To change the problem, it will take more than changing the media, the average American will have to change too. A lot of people try to dance around this. But pro-white medias already exist, but they just haven't caught on. We need to do a better job, not complain about jews. I believe Amren is doing exactly what I said here, and that is why Amren is becoming fairly successful.

Starr
02-08-2007, 03:13 AM
Also, they are responsible for other crimes such as forcing White guilt on ourselves through their control of the media

White guilt has been a very powerful tool in shaping how people think and how they respond to what is going on around them. And the jews have a pretty dominant hold on the media. But, at the end of the day, you can be led to the water, but it becomes your choice to drink. Ideas can be very heavily promoted and promoted in such a way that people will choose to accept them, but you can't be forced to accept those ideas. You can be forced, in a sense, to give the indication that you accept certain ideas or at least not too make much of a fuss with the threat of being ostracised hanging over your head.

I don't like these arguments that say we are completely controlled and ideas can be forced on us since it indicates that we are 100% powerless, in every regard, and therefore defeated, pretty pathetic/stupid or all of the above. It also has a sort of victim feel and also stems, I think, from refusal to look at our own behaviors(as whites) It is always easier to place complete or a majority of the blame on someone else. People do this on a one on one personal level(my parents didn't treat me right. My husband/wife dumped me and this is why I did this or have problems,etc.)and also on a group level(its the jews, its the white man)

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
02-08-2007, 03:34 AM
Also, they are responsible for other crimes such as forcing White guilt on ourselves through their control of the media
The problem isn't the media. The problem is that white guilt exists.

If the media didn't do it, something else would.

That is like blaming Columbine on Marilyn Manson. I just don't buy it.

Micaelis
02-08-2007, 04:01 AM
It's so much easier to be a victim of the Jews than to create an attractive, intelligent alternative. Whatever. They can wallow in their misery.

Nyx
02-08-2007, 04:19 AM
Those polls are actually pretty split, which might say only about half of the membership are "kike a likes":rofl: . It is good for discussion purposes.

the racial polls are often more heavily in tune with wn ideology.
like this:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?p=299235#post299235Most people here are race realists. Nazi sympathisers and antisemites are a minority, though not a small one.

Mike
02-08-2007, 05:00 AM
But, at the end of the day, you can be led to the water, but it becomes your choice to drink.But it's not quite that simple. If a stranger from a strange land told you he would lead you to the Fountain of Youth, but instead led you to a poisoned well, and then encouraged you to drink, then he is not exactly entirely morally blameless for the consequence. Arguably, you, the putative dupe, should rightfully have done your due diligence before taking the advice of a dodgy-looking, hook-nosed alien with beady eyes and pursed lips. However, if the alien had created an enchanting illusion-generating machine that enticed your focused attention for six hours a day from the time of your birth, and that illusion-generating machine created a fantasy world that seemed as good as real, that drummed the idea that what was evil for you was really good, that even hid the alien himself from sight, perhaps you could be forgiven for being a dupe. In fact, not only from your birth has the illusion machine been projecting its distortions, but for no less than five decades before you even existed, this machine has been pumping illusions into the minds of your kin. I suggest that this is a valid interpretaton of what has happened to White Americans.


I don't like these arguments that say we are completely controlled and ideas can be forced on us since it indicates that we are 100% powerless, in every regard, and therefore defeated, pretty pathetic/stupid or all of the above. It also has a sort of victim feel and also stems, I think, from refusal to look at our own behaviors(as whites) It is always easier to place complete or a majority of the blame on someone else. People do this on a one on one personal level(my parents didn't treat me right. My husband/wife dumped me and this is why I did this or have problems,etc.)and also on a group level(its the jews, its the white man)I agree with you with respect to personal responsibility, but please understand that the effects of the mass media are to be considered from the overall effect on the crowd - not the effect on this individual, or that individual. Some individuals do matter in the course of history, but most do not. On the other hand, the crowd always matters, and that's why understanding the mass media is critical.

By the way, we are not 100% powerless - the intellectual independence of Phorans and others is proof positive of that. In fact, I believe we are at a singular point in history with respect to the illusion machine. The illusion machine initally worked as it did because its power was unprecedented and therefore unexpected in human history. Few grasped quickly the enormous potential it availed. The ones who did grasp it quickly appear to be limited to (A) Jews in America and (B) Joseph Goebbels. Goebbels has since departed the scene.

Getting back to the singular and, I believe, transient nature of rule-by-media-lies: I do believe that this crap is going to happen only once, and then pass. Once Jewish control is overthrown, it will not come back again, because in contrast to the slow-witted WASP elite of yesteryear, every potential ruling elite in the world is now aware of the power of the mass media, and no ruling elite will ever, ever allow that trick to be played on them again. The Jews might well try some other trick, but media power will eventually be dispersed to the gentile elites of the world. The task at hand is the overthrowing.

Der Sozialist
02-08-2007, 05:27 AM
Overall, the argument that Jews are responsible for imposing multiculturalism on America is quite silly. Remember, Jews first had to immigrate here en masse—that is, before they had control over the media. Jews were arriving in the boatload from Poland while nativists were squealing "bloody murder". America was also importing Chinese immigrants into California as well as Japanese and Filipinos into Hawaii in the 1800s—again, during a time with little to no Jewish presence compounded with no mass media (or at least, in today’s vain).

During the early twenties, the elite Ivy League institutions began basing admittance on character attributes as well as academic achievement—why? To keep Jewish enrollment down—one example was their emphasis on 'character' something a protestant Anglo would almost certainly have, and a Jew would not. Jewish dominance is a fairly recent phenomenon—or during and post-Great Depression.

However, multiculturalism already came to America—and it brought the Jews with it.

To finish, Jews entered the Ivy League institutions despite the best efforts of the Anglo-majority to deny them entry. From here, the rest follows. Jewish influence and support for liberal initiatives is explained by their intelligence as well as Jewish lack of assimilation into their host population. One has trouble assimilating into a group that is 10-15 IQ points below him.

Osmium14
02-08-2007, 05:52 AM
America was also importing Chinese immigrants into California as well as Japanese and Filipinos into Hawaii in the 1800s—again, during a time with little to no Jewish presence compounded with no mass media (or at least, in today’s vain).

In 1965, the USA was about 90% White and 10% Black. Those Oriental immigrants that you mentioned had no significant relevance at all (~<1%). You're grasping at straws here, trying to defend the Jews from their insidious tactics is futile.

Hippias
02-08-2007, 06:08 AM
Overall, the argument that Jews are responsible for imposing multiculturalism on America is quite silly. Remember, Jews first had to immigrate here en masse—that is, before they had control over the media. Jews were arriving in the boatload from Poland while nativists were squealing "bloody murder". America was also importing Chinese immigrants into California as well as Japanese and Filipinos into Hawaii in the 1800s—again, during a time with little to no Jewish presence compounded with no mass media (or at least, in today’s vain).

During the early twenties, the elite Ivy League institutions began basing admittance on character attributes as well as academic achievement—why? To keep Jewish enrollment down—one example was their emphasis on 'character' something a protestant Anglo would almost certainly have, and a Jew would not. Jewish dominance is a fairly recent phenomenon—or during and post-Great Depression.

However, multiculturalism already came to America—and it brought the Jews with it.

It's true that by the 1920s the United States had absorbed different nationalities through immigration. However, there was no effort from the majority population and its institutions to "celebrate" their presence and encourage them to retain their ethnic traditions and languages. The United States was monocultural in the 1920s; the noxious doctrine of "multiculturalism" did not yet exist.

Osmium14
02-08-2007, 06:16 AM
The Jews did not have control of the media back in the 1850s-1940 because the television had not been invented yet and there was no such thing as "mass media." The radio hadn't been used for mass media purposes yet until the 1950s.

"Regular network broadcasting began in the United States in 1946, and television became common in American homes by the middle 1950s."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television#History

Radio was introduced in the 1930s but "standard analog transmissions started in North America and Europe in the 1940s."
Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_radio

I want to point something out about "liberals" and multiculturalism. Dr. Pierce has never embraced or insulted either liberal ideology or conservative ideology. There can be liberal WNs and there has been. Just do a search on Stormfront for "Liberal" in the thread title.

Before the 1950s, there was no distinction between liberal and conservative when it comes to race. Only after the 1950s-1960s is when we start to get fuzzy when it comes to race. Even today's "conservatives" are pro-multicultural and don't decry race-mixing either. In fact, I go to a university and I attend the College Republicans club at my university. None of the people there are WNs, and when I mentioned something about race, someone said, "It's not about race." And all of them 100% support Israel and the Jews because they are the "chosen people." And a lot of these Republicans are Christians, so they support Israel even more, and they support the Jews on campus too. We had joint events by the Jewish student club and College Republicans club against the MSU (Muslim Student Union). There's an undercurrent of pro-White attitudes, but nothing like pro-WN.

And these are the "conservatives" of the movement. In fact, some Republicans are non-Whites such as Asian/Oriental, Black, and Hispanic. Our entire officers’ board had like 3 Mexicans out of 5 officers; it was the most diverse officer board ever at our school. lol.

Just face the facts, today the majority of Republican and Democrat Congressmen--except for some lone wolf like Tom Tancredo--don't care much about the break down of White America and they won't step up to illegal immigration. These are the Republican Congressmen, the American citizens do care about immigration but they have no voice.

Our own President and Congressmen betrayed us. George W. Bush isn't keen on keeping the borders closed, in fact, he tried to pass a bill for amnesty, but the House of Republicans (Congress) wouldn't let it pass.

Republican or Democrat doesn't matter. And the same should be said of "feminists" or "liberals," these are terms that have been corrupted thoroughly by the Jews. They no longer mean what they originally meant. And why has this happened?

The root cause was the Jew. It started to go down hill after WWII, after 1950. Everything went to hell. We as Europeans had just went through the worst war in the history of mankind, where hundreds of millions of people were slaughtered. But we had no idea of what would come next, the most destructive period in our race's existence, the new war would be fought not on the battlefields of Europe, but in our own homes. This war would be on the minds of our people and our children. They waged a social brainwashing war and corrupted our entire society. The basis of our civilization had been turned upside down. Egalitarianism infected everything from gender, race, ethnicity, religion, and more.

The TV and radio blasted 24/7 the programming of multiculturalism, diversity, interracial couples, homosexuality, porn, sex, violence, etc.

The Jews are the masterminds behind all of this. Anyways, I hate blaming the Jews all the time, and I don't wish any harm to them. But we can't ignore any threat to our race. No subject should be taboo, freedom of speech means for everything.

Der Sozialist
02-08-2007, 05:48 PM
In 1965, the USA was about 90% White and 10% Black. Those Oriental immigrants that you mentioned had no significant relevance at all (~<1%). You're grasping at straws here, trying to defend the Jews from their insidious tactics is futile.
These statistics seem fake, for one, the Black population in America has remained steady at around 13%--it has only now started to decrease in population share due to availability of abortion and Hispanic fecundity.

Another, Hispanics have been immigrating to America in sizeable numbers well before the 60s—in fact, early as the 1900s. You might remember the zoot suit riots (which occurred during WW2), for example.

And, Asians compromised more of the American population than < 1%--in states like Hawaii; they were the plurality of the population. In California, they were a sizeable minority—sometimes numbering as high as 10% of the population in certain cities like San Francisco (that is, before WW2—after, many fled to Canada due to their dislike of being interned in camps during WW2).

So, source your claim.

It's true that by the 1920s the United States had absorbed different nationalities through immigration. However, there was no effort from the majority population and its institutions to "celebrate" their presence and encourage them to retain their ethnic traditions and languages. The United States was monocultural in the 1920s; the noxious doctrine of "multiculturalism" did not yet exist.
Whether or not multiculturalism as a doctrine existed in 1920s America—multiculturalism as a way of life did. The cities were largely balkanized between different immigrant populations from different countries—Polish Towns, Italian Towns, China Towns, etc. existed.

The immigrants, from Asia and Southern and Eastern Europe never fully assimilated and formed their own communities in American 20th century cities. It was not all that unusual, for example, to walk into 1920s Hamtramck (Detroit) and see shop names in Polish—indeed, even today (after White flight occurred after the riots) people still go there to buy pączkis on Fat Tuesday.

Dr. Gutberlet
02-08-2007, 06:00 PM
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASInt_13/Sharon_sm.jpg

Vasily Zaitsev
02-08-2007, 06:19 PM
Whether or not multiculturalism as a doctrine existed in 1920s America—multiculturalism as a way of life did. The cities were largely balkanized between different immigrant populations from different countries—Polish Towns, Italian Towns, China Towns, etc. existed.

The immigrants, from Asia and Southern and Eastern Europe never fully assimilated and formed their own communities in American 20th century cities. It was not all that unusual, for example, to walk into 1920s Hamtramck (Detroit) and see shop names in Polish—indeed, even today (after White flight occurred after the riots) people still go there to buy pączkis on Fat Tuesday.

You are correct that the cities were balkanized and those that currently retain sizeable white working class populations still are to a degree.

I'm not looking to weigh in all that substantially on this debate beyond noting that "white" balkanization was largely an urban phenomenon. European immigrants who settled in rural areas and took up farming assimilated very quickly into the largely Scots-Irish influenced American agrarian culture. Even heavily German or Scandinavian regions like Wisconsin and the Dakotas were far less ethnically alienated from the mainstream than the old German neighborhoods of Baltimore and New York.

Der Sozialist
02-08-2007, 07:08 PM
I'm not looking to weigh in all that substantially on this debate beyond noting that "white" balkanization was largely an urban phenomenon.
Well, true. Most immigrants congregated in cities—after all, that is were the work was. The few that separated often did not have a large community of fresh-off the boat immigrants to turn to—they were more or less forced to assimilate.

Even heavily German or Scandinavian regions like Wisconsin and the Dakotas were far less ethnically alienated from the mainstream than the old German neighborhoods of Baltimore and New York.
It is important to note, that as of now, Germans (or people who describe themselves as of German descent) are the largest White ethnic group in America. Germans, as a group, were numerous in the Americas even before the Revolutionary war. The question of their assimilation was first raised in the 1700s by Benjamin Franklin and chauvinist Anglo-Saxons but then, never again.

Germans have largely been anglicized—and so, any future German immigrants would be quickly welcomed (since the receiving population identifies as of German descent) and thus assimilated. It is only (usually) when a certain group is rejected by the host population that they fail to assimilate and form insular communities.

Vasily Zaitsev
02-08-2007, 07:14 PM
It is important to note, that as of now, Germans (or people who describe themselves as of German descent) are the largest White ethnic group in America. Germans, as a group, were numerous in the Americas even before the Revolutionary war. The question of their assimilation was first raised in the 1700s by Benjamin Franklin and chauvinist Anglo-Saxons but then, never again.

Germans have largely been anglicized—and so, any future German immigrants would be quickly welcomed (since the receiving population identifies as of German descent) and thus assimilated. It is only (usually) when a certain group is rejected by the host population that they fail to assimilate and form insular communities.

Americans of German descent have indeed been thoroughly anglicized. My maternal ancestors are testament to this fact.

My, admittedly inconsequential, point had to do with the urban-rural dichotomy present in this phenomenon. Rural Germans assimilated quickly, while the rate of urban German assimilation related mainly to class. Bourgeois and petty bourgeois Germans were quickly anglicized, while working class German enclaves complete with German signage, foods, etc existed in the major East Coast cities up until WWI.

Carlos Danger
02-08-2007, 08:55 PM
The Jews did not have control of the media back in the 1850s-1940 because the television had not been invented yet and there was no such thing as "mass media." The radio hadn't been used for mass media purposes yet until the 1950s.
Henry Ford was complaining about Jewish domination of the theater in the 1920s

Hlinkova Garda
02-08-2007, 08:58 PM
So which chapter of H.E.A.T.W.A.V.E. are you District Council Leader of?:rofl: :rofl: :nono: :rofl: :rofl:

Hippias
02-08-2007, 09:41 PM
Whether or not multiculturalism as a doctrine existed in 1920s America—multiculturalism as a way of life did. The cities were largely balkanized between different immigrant populations from different countries—Polish Towns, Italian Towns, China Towns, etc. existed.

The immigrants, from Asia and Southern and Eastern Europe never fully assimilated and formed their own communities in American 20th century cities. It was not all that unusual, for example, to walk into 1920s Hamtramck (Detroit) and see shop names in Polish—indeed, even today (after White flight occurred after the riots) people still go there to buy pączkis on Fat Tuesday.

You're under the false impression that multiculturalism just means distinct ethnic groups living under the same political arrangement. In reality what multiculturalism proclaims is that all cultures be accorded equal status - no one culture is to be given primacy over another. It hardly needs to be pointed out that 1920s America was presided over by a WASP monoculture. To show that 1920s America was already multicultural you would have to show that the dominant WASP culture wasn't the cultural model for immigrants to assimilate to (whether or not they in fact did is irrelevant).

Der Sozialist
02-08-2007, 09:47 PM
You're under the false impression that multiculturalism just means distinct ethnic groups living under the same political arrangement. In reality what multiculturalism proclaims is that all cultures be accorded equal status - no one culture is to be given primacy over another. It hardly needs to be pointed out that 1920s America was presided over by a WASP monoculture. To show that 1920s America was already multicultural you would have to show that the dominant WASP culture wasn't the cultural model for immigrants to assimilate to (whether or not they in fact did is irrelevant).
But, if that is a definition, then we do not have this in our current age as well. You will find that a Muslim will not be able to stone a woman for being adulterous — thus, our government is proclaiming that this culture is not on equal footing with other cultures.

In fact, if you wish, we could abstract across the current local-cultures and proclaim a monoculture for the USA. Thus, in such a definition, I do not see the salient difference between 1920s and 2000s America.

Keystone
02-08-2007, 10:24 PM
During the early twenties, the elite Ivy League institutions began basing admittance on character attributes as well as academic achievement—why? To keep Jewish enrollment down—one example was their emphasis on 'character' something a protestant Anglo would almost certainly have, and a Jew would not. Jewish dominance is a fairly recent phenomenon—or during and post-Great Depression.
Jews didn't need the Ivy League. They gained control of New York and invented Hollywood. Relatively overnight. Powerful stuff.

Osmium14
02-08-2007, 10:41 PM
These statistics seem fake, for one, the Black population in America has remained steady at around 13%--it has only now started to decrease in population share due to availability of abortion and Hispanic fecundity.

Another, Hispanics have been immigrating to America in sizeable numbers well before the 60s—in fact, early as the 1900s. You might remember the zoot suit riots (which occurred during WW2), for example.

And, Asians compromised more of the American population than < 1%--in states like Hawaii; they were the plurality of the population. In California, they were a sizeable minority—sometimes numbering as high as 10% of the population in certain cities like San Francisco (that is, before WW2—after, many fled to Canada due to their dislike of being interned in camps during WW2).

So, source your claim.


OWNED... IN YO FACE!!! :dance2: :jam:

US Census 1960: Color by Sex, for the United States (General Population Characteristics)

White (Total of Male and Female): 158,831,732
Nonwhite (Total Male and Female): 20,491,443
Total population of entire US: 179,323,175

White percentage: 88.6%
Nonwhite percentage: 11.4%

Table of Contents: http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/09768103v1p1_TOC.pdf
Direct link: http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/09768103v1p1ch4.pdf

"Following the adoption of this “Quota System,” the white share of the population remained stable at about 89 percent until the mid-1960s."
Source: http://www.economics.ucr.edu/papers/papers03/03-11.pdf

The 1965 amendment repealed the restrictions on national origins that had been in place since the 1920s, increased the number of visas, and made family ties to those already living in the United States a key determinant for admission.

The result of the change was an influx of Asian and Hispanic citizens, especially Mexicans. In 1970, the US population was 5 percent Hispanic, 1 percent Asian, and 12 percent African-American.

Comment: Thus, 82% White in 1970.

Source:
ECONOMIC PRINCIPLES
Rainbow didn't just happen
By David Warsh, Globe Columnist, 10/03/99 http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~GBorjas/HeavensDoor/Boston_Globe.htm

"In 1980, Whites made up 86 percent of the nation’s population, Blacks 12 percent, Hispanics 6 percent, and Asians 1.5 percent."
Source: http://www.vcdh.virginia.edu/solguide/VUS14/essay14b.html

One result of the 1965 amendments is that the Asian American population has increased from 1 million in 1965 to 7 million in 1990, with about 7 in 10 foreign born.
Source: http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/93/930712Arc3186.html

"Prior to the act [Immigration and Nationality Act amendments of 1965], the United States was overwhelmingly composed of whites of European descent (89% in 1965), with the only minority group of significant size being blacks (10%)."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Services_Act_of_1965

While 75 percent of the nation claimed European heritage in the year 2000, the proportion had dropped from 80 percent in 1990.
Source: http://www.ocis.temple.edu/tempress/chapters_1400/1645_ch1.pdf

If the 1965 act had done what its supporters said it would do, immigration would have been held to (say) 350,000 a year. The U.S. population in 1990 would have been 239 million instead of 250 million. According to the 1965 bill's advocates, the U.S. ethnic balance would not have been altered at all. That means that the American population would still be what it was in 1960: almost 89 percent white (including maybe 1 percent or so Hispanic white, which the 1960 census did not break out).

In the end, Americans have to ask themselves very specific questions about the immigration flood unleashed upon their country by the politicians in 1965: Has the mass immigration triggered by the 1965 reform made me and my family better off? Has it made it easier or harder for us to work, to educate our children, to live our lives? Has it resulted in more or less congestion? pollution? racial tension? crime? Do I feel it has made America respected for its generosity--or despised for its gullibility? Are we stronger because immigration brought diversity? Or weaker because it brought divisiveness? Has the post-1965 immigration enabled us to achieve anything that we could not have managed on our own?

What if the 1965 act had worked as promised and there were fewer immigrants? Or if immigration had been stopped completely in 1965?

Would America be a happier or unhappier place than it is today?

Well?
Source: http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3523861.html

Der Sozialist
02-09-2007, 12:43 AM
OWNED... IN YO FACE!!! :dance2:
I will admit that I was mistaken. But, note, I did not say your claim was false but it seemed false and that is why I asked for a source.

Do you have access to a website that breakdowns racial demographics of the USA between 1850s to 1950’s—I would very much like to look at them.

Straight Satan
02-09-2007, 02:41 AM
The jewish crime rate is very low...

C'mon...they are involved in white-collar crime just as much as non-Jews. In fact, if you go back a few years you can find things like Murder Incorporated.

Yeah, they're obviously part-and-parcel of white America and as such they're not much more "law abiding" than we are.