So What is Racism, Anyway?

[Boleslaw]

http://caelumetterra.typepad.com/blog/2005/09/so_what_is_raci.html

So What is Racism, Anyway?

The exchange between Daniel and me below testifies to the range of phenomena which may be grouped under the broad term of "racism." Here's the entry from Dictionary.com :

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

That helps a lot, huh? These definitions seem plain enough, but they would place a statement such as "The people of northern Europe tend to be more reserved than those of southern Europe" in the category of racism--it meets the first half of definition 1 (at least if you're willing to think of those two groups as having a racial difference) and is certainly a prejudice as in definition 2. Neither of these really touch on the question of hostility or ill will, which to me is the essence of the idea of racism as something invidious.

I may regret opening this can of worms, but it seems like our official and accepted doctrines about race are extremely confused. Group characteristics do exist (whether they're the product of genetics or culture is irrelevant), but we've put ourselves in the position of pretending they don't at some times, while insisting on them at other times, indeed requiring that they be acted upon. In general, it's permissible to notice group characteristics if they're positive, but not if they're negative, with an exception for groups generally regarded as oppressors.

I have no tolerance whatsoever for race-based hostility, and was on the anti-segregation side growing up in the civil-rights era South. But it seems that we now have a hyper-sensitivity that's actually exacerbating things. No real point here, I'm really just wondering aloud, as one can do on a blog. Would be interested in what other people have to say. Someday I may write at length on this topic.

--Maclin Horton

[Empress Cheesatine]

What if these things are backed by science, then what?

The word racism is a leftist catchphrase used to beat majority populations (specifically white ones) over the head that resist actions such as immigration and integration that jeopardize their existence as a unique human group. In this context, anyone who resists immigration/integration is pegged a racist whether he believes in racial superiority or not. Simply wishing to exist as a unique ethnocultural group with its own homeland is now an evil act.

[NSM88]

The word racism is a leftist catchphrase

This is the logic.
Lets analyse.

Race is a word (cannot be a term ?, but can have more than one definition ?)
('the human race' is a term, does not exist. Homo sapiens, humans do exist)

Racist is a word and a term.
The word racist means, someone talking about races.
The term 'racist' 'means' racehate(r).

Racism is a word and a term.
The word racism means 'all about races'.
The term 'racism' 'means' 'all the racehate(ers)'.

The people who converting words into terms and invent new words (like xenofobia, like anti-semite) and put it in the minds of other people, called marxists (it's social engineering, brainwashing)

[Starr]

It has come to basically mean any kind of white resistance to our demonization as a race, thinking in any kinds of racial group interest terms(allowed of everyone else. objection to its allowance for everyone else is also called racist) or our displacement. You don't even have to believe in A or B to be called a racist these days. Objection to mass immigration is racist,etc. It would be one huge step in the right direction for people to stop being so afraid of that word. That would remove the power it has over people

[kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman]

it gets confusing because so many people use it for so many different things. 'Racism' is just a term used to describe someone that others do not like. It seems any politically incorrect person of any race is labeled a racist. Just violating political correctness gets you that label, and there are a lot of different ways it can be violated.

[Empress Cheesatine]

it gets confusing because so many people use it for so many different things. 'Racism' is just a term used to describe someone that others do not like. It seems any politically incorrect person of any race is labeled a racist. Just violating political correctness gets you that label, and there are a lot of different ways it can be violated.

The word 'racism' was coined by a Jew. Need we say more? :D

[MrAngry]

The definition of racism is as defined by the dictionary,



1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

How it is applied and to whom is the question, I suppose how the "racist" wants to apply their racist beliefs is another..

[Death]

The definition of racism is as defined by the dictionary,




How it is applied and to whom is the question, I suppose how the "racist" wants to apply their racist beliefs is another..


http://www.icmr.icfai.org/casestudies/catalogue/Marketing/MKTG154.htm


The decision to approve BiDil as a race-specific drug was a controversial one.


http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/nobels.html

The Nobel Prizes are awarded by the Nobel Foundation of Sweden to men and women who have rendered the greatest service to humankind. Between 1901 and 2006, more than 750 Nobel Prizes were handed out. Of these, at least 158 are Jews.


Then the US government must be racist since it promotes non whites at the expense of whites based on what? Race nothing more nothing less.

[Elim Garak]

The definition of racism is as defined by the dictionary,




How it is applied and to whom is the question, I suppose how the "racist" wants to apply their racist beliefs is another..

That is not the definition most leftists prefer.
Leftists like to use:

Anyone who we don't like

[Vissario]

That is not the definition most leftists prefer.
Leftists like to use:
Just like those angels on the right who like to label anyone that disagrees with them "anti-American" or "communist"?

Seriously, how is using buzz-words like fascist, racist, and Nazi to further one's agenda at all new in modern society?

[Starr]

Seriously, how is using buzz-words like fascist, racist, and Nazi to further one's agenda at all new in modern society?

In reality, it is not. Amusing, though, that lefty anti racist types think of themselves as "tolerant" and open minded, yet stray from their official dogma and you become this day's equivalent of the devil who has views that must be silenced.

[Keystone]

The definition of racism is as defined by the dictionary,

How it is applied and to whom is the question, I suppose how the "racist" wants to apply their racist beliefs is another..
Mr. Angry, have a goggle at this:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/discriminate

Discrimination used to be a valued quality before the milquetoast progressives like yourself co-opted the term.

For example: "Cripes, those blacks surely are a criminal lot...(insert facts here), I don't think I'd want to live around them!

Now look at this:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_518749.html

I live there, my friend. I don't have racist "beliefs". I have long experience. This goes on almost every single day.

I discriminate against blacks because it's a prudent way to live round here, and it's like this in many US cities.

[Vissario]

In reality, it is not. Amusing, though, that lefty anti racist types think of themselves as "tolerant" and open minded, yet stray from their official dogma and you become this day's equivalent of the devil who has views that must be silenced.

"Liberals", I assume you're talking about the democratic left in this country, never profess to be "tolerant" of people they don't like. The only thing they say and actually do is support the groups which make up the majority of their constituency. They are no different than republicans supporting church groups or the NRA on issues and not ones associated with the gay culture in this country.

If you want a party which is actually tolerant of people and their opinions, look no further than the Libertarian party.

[harjit]

"Liberals", I assume you're talking about the democratic left in this country, never profess to be "tolerant" of people they don't like.
Very true.

We've been constantly attacked at MSF for being intolerant (of racists and whatnot). Damn right we are intolerant, and unapologetically so.

Another thing that always amuses me is that we get held up to higher standards of overall "goodness", when we never claimed that we are particularly "good" either. I am blithely one of the most treacherous SOBs on both boards combined. I wonder if racists feel guilty at some level and assail us for being "good"?

[MrAngry]

Mr. Angry, have a goggle at this:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/discriminate

Discrimination used to be a valued quality before the milquetoast progressives like yourself co-opted the term.

For example: "Cripes, those blacks surely are a criminal lot...(insert facts here), I don't think I'd want to live around them!

Now look at this:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_518749.html

I live there, my friend. I don't have racist "beliefs". I have long experience. This goes on almost every single day.

I discriminate against blacks because it's a prudent way to live round here, and it's like this in many US cities.


Lets not confuse definition with context, you can discriminate in many ways, not all are positive. If you chose to live away from blacks because you believe that in your experience it would be safer, then that's your choice. In the same way, if the area you lived in was predominately white and violent and you wished to move away.

I haven't said that you are racist, I just wonder how you'd feel living in some whtite areas with high crime levels.

[MrAngry]

"Liberals", I assume you're talking about the democratic left in this country, never profess to be "tolerant" of people they don't like. The only thing they say and actually do is support the groups which make up the majority of their constituency. They are no different than republicans supporting church groups or the NRA on issues and not ones associated with the gay culture in this country.

If you want a party which is actually tolerant of people and their opinions, look no further than the Libertarian party.


The most intolerant group are the far right wing racists, why should I support or value the views of a minority group who promote hate and violence against decent society.

[MrAngry]

Very true.

We've been constantly attacked at MSF for being intolerant (of racists and whatnot). Damn right we are intolerant, and unapologetically so.

Another thing that always amuses me is that we get held up to higher standards of overall "goodness", when we never claimed that we are particularly "good" either. I am blithely one of the most treacherous SOBs on both boards combined. I wonder if racists feel guilty at some level and assail us for being "good"?

Interesting, it's like the school bully picking on the bright kid just because he's a goody goody. :) He know's he's wrong on some level but fels justified in some way, blames everyone but himself.

[Frank]

Very true.

We've been constantly attacked at MSF for being intolerant (of racists and whatnot). Damn right we are intolerant, and unapologetically so.

I accuse MSF's leadership of rank hypocrisy; the owner is allegedly an anti-racist who openly states that Israeli Jewish racists "deserve defending;" (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=410018&postcount=31) including those who support ethnic cleansing of Arabs. (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=410048&postcount=35) In fact he even goes as far as to defend or excuse the doctrines of the rabidly racist Chabad movement (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=410094&postcount=37) that believes gentiles are not even within the same species as Jews and exist for the purpose of serving Jews! (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=410360&postcount=40)

Another thing that always amuses me is that we get held up to higher standards of overall "goodness", when we never claimed that we are particularly "good" either.

I merely expect MSF leaders to live up to their standards of opposing racism PERIOD! For example; you have repeatedly declined to condemn your leaders support or trivialisation of Israeli Jewish racism (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=403379&postcount=73) while now telling us you are intolerant toward racism. (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=410915&postcount=14) You have dismissed your leaders support of Israeli Jewish racism as merely having 'opinions' on Israel. (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=403501&postcount=74) You have illustrated to me quite clearly that you will tolerate racism on a personal level as long as it is not gentile racism, hatred and bigotry.

I am blithely one of the most treacherous SOBs on both boards combined. I wonder if racists feel guilty at some level and assail us for being "good"?

Or maybe some people just loathe moral frauds.

[Starr]

The most intolerant group are the far right wing racists, why should I support or value the views of a minority group who promote hate and violence against decent society.


On the contrary some of these kinds of people very strongly object to an increasingly violent society and want a society that is safer for their own people. Not as easy of a thing to accomplish in a society where peoples, who are more violent on average, are increasing in numbers.

Interesting, it's like the school bully picking on the bright kid just because he's a goody goody. He know's he's wrong on some level but fels justified in some way, blames everyone but himself.

I don't see anything particularily saintly or noble in singing the praises of multiculturalism/diversity and the displacement of white populations. Which is how I would have to think, somewhere in the back of my mind, to believe I, or others, are "wrong" I think this is very difficult for some people to understand since they have been taught for so long by modern society to see any kind of hint of white(and only white) racial conciousness as bad/negative, even evil. The reality is quite the opposite, in fact. Just as it is good for blacks and hispanics to have some sense of pride and to feel a natural preference for their people and culture(which I would agree)and to stick together, the same thing is also true of whites. The very hypocritical condemnation by society on this issue, fell on deaf ears for me a long time ago.

And judging people according to group patterns is quite normal. People do it all of the time. It is only viewed as a bad thing when we get into groups that have aquired a protected status.

[Frank]

The most intolerant group are the far right wing racists.

So they are more intolerant than Jewish Chabadists who believe that gentiles are from a different species and exist merely to serve Jews?

Why should I support or value the views of a minority group who promote hate and violence against decent society.

I know of racialists who ask that question quite frequently and end up being demonised for it. :D

[Vissario]

So they are more intolerant than Jewish Chabadists who believe that gentiles are from a different species and exist merely to serve Jews?

Think again; just because one is "Jewish" doesn't mean one can't be "far-right". Yes, a magical notion is it not?

I don't see anything particularily saintly or noble in singing the praises of multiculturalism/diversity and the displacement of white populations.

Multiculturalism isn't a "displacement" of 'white culture'. On the contrary, it is a reaffirmation that if people want to practice this vague idea of 'white culture', they can do so unabridged by the government.

Honestly, do you even understand what multiculturalism is? It is the belief that the individual of the society, not the government, can decide what cultural beliefs or ideas they would like to follow while still obeying the general laws of the country. It is not an anti-white policy as you would like to characterize it as.

[Frank]

Multiculturalism isn't a "displacement" of 'white culture'. On the contrary, it is a reaffirmation that if people want to practice this vague idea of 'white culture', they can do so unabridged by the government.

It is the consequences of multiracialism (I.E. Mass-third world immigration) etc...that is the problem.

Honestly, do you even understand what multiculturalism is? It is the belief that the individual of the society, not the government, can decide what cultural beliefs or ideas they would like to follow while still obeying the general laws of the country. It is not an anti-white policy as you would like to characterize it as.

Multiculturalism is regularly confused with multiracialism.

[Vissario]

It is the consequences of multiracialism (I.E. Mass-third world immigration) etc...that is the problem.


How is that preventing you from following your own "culture"?

So what if a bunch of brown people like to talk around each other in Spanish and eat tacos and brown rice? How is that preventing you from eating sour kraut or whatever else us white people are supposedly supposed to do?

Multiculturalism is regularly confused with multiracialism.

There is no policy currently on the books in any country which says people have to take on mates which are of different races. Once again, the only people confusing "multiculturalism [..] with multiracialism" are people like you and Starr. You assume that because minorities are allowed to practice their own little petty customes, you have to as well when clearly you don't.

I mean, I personally think some cultural customes of Hispanic immigrants are silly, but I don't have to observe them nor do I really have to understand them. But you know what I do have to do? Respect their right to practice them so long as they don't affect my personal rights.

[Burrhus]

We've been constantly attacked at MSF for being intolerant (of racists and whatnot). Damn right we are intolerant, and unapologetically so.

How refreshing, Harjit. And we racists will be unapologetically intolerant of race-traitors. Ok?

Time to unsheath the swords. Or...

You can tolerate forced integration and immigration in YOUR community and the legal prohibitions can be removed allowing OTHER communities to tolerate free association.

Then restaurants, landlords, home sellers, hospitals, schools, employers, barbershops, churches and the other sundry businesses and organizations in YOUR community could continue to be forced to serve blacks and immigrants while OTHER communities would not be forced to do so.

Seem fair?

Right, like fair has anything to do with it.

Swords, Harjit?

When the history is written of the seemingly inevitable race war that is coming to the white nations of the West, I am quite sure that those future historians will look at the evidence and put the blame for that war squarely on the shoulders of those who will have been responsible for it...people like you, Harjit, liberal, self-righteous people ignorant of why different races exist and why they cannot be peacefully forced to live with each other.

If they could live together peacefully, there would be no need to force them to. And forced we have been.

Swords or free association, Harjit? Your call.

[Vissario]

The most intolerant group are the far right wing racists, why should I support or value the views of a minority group who promote hate and violence against decent society.
That's your right to opinion in your country.

I personally don't care very much for hardliner rightists who are interested in taking this country (United States) back to the stone age in terms of our economic and social development, but I couldn't say I am "intolerant" of them. I think they make mainly bunk points, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to voice their opinion to whoever will listen. Doing so, in my opinion, is an affront to anyone who has an opinion and would only lead to ever-more abuses against minority (political) groups.

[Frank]

How is that preventing you from following your own "culture"?

Are we taking about practicing culture or eventual displacement? My concern is with the political correctness and conflict that arises with racial diversity; as of now I can engage in my cultural practices within my home as I see fit. I cannot speak for what happens in America but I do know what is happening here in Canada.

[Burrhus]

Everyone is a racist. No? Take the test. (Adjust the race or ethnicity of the families to fit your case.)

You are walking down a street and see two buildings that are engulfed in flames. There are no other people around and no telephones available to summon help. You are all alone.

You notice that on the top of each building there is a family of four: father, mother, little boy and little girl. One family is white and the other is black. You know nothing about the qualities of either family. You don't know and have no way of discovering if one of the families is better than the other, better meaning law-abiding, intelligent, decent and hard-working or criminal, stupid, shiftless and lazy. Thus you have no way to make what you would consider to be a moral judgement about which to save.

And you can only save one family as the flames are licking at the roofs! You see a ladder on the ground and realize that you only have time to save one of the families (or at least you must choose which to save first risking the lives of the other).

I ask you...Which family will you save?

Like I said, everyone is a racist. And that is not a bad thing to be. It just is the way reality is.

[Vissario]

Are we taking about practicing culture or eventual displacement?
Ah, so we are talking about your "right" to cultural domination, not so much your right to practice your culture!

Well, as to the former, it is highly unlikely that "white culture" (still waiting for a description of it which accounts for all the ethnicity's of 'white') will remain the unmolested majority in terms of population ratio, but that is unlikely to change the fact that this society will still be largely multicultural and, therefore, safe for WNs like yourself to practice "your" culture. Trust me, no one is going to force you to eat tacos or brown rice and speak Spanish against your free will.

And if they do, you can probably find an ally in me.

edit: frank changed his post, so I will change mine.

My concern is with the political correctness and conflict that arises with racial diversity; as of now I can engage in my cultural practices within my home as I see fit. I cannot speak for what happens in America but I do know what is happening here in Canada.

Political correctness is just hot air. People are naturally inclined to always say the right thing in public and then say something else in the privacy of their home or in the company of like-minded individuals. PC speech has little effect on legislation when it comes to multiculturalism and is more a social fad within certain social cliques to "prove" to their fans and supporters that they are more holier than thou when compared to their opponents.

[MrAngry]

On the contrary some of these kinds of people very strongly object to an increasingly violent society and want a society that is safer for their own people. Not as easy of a thing to accomplish in a society where peoples, who are more violent on average, are increasing in numbers.


This is were racism becomes a little grey for me, right winf facists are the SF hardliners and rabid racists. People who have a preference for their own race, are expressing just that, a preference.



I don't see anything particularily saintly or noble in singing the praises of multiculturalism/diversity and the displacement of white populations.

And neither do I, I just wouldn't use colour as a benchmark.


Which is how I would have to think, somewhere in the back of my mind, to believe I, or others, are "wrong" I think this is very difficult for some people to understand since they have been taught for so long by modern society to see any kind of hint of white(and only white) racial conciousness as bad/negative, even evil.

No, it's only evil if it's at the expense of others, I'd say the same if you transposed white with any other colour.




The reality is quite the opposite, in fact. Just as it is good for blacks and hispanics to have some sense of pride and to feel a natural preference for their people and culture(which I would agree)and to stick together, the same thing is also true of whites. The very hypocritical condemnation by society on this issue, fell on deaf ears for me a long time ago.

Well, to a certain degree I can't argue with you, I do fel that it is hypocritical to have a "MOBO" award, can you imagine a "MOWO" award? I also find it hard to reconcile that black pride is acceptable, and white pride isn't, perhaps it is because of it's links to far right radicalism.



And judging people according to group patterns is quite normal. People do it all of the time. It is only viewed as a bad thing when we get into groups that have aquired a protected status.

People do do it all of the time, however, we should still base our value judgments against the person that is in front of us, not on generality.

[Frank]

Swords or free association, Harjit? Your call.

I cannot speak for what is said on MSF but it is clear to me that Harjit tolerates those who defend and excuse Israeli racism. In fact it is the owner of MSF who does these two things I just mentioned.

These two MSF officials certainly will tolerate bigotry and hate when it comes from Israeli Jews; this certainly has been illustrated on this forum.

[Frank]

Ah, so we are talking about your "right" to cultural domination, not so much your right to practice your culture!

I do believe the majority population of a nation has the right to cultural domination regardless of the culture in question.

but that is unlikely to change the fact that this society will still be largely multicultural and, therefore, safe for WNs like yourself to practice "your" culture. Trust me, no one is going to force you to eat tacos or brown rice and speak Spanish against your free will.

Kindly refrain from labelling me a 'WN.'

Political correctness is just hot air.

Not in Canada; we have a human rights commission in this nation that enforces it religiously.

[Vissario]

I do believe the majority population of a nation has the right to cultural domination regardless of the culture in question.

Great, so you shouldn't have a problem when a brown-person ethnicity becomes the demographic majority! Indeed, I bet you even hope they think like you and attempt to force a single culture because of said majority.

Not in Canada; we have a human rights commission in this nation that enforces it religiously.

They enforce what vigorously? The right of minorities not to be stoned to death for not speaking perfect English?

Kindly refrain from labelling me a 'WN.'

If the shoe fits, wear it.

[Frank]

Like I said, everyone is a racist. And that is not a bad thing to be. It just is the way reality is.

There is nothing immoral or evil about choosing to associate with those most like yourself. We have the right to preserve or lineage, heritage, traditions and European cultural practices. These very rights are enshrined in the UN Covenant of Civil and Political Rights; we have the right to guide our own social development and to govern our wealth as we see fit.

There is nothing evil about people preserving themselves along ethnic or racial lines in whole or part. There is nothing evil about supporting policies that ensure that our collective creations both physical and cultural are preserved in all facets of societies we have parented as a people.

[Frank]

Great, so you shouldn't have a problem when a brown-person ethnicity becomes the demographic majority!

Of course I would have a problem with becoming a minority; in a one man -one vote system being a minority can be very dangerous.

They enforce what vigorously? The right of minorities not to be stoned to death for not speaking perfect English?

Your ignorance knows no boundary; educate yourself a little before spewing off....

Site owner pledges to fight hate-speech complaint

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070725.RIGHTS25/TPStory/National

Website promotes hate, B'nai Brith member says

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070524.wbcrights24/BNStory/Technology/home

If the shoe fits, wear it.

You know nothing about my views.

[Vissario]

Of course I would have a problem with becoming a minority; in a one man -one vote system being a minority can be very dangerous.


So wait, you are concerned about becoming a minority in the political process because of potential abuses, yet you are totally fine with other people (brown people) being minorities in the political process. And you still say you're not WN?

About the CHRA:

The CHRA was created to enforce the Canadian Human Rights Act. Although, after reading it, I don't agree with the things it mandates as equal employment, it is a law, and it has to be enforced. If you don't like it, call for a referendum, don't complain about it on the Phora.

[MrAngry]

Ah, so we are talking about your "right" to cultural domination, not so much your right to practice your culture!

Well, as to the former, it is highly unlikely that "white culture" (still waiting for a description of it which accounts for all the ethnicity's of 'white') will remain the unmolested majority in terms of population ratio, but that is unlikely to change the fact that this society will still be largely multicultural and, therefore, safe for WNs like yourself to practice "your" culture. Trust me, no one is going to force you to eat tacos or brown rice and speak Spanish against your free will.

And if they do, you can probably find an ally in me.

edit: frank changed his post, so I will change mine.



Political correctness is just hot air. People are naturally inclined to always say the right thing in public and then say something else in the privacy of their home or in the company of like-minded individuals. PC speech has little effect on legislation when it comes to multiculturalism and is more a social fad within certain social cliques to "prove" to their fans and supporters that they are more holier than thou when compared to their opponents.

Culture is important, personally I believe that a citizen has the right to enjoy their culture, however they should respect the prevailing culture of the nation that they choose to live in. All to often in the UK, minority culture is protected and promoted at the "expense" of the local majority poulation for fear of offending the minority. This is the one of the biggest causes of resentment in local white populations that have a high ethnic density.

There are examples where a sub cultute complements and enhances local culture too, compliments being the operative word.

[Vissario]

Culture is important, personally I believe that a citizen has the right to enjoy their culture, however they should respect the prevailing culture of the nation that they choose to live in. All to often in the UK, minority culture is protected and promoted at the "expense" of the local majority poulation for fear of offending the minority. This is the one of the biggest causes of resentment in local white populations that have a high ethnic density.

Of course an immigrant should respect the native's culture, but that "respect" has to be reciprical. Natives need to realize brown people are people too, and just because they think their culture is better/superior/older or whatever, doesn't mean it has a right to stomp all over their (foreign) culture. People in Europe (and the U.S., for that matter) need to make a choice to either embrace multiculturalism fully or not bother with it all because attempting to take the middle road is not going to lead to social harmony. Either have a homogenous society with one forced culture, or have a multicultural one where everyone respect's everyone's right to believe the way they do while existing cooperatively. Not this "we respect your culture, but we still want ours to be the one in charge because we think we are better" bullshit.

[harjit]

I accuse MSF's leadership of rank hypocrisy; the owner is allegedly an anti-racist who openly states that Israeli Jewish racists "deserve defending;" (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=410018&postcount=31) including those who support ethnic cleansing of Arabs. (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=410048&postcount=35) In fact he even goes as far as to defend or excuse the doctrines of the rabidly racist Chabad movement (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=410094&postcount=37) that believes gentiles are not even within the same species as Jews and exist for the purpose of serving Jews! (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=410360&postcount=40)



I merely expect MSF leaders to live up to their standards of opposing racism PERIOD! For example; you have repeatedly declined to condemn your leaders support or trivialisation of Israeli Jewish racism (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=403379&postcount=73) while now telling us you are intolerant toward racism. (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=410915&postcount=14) You have dismissed your leaders support of Israeli Jewish racism as merely having 'opinions' on Israel. (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=403501&postcount=74) You have illustrated to me quite clearly that you will tolerate racism on a personal level as long as it is not gentile racism, hatred and bigotry.



Or maybe some people just loathe moral frauds.

Ah the old "cutting Israel slack" accusation again. *sigh*

It just so happens that everyone who goes to that site to debate with antis happen to be white gentile racialists. So that is who we end up debating with. Nobody just makes statements in a vacuum like "I oppose racism" or "I oppose China in Tibet" or "I oppose Hutus and Tutsis being racist against each other".

We do have one Israeli nationalist and he gets pounced upon when he talks about killing Muslims. However he is 98% hyperbolic mooning and 2% serious debate. And this is excluding the vast majority of his posting in the babe threads. But if he or others like him were debating seriously you would have a very different image of the place.

Trust me, I too get tired of there being nothing but white gentile opponents. Some have gone to a black nationalist forum (Assatah Shakur or something like that) to recruit opponents but there was no interest.

[B-Pep]

What is racism? Racism is opposing self-hating zionist stooges like harjit who follow spout hatred for Aryan people asserting what is ours, all while following us around like a lost dog. Harjit, Mrangry, ETC support the current system of zionism, capitalism and jewish controlled democracy because it gives them a reason to live (due to the fact that they have stripped himself of all reminders of the races they belong to and hate) all at the expense of our heritage and culture.

The great irony is, they are the ones who secretly hate non-whites more than any of us.

[Rakhmetov]

Racism is the totality of antiscentific conceptions based on propositions concerning the pysical and mental inequality of the races of man and the decisive influence of racial differences on the history and culture of human society. Charcteristic of all types of racism are false, misanthropic ideas regarding the primordial division of people into higher and lower races. The higher races, which are alleged to be the sole creators of civilization, are destined to rule. The lower races, which are alleged to be incapable of creating or even assimilating into "high culture", are doomed to be objects of exploitation.

In their systems of thought the social Darwinists made extensive use of Malthusianism and the propositions of eugenics to prove the superiority of the herditary attributes of the ruling classes to those of the wokring people, to demonstrate the usefulness of artificial selection of conjugal pairs for improving the race, and to show the need for the compulsory sterilization of those recognized as "genitically inferior."

The defeat of fascism inflicted a crushing blow to racism and its bloody practices and completely exposed the misanthropic essence of the myth of the "higher race".

After World War II, the racists attempted to "prove" the mental inferiority of various racial groups by means of tests of intellectual capabilities. This trend is associated with the psychologists H.Garrett, A.Shuey, and A.Jesen. The results of the tests were in fact predetermined not by the racial affiliation of the subjects but by their social status and by their living and working conditions (Klineberg, Race and Psychology, 1956)

In South Africa and Rhodiesa, racism was used to justify racial discrimination, segregation, and even genocide. In the USA the struggle against the theory and practice of racism is growing stronger among Negroes, Chicanos, and Indians, as well as the progressive strata of whites. In Canada, the Esimo, Indians, and Africans are the targets of racial discrimination. In Australia the aborigines are subjected to racial discrimination. After World War II discrimination grew more intense in England against "coored" immigrants from the British Commonwealth.

The struggle against racism is an integral part of the political and ideological struggle against capitalism, between the exploiters and working people, and between imperialists and nations that recently won independence.

[MrAngry]

Of course an immigrant should respect the native's culture, but that "respect" has to be reciprical. Natives need to realize brown people are people too, and just because they think their culture is better/superior/older or whatever, doesn't mean it has a right to stomp all over their (foreign) culture. People in Europe (and the U.S., for that matter) need to make a choice to either embrace multiculturalism fully or not bother with it all because attempting to take the middle road is not going to lead to social harmony. Either have a homogenous society with one forced culture, or have a multicultural one where everyone respect's everyone's right to believe the way they do while existing cooperatively. Not this "we respect your culture, but we still want ours to be the one in charge because we think we are better" bullshit.

I actually disagree on this one, respect for foreign cultures can only enrich and enhance any nation, however, the foreign culture is exactly that, if they wish to maintain or promote that culture or impose it on their host nation then that is unacceptable. There are nations in the world that share these cultures, and if it's that important to them then theres and obvious choice.

I believe that the host culture should trump other cultures, not that other cultures should be banned, but if people cannot accept the majority culture then choices do exist. I cannot imagine for a second being allowed to live by my cultural values in Saudi, Afghanistan or some other middle eastern country.

[Starr]

Ah, so we are talking about your "right" to cultural domination, not so much your right to practice your culture!

Yes. Cultural domination in lands whites built and in our native lands. Is this a terribly unreasonable thing to seek or want to preserve? Other peoples are not expected to open up their borders to anyone who wants to come nor is it expected that the culture practiced by these peoples just become one of many in those lands.

Minorities living in our nations will even seek the same thing as their numbers grow and they began to develop more political power. It is only natural that the culture people identity with is going to be the culture that they are going to seek to make the standard of the land, so to speak. Are you supposing, for example, that Muslims in Europe do not seek Europe becoming more Islamic? White liberal types are very naive about things like this since they have become so completely cut off from their own cultures to the point where they don't even view it as important and do not identity with it as strongly as they should and they foolishly project this same mindset on other peoples, who are very different in this regard. People need to wake up to the fact that it is ONLY whites in any large numbers that believe in such foolish notions such as being members of "the human race" and that all cultures are equal.

Also what the hell do you suppose unites people on as strong and as meaningful of a level as shared cultural ties? The effect of multiculturalism or multiracialism for whites has been to destroy these ties. This had to be done to make them more welcoming of others. Another very obvious thing that you see all of the time is that the expression of certain things associated with the dominant culture are put on the back burner and said to be intruding on the "rights" of others. One of the best examples off the top of my head, would be symbols or ideas associated with the Christian religion.

I cannot imagine for a second being allowed to live by my cultural values in Saudi, Afghanistan or some other middle eastern country

You most definitely would not, and this is far from just a reality in middle eastern nations, also.
Imagine, for example, white european christians moving to Saudi Arabia and pitching a fit about Islam and Islamic standards being the dominant practice of the land :rofl: and expecting all kinds of accommodations, after routinely whining about discrimination. The thought is amusingly silly, but this is what is expected of whites in our nations.

[Vissario]

Minorities living in our nations will even seek the same thing as their numbers grow and they began to develop more political power. It is only natural that the culture people identity with is going to be the culture that they are going to seek to make the standard of the land, so to speak. Are you supposing, for example, that Muslims in Europe do not seek Europe becoming more Islamic? White liberal types are very native about things like this since they have become so completely cut off from their own cultures to the point where they don't even view it as important and do not identity with it as strongly as they should and they foolishly project this same mindset on other peoples who are very different in this regard.

What is this "Islam is out to get us! Prepare the Nukes!" dribble?

The reason people come to the West is because they want a job, a life they can be proud of, and a chance at giving their children a better one than they had in the homeland. They, or at least the overwhelming majority, don't come here on some holy mission from God to spread the sharia-type laws they were attempting to escape in the first place. Even further, they don't come here with the assumption that all of those pesky infidels should convert to my religion immediately or die.

The only thing the majority of Muslims in the West ask is that they be treated with a little respect and dignity. That they are allowed to practice their religion, speak their native tongue, and continue with whatever customs they liked in the old land. Sure, there are some agitators amongst them who are asking for radical, sharia-like laws to be implemented in their new land, but saying that they represent the entire demographic is like saying you, Starr, and your WN dribble represent the combined interests of all white people on the planet. Let me go ahead and assure you that it doesn't, just in case you thought otherwise!

One of the best examples off the top of my head, would be symbols or ideas associated with the Christian religion.

Christianity is being put on the "back burner" in Western society because people are growing up and realizing that belief in some magical God is a silly notion that belongs in the 15th century, not the 21st. Not because governments and societies are outlawing the practice of it.

I believe that the host culture should trump other cultures, not that other cultures should be banned, but if people cannot accept the majority culture then choices do exist. I cannot imagine for a second being allowed to live by my cultural values in Saudi, Afghanistan or some other middle eastern country.

The host culture should be what is made of it.

Believe it or not, culture is not static. If people want Islam to be a facet of that "host culture", then it should be so.

BTW, you should find it mildly flattering that the society you belong to is by far more advanced and tolerant than the ones you described in the Middle East.

[MrAngry]

What is this "Islam is out to get us! Prepare the Nukes!" dribble?

The reason people come to the West is because they want a job, a life they can be proud of, and a chance at giving their children a better one than they had in the homeland. They, or at least the overwhelming majority, don't come here on some holy mission from God to spread the sharia-type laws they were attempting to escape in the first place. Even further, they don't come here with the assumption that all of those pesky infidels should convert to my religion immediately or die.

The only thing the majority of Muslims in the West ask is that they be treated with a little respect and dignity. That they are allowed to practice their religion, speak their native tongue, and continue with whatever customs they liked in the old land. Sure, there are some agitators amongst them who are asking for radical, sharia-like laws to be implemented in their new land, but saying that they represent the entire demographic is like saying you, Starr, and your WN dribble represent the combined interests of all white people on the planet. Let me go ahead and assure you that it doesn't, just in case you thought otherwise!



Christianity is being put on the "back burner" in Western society because people are growing up and realizing that belief in some magical God is a silly notion that belongs in the 15th century, not the 21st. Not because governments and societies are outlawing the practice of it.



The host culture should be what is made of it.

Believe it or not, culture is not static. If people want Islam to be a facet of that "host culture", then it should be so.

BTW, you should find it mildly flattering that the society you belong to is by far more advanced and tolerant than the ones you described in the Middle East.


Of course culture is dynamic, otherwise we'd still be in the dark ages.

However, I agree that people should be able to enjoy their beliefs and culture, and that works two ways. Examples of extreme political correctness in the UK are very prevalent. This leads to discourse, the majority of Muslims are moderate and peaceful, however I wouldn't want the Mosque to become a National symbol of the UK. Not because I dislike Muslims or Islam, I just like to preserve British culture as it is today and it will develop tomorrow. There are many minority groups who still refuse to integrate.

This isn't dribble, it's plain fact.

[Starr]

[QUOTE=Vissario]What is this "Islam is out to get us! Prepare the Nukes!" dribble?

The reason people come to the West is because they want a job, a life they can be proud of, and a chance at giving their children a better one than they had in the homeland. They, or at least the overwhelming majority, don't come here on some holy mission from God to spread the sharia-type laws they were attempting to escape in the first place. Even further, they don't come here with the assumption that all of those pesky infidels should convert to my religion immediately or die.

This is not what I said. I was merely saying that millions of immigrants who come to a nation with very strong connections to their culture are naturally going to seek to elect into power those who are like them and have similar views. They are also going to naturally seek their standards, beliefs, and customs having a much more strong influence in these lands. This is really not all that hard to figure out.
One thing, for certain Muslims will not tolerate is the very degenerate culture as it is today. They are much more "intolerant" to ideas like "anything goes" and "all lifestyles are equal"(in other words, they are a bit more sane in this regard) than any kind of right winger that liberals label as dangerous, dark age, and intolerant. Liberals welcome Muslims with open arms since it would be wrong to judge any non white/ non western culture.:whip:
i would find this highly amusing if it wasn't so dangerously naive.

Christianity is being put on the "back burner" in Western society because people are growing up and realizing that belief in some magical God is a silly notion that belongs in the 15th century, not the 21st. Not because governments and societies are outlawing the practice of it.

If this is all it really is about, then how come every other religion is treated with reverence? Say something negative about Islam or Judaism and what do you suppose would happen? The dominant status of christianity "offends" people of other religions and this is "intolerant" Mere mention of Jesus or puting up christmas trees around the holidays in certain areas means you are trying to impose your religion on others. this relates much more to the breakup of the dominant culture than it does to people believing the religion is silly and outdated. Muslims and jews also believe in a silly religion that speaks of an all powerful man in the sky, say that though and you are an intolerant bigot who needs sensitivity training.


BTW, you should find it mildly flattering that the society you belong to is by far more advanced and tolerant than the ones you described in the Middle East.

This tolerance is at my expense and is destroying my culture. That is not mildly flattering, it is suicidal.

[Dan Dare]

...There are examples where a sub cultute complements and enhances local culture too, compliments being the operative word.

Mr. Angry periodically drop hints that about the benefits of Multiculturalism for western countries, and particularly for Britain, but he never seems to quite get around to enumerationg them for those benighted souls who have yet to experience the Joys of Diversity.

Perhaps one day he will share the secret with us.

[Boleslaw]

Mr. Angry periodically drop hints that about the benefits of Multiculturalism for western countries, and particularly for Britain, but he never seems to quite get around to enumerationg them for those benighted souls who have yet to experience the Joys of Diversity.

Perhaps one day he will share the secret with us.


He's hardly an exception. We're constantly bombarded with all sorts of vague and abstract arguments about the joys of "diversity" and "multiculturalism" - yet very little is ever said to back these assertions up.

I reference to my response to ArmedWhiteGirl's post in another thread, in which I do much to tear apart the multi-culturalist mentality:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=381977&postcount=104

Allow me to post an excerpt:

"Multi-culturalism is built upon an exaggeration of the basic truth about the positive sides of diversity and variety. Nevertheless, diversity is not an absolute virtue; it only works within responsible limits. In fact it's limits are what gives diversity any real significant meaning...

...Too much diversity can and often does lead to social fragmentation. Indeed multiculturalism is pretty much built upon the common Liberal assumption of atomism; that is we're just random individuals thrown together. This of course is just another aspect of what Ferdinand Tonnies termed Gesellschaft.

In such societies, legal regulations play more important roles due to the fact you have so many people adhering to different principles. So one can say that "hate-crime" laws are an elemental part of the Gesellschaft mentality....

And as I argued to great length in my post, more vibrant and geniune forms of diversity tend to flourish within many racial homogenous societies; which has given the world many of its greatest accomplishments.

[Warka]

Mr. Angry periodically drop hints that about the benefits of Multiculturalism for western countries, and particularly for Britain, but he never seems to quite get around to enumerationg them for those benighted souls who have yet to experience the Joys of Diversity.

Perhaps one day he will share the secret with us.

Dan, do you mean to hint that you don't enjoy some occassional chitterlings crisps or curries??? If this is the case, you should be ashamed of yourself, Neanderthal! :nono:

[Burrhus]

Charcteristic of all types of racism are false, misanthropic ideas regarding the primordial division of people into higher and lower races.

NOT a primordial division, Spark, rather, a result of evolutionary natural selection. Races are an evolving, current end product not fixed, created-in-the-past categories.

Previously on the Phora...

Un-named Phora poster: Yes but neither describes my views. I'm 'not racist', I'm not 'anti-racist'.


Burrhus: Your assertion is contrary to the law of the excluded middle, P ∨ ~P. Given some definition of racist you must be either racist or anti-racist.

You could assert that both terms lack a semantic referent, that is, there are no such things as racists or anti-racists and therefore you can be neither. I doubt that that is what you wish to assert. If I am wrong, please correct me.

I suspect that what you mean to say is that given the available definitions of racist and anti-racist you find that neither applies to you. The burden then falls on you to define the terms, both of which do not describe your position on the question of race relations.

Let me assist you. A racist is one who believes that races are real human categories, his race is absolutely superior (somehow) to the other races, it is appropriate to treat people of other races differentially (commonly but incorrectly known as 'discrimination'), that he has negative feelings about other races ranging from hatred to aversion and he advocates policies towards other races ranging from extermination (the extreme) to segregation (the moderate).

An anti-racist is one who either does not believe that racial categories are real or if they are, they are not significant, that all races (if they are real) are equal at least 'morally' if not necessarily biologically, it is inappropriate to treat people of other races differentially, has positive or at least does not have negative feelings about people of other races and advocates a policy of legal equality and racial integration.

If those definitions are not satsfactory, please feel free to correct them. Otherwise they will stand for our purpose here.

Unfortunately, the common definition of a racist is much more simple. He hates people of other races, considers them absolutely inferior and wishes them ill. An anti-racist is then one who does not hate, consider inferior or wish ill on other races. Both of these definitions are flawed in my opinion. While they do accurately describe some people in either class, they are not exhaustive.

I am a positive racist. Let me describe that position for you.

I believe that racial categories refer to real properties of sub-sets of homo sapiens and that they are significant both 'morally' and biologically. The word morally is in quotes because I am using it in a manner that is not common. I am not using it to refer a set of universally accepted or proposed principles of right behavior. I use it rather to refer to a set of rules about behavior which the various racially determined in-groups comprising homo sapiens have arrived at over the course of their evolutionary development which have proven successful in maintaining the in-group's existence. Morality is an in-group property and only tenuously and perodically applicable to out-groups. (When it serves the in-group's interests.)

While morality applies most appropriately to members of one's in-group that does not imply what the word's common, universal meaning would imply. It is not a license to hate or harm people of other in-groups (that would lead to unnecessary inter-group hostilty). It simply means that altruism and trust should be extended to members of one's own in-group and generally (not always) withheld from members of out-groups. Put more simply it means that one should prefer the welfare of one's own in-group to that of others.

Biologically, it seems quite obvious from the empirical evidence available that there are significant differences between the races. Assuming that one accepts the theory of evolution as valid, the process of natural selection has clearly resulted in racial variation as a result of reproductive success in different environments. The traits selected for by the evironments' varying contingencies are not necessarily, or generally, compatible with a change in environment. This applies equally to genetic, phenotypic and cultural/behavioral traits. If one rejects the theory of evolution, then debate on this point is moot and best avoided.

Which brings up the question of racial equality, superiority and/or inferiority. Note that I used the phrase "absolutely superior" above. I do not believe that any race is absolutely superior (or inferior) to another. It would be presumptuous of me to anticipate the course of evolution. Races are either superior or inferior to each other relatively with respect to the specific environments within which they were selected.

Africans make superior Africans and Europeans make superior Europeans. Either is relatively inferior when placed into the environment which selected for the other's biological and cultural traits. Whether or not different racial groups are absolutely superior or inferior is a question that can only be determined in the future by observing which ones have survived the process of natural selection on a global level.

As a positive racist I do not hate people of other races. I am often angry about there behavior and generally find them not to my liking due to the nature of their cultural differences from mine, but that is not hatred. It is simply that I, as all others do, prefer my own kind and to live in an environment that is suitable for expression of my culturally inherited behavior and preferences.

Also as a positive racist, I do not advocate the extermination of other races nor unprovoked hostilty towards them. I do not wish them ill nor do I approve of mistreating them. In fact I wish them well to the extent that their success does not impinge on the welfare of my in-group.

The irony of contemporary race relations is that it is the liberals and so-called anti-racists who have caused the most harm to black people in America (I will not address other locations here). It has been their mis-guided (or possibly nefarious) implementation of policies based on belief in racial equality which have brought so many black people in America to the sad and deplorable condition which they find themselves in.

The poverty, crime, illegitimacy, gangs, squalid living conditions, educational failure, anger and hopelessness found in the black under-class as well as the hostility between blacks and whites result from the liberal effort to create a racially integrated society in the face of the reality of the situation which makes that goal unachievable.

All that has been achieved by the...let's call it the civil rights movement (CRM)...has been the draining from the black community of its best members which has left it bereft of its potential leaders, professionals and wealth creators. These people have been more or less successfully integrated into the white community and are doing well for themselves. This gives anti-racists false hope that all black people can be successfully integrated. But they cannot be. The real biological and cultural differences between the races preclude that ever happening.

This brain-drain on the black community finds it in the condition described above. Without leaders to create businesses and jobs, without schools of their own where they can achieve a level of education suitable for them, without cultural figures who can inspire them to be the best black people that they can be instead of failed whites, without all of the necessary components of a viable culture they have fallen into a state of failure that I find deplorable and even criminal.

It is the liberals and so-called anti-racists who have produced this condition. I call them 'so-called' anti-racists because I believe that they are really the true racists in the most negative connotation of that word. It has been their actions, misguided perhaps (or not), which have brought the black people to the miserable state they are in. They are blind, willfully or ignorantly, to the harm that they caused both for the black and the white people of America.

I am as I have said a positive racist. I do not hate black people, I do not wish them ill, in fact I wish them well. I honestly believe that they would be better off in a segregated society where their best and brightest would live among them and work for the welfare of their own people. Even a cursory glance at pre-1965 black life will show that they had better lives then. They had stable communities and familiies, they had their own businesses supplying jobs, their own schools where they had only to compete with each other and which were not infested with gangs, violence and drugs, neighborhoods where they could be themselves and feel comfortable and watch over each other's children.

Yes, their material standard of living was lower than white people's but that difference was the result of their racial abilities and not white injustice. And even with that material disparity, the quality of life for blacks was better. Each in-group is responsible for its own welfare. It is not a moral duty, as described above, of one in-group to further the interests of another. And it is certainly not the task of the government to impose that duty on one in-group in its polity to its detriment and attempt to enrich the other at the first's expense (an attempt that has failed).

Segregation (or separatism, if you prefer that term) ought to be the policy advocated for by all people who care about both peaceful race relations and the welfare of black people. Separation will result in improved conditions for both white and black people. Looking honestly at the realities of racial differences is the best course for everyone who wants a rational solution to the racial problem that confronts us.

Positive racism is not about hating the other, it is about loving one's own and peaceful co-existence with the others...living apart.

[Burrhus]

Diversity
http://www.designedlykristi.com/tutorials/color_intro/images/fig1.jpg

Not diversity
http://www.trex.com/image/colors/color_brown.jpg

If one wants brown, then create brown but don't insult my intelligence by calling it diversity.

[Boleslaw]

The only thing the majority of Muslims in the West ask is that they be treated with a little respect and dignity.

That's also what Christians in the Middle East are asking for.


That they are allowed to practice their religion, speak their native tongue, and continue with whatever customs they liked in the old land.

The problem is, they're not in their old land. They're in another land, with an entirely different culture. So acculturation is a necessity for both the immigrant and native communities.


Christianity is being put on the "back burner" in Western society because people are growing up and realizing that belief in some magical God is a silly notion that belongs in the 15th century, not the 21st.

:rolleyes:



Believe it or not, culture is not static.

No it isn't. But cultures are built on a basis of continuity. And the fact that cultures are not static does not automatically imply that such cultures should welcome hordes of immigrants.


If people want Islam to be a facet of that "host culture", then it should be so.

Except most people don't. I hope you know that constant contact with the "other" too often has the effect of intensifying inter-cultural strife as opposed to lessening them. This is true in parts of London with the highest Muslim populations, Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Lebanon, Kashmir, Detroit, etc.

[MrAngry]

Mr. Angry periodically drop hints that about the benefits of Multiculturalism for western countries, and particularly for Britain, but he never seems to quite get around to enumerationg them for those benighted souls who have yet to experience the Joys of Diversity.

Perhaps one day he will share the secret with us.


Find me one single post where I have stated that I support multiculturalism?

Fact is, I'm not a supporter of multiculturalism.

[Burrhus]

Everyone is a racist. No? Take the test. (Adjust the race or ethnicity of the families to fit your case.)

You are walking down a street and see two buildings that are engulfed in flames. There are no other people around and no telephones available to summon help. You are all alone.

You notice that on the top of each building there is a family of four: father, mother, little boy and little girl. One family is white and the other is black. You know nothing about the qualities of either family. You don't know and have no way of discovering if one of the families is better than the other, better meaning law-abiding, intelligent, decent and hard-working or criminal, stupid, shiftless and lazy. Thus you have no way to make what you would consider to be a moral judgement about which to save.

And you can only save one family as the flames are licking at the roofs! You see a ladder on the ground and realize that you only have time to save one of the families (or at least you must choose which to save first risking the lives of the other).

I ask you...Which family will you save?

Like I said, everyone is a racist. And that is not a bad thing to be. It just is the way reality is.

So, no so-called anti-racists want to take the test or discuss their result if they did?

Why am I not surprised?

[Dan Dare]

Find me one single post where I have stated that I support multiculturalism?

Fact is, I'm not a supporter of multiculturalism.

Will this one (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=411042&postcount=36) do?

[MrAngry]

Will this one (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=411042&postcount=36) do?

Many indigenous ,fully aryan, whiter than a lilly, pure bred, blue eyed, Brits hace accepted fashions, foods and even customs of foreigners into theor daily lives, it's been happening since the dawn of time.

What I do not support is litte bits of India/China/Poland being forced into unwilling communities.

Anyway, all this is a Moot point for you, you are now in the USA, how are you assimilating?

PS Need to do better, however the flaming is absent so that's an improvement.

[harjit]

So, no so-called anti-racists want to take the test or discuss their result if they did?
You've presented that test before.

My answer is that I have no idea of knowing what I would do in the situation until it happens. I honestly don't.

I am open to the possibility that you are right, and would help those of my ethnicity first.

But even if that were the case I don't hold it as a principle, and that is the kind of racism that I oppose, not gut-level urges.

[MrAngry]

You are walking down a street and see two buildings that are engulfed in flames. There are no other people around and no telephones available to summon help. You are all alone.

You notice that on the top of each building there is a family of four: father, mother, little boy and little girl. BOTH families are white. You know nothing about the qualities of either family. You don't know and have no way of discovering if one of the families is better than the other, better meaning law-abiding, intelligent, decent and hard-working or criminal, stupid, shiftless and lazy. Thus you have no way to make what you would consider to be a moral judgement about which to save.

And you can only save one family as the flames are licking at the roofs! You see a ladder on the ground and realize that you only have time to save one of the families (or at least you must choose which to save first risking the lives of the other).

I ask you...Which family will you save?


Exactly the same situatuion as far as I am concerned, so Burrhus which would you save?

[Warka]

Try this alternative

You are walking down a street and see two buildings that are engulfed in flames. There are no other people around and no telephones available to summon help. You are all alone.

You notice that on the top of each building there is a family of four: father, mother, little boy and little girl. BOTH families are white. You know nothing about the qualities of either family. You don't know and have no way of discovering if one of the families is better than the other, better meaning law-abiding, intelligent, decent and hard-working or criminal, stupid, shiftless and lazy. Thus you have no way to make what you would consider to be a moral judgement about which to save.

And you can only save one family as the flames are licking at the roofs! You see a ladder on the ground and realize that you only have time to save one of the families (or at least you must choose which to save first risking the lives of the other).

I ask you...Which family will you save?


Exactly the same situatuion as far as I am concerned, so Burrhus which would you save?

Well, it's not the same situation at all but this one's easy- both are saved. You see, instead of the full effort you'd put into saving the single White family in Burrhus' hypothetical situation, you devote half that effort to each of the two White families in this situation because, unlike the negroes, Whites know how to help themselves and will meet you half-way. Everyone gets off the roof. :)

[MrAngry]

Well, it's not the same situation at all but this one's easy- both are saved. You see, instead of the full effort you'd put into saving the single White family in Burrhus' hypothetical situation, you devote half that effort to each of the two White families in this situation because, unlike the negroes, Whites know how to help themselves and will meet you half-way. Everyone gets off the roof. :)


You changed the scenario to suit your aims, which makes your response invalid. :)

Try it without the dogma, I know you were attempting to be amusing. The original scenario is based on racist thinking, there isn't really a race issue, it's about who can be saved quickly and easily really.

[Burrhus]

Exactly the same situatuion as far as I am concerned, so Burrhus which would you save?

The white family with no hesitation. But you didn't answer the question. That was your one chance. Back on ignore.

[Burrhus]

You've presented that test before.

My answer is that I have no idea of knowing what I would do in the situation until it happens. I honestly don't.

I am open to the possibility that you are right, and would help those of my ethnicity first.

But even if that were the case I don't hold it as a principle, and that is the kind of racism that I oppose, not gut-level urges.

Imagine what you would do.

"Gut-level urges" is a metaphor for what (put literally)?

[Burrhus]

You changed the scenario to suit your aims, which makes your response invalid. :)

Try it without the dogma, I know you were attempting to be amusing. The original scenario is based on racist thinking, there isn't really a race issue, it's about who can be saved quickly and easily really.

You so-called anti-racists are so evasive and sunk deep in a state of cognative dissonance. You know that you are racists but you just can't get the words out. You know that you will save the family of your race.

The buildings are next to each other, the same height, the flames are at the same point, the threat to both families is the same, either family can be saved as "easily and quickly" as the other. No difference in effort. Only time to save one.

Jeez, equivocate, equivocate and hem and haw. Just answer the question. I will read one more post on this thread from you Angry.

[MrAngry]

You so-called anti-racists are so evasive and sunk deep in a state of cognative dissonance. You know that you are racists but you just can't get the words out. You know that you will save the family of your race.

The buildings are next to each other, the same height, the flames are at the same point, the threat to both families is the same, either family can be saved as "easily and quickly" as the other. No difference in effort. Only time to save one.

Jeez, equivocate, equivocate and hem and haw. Just answer the question. I will read one more post on this thread from you Angry.

It may be difficult for you to compute, think of it as two white families and you try to answer the questions, that is how an anti racist would view it, just two families.

[Burrhus]

It may be difficult for you to compute, think of it as two white families and you try to answer the questions, that is how an anti racist would view it, just two families.

Au revoir, ma cherie.

[MrAngry]

Au revoir, ma cherie.


OK, Avoid the question.....

[Frank]

Ah the old "cutting Israel slack" accusation again. *sigh*

You can honestly examine the above evidence and still dismiss this behaviour as merely cutting the Apartheid state of Israel "slack?" Is it not hypocritical in itself for an anti-racist to cut Apartheid some "slack?"

It just so happens that everyone who goes to that site to debate with antis happen to be white gentile racialists. So that is who we end up debating with. Nobody just makes statements in a vacuum like "I oppose racism" or "I oppose China in Tibet" or "I oppose Hutus and Tutsis being racist against each other".

And how does this change the fact that the owner of MootSF defends Israeli racists? Does it truly not strike you as a tad phony for a Jewish anti-racist to defend intolerance, bigotry and hatred when it pertains to the people of Israel?

We do have one Israeli nationalist and he gets pounced upon when he talks about killing Muslims. However he is 98% hyperbolic mooning and 2% serious debate.

Excuse me!? I though MSF was 'intolerant' toward racists? You are not telling me that MSF permits a genocidal Israeli 'nationalist' to advocate murder on MSF? If you were truly 'intolerant' of racists and bigots why not ban him?

And this is excluding the vast majority of his posting in the babe threads. But if he or others like him were debating seriously you would have a very different image of the place.

I am not talking about the place but those who administer the place though the last comment spoke volumes.

Trust me, I too get tired of there being nothing but white gentile opponents. Some have gone to a black nationalist forum (Assatah Shakur or something like that) to recruit opponents but there was no interest.

Why don't you guys start criticising Israel, Chabad and the Talmud; I am sure that will garner some attention. ;)

[harjit]

Excuse me!? I though MSF was 'intolerant' toward racists? You are not telling me that MSF permits a genocidal Israeli 'nationalist' to advocate murder on MSF? If you were truly 'intolerant' of racists and bigots why not ban him?

Almost 50% of our membership is racist/racialist.

What is the point of a race-discussion forum if we ban such people? :confused:

All are white gentiles except for him. There is also a black Tanzanian teenager living in Denmark who hates Jews and looks upon West Africans with contempt, and opposes race-mixing. He has not been around recently.

[harjit]

Au revoir, ma cherie.

Burrhus, I was raised to show respect to my elders, but come on, the NigNore function is for kids.

If the purpose of your test is to prove that we are racist, you don't need to use such an extreme scenario. I'm sure I am racist in a lot of everyday situations as well. Not many people are 100% free of racism or generalizing or stereotyping.

[Omniel]

I'm sure I am racist in a lot of everyday situations as well.
Do you find yourself wracked with guilt when this happens, harj?

[harjit]

Do you find yourself wracked with guilt when this happens, harj?

No.

I see this board stuff as something akin to an internet chess game mostly. And a bit of an addiction, and a social club, and a procrastination device. :)

[Omniel]

I see this board stuff as something akin to an internet chess game mostly.
In other words you're insincere.

[harjit]

In other words you're insincere.
Whatever you say.

[Omniel]

Whatever you say.
No mate you said it, not me. I hardly needed to add a thing.

[007]

Another thing that always amuses me is that we get held up to higher standards of overall "goodness", when we never claimed that we are particularly "good" either.

Bullshit, your lot stake out the moral high ground, so don't be surprised when people hold up a mirror to show what hypocrites you really are.

I am blithely one of the most treacherous SOBs on both boards combined. I wonder if racists feel guilty at some level and assail us for being "good"?

No, we're just tired of holier than thou twats preaching crap they don't even practice themselves.

[Frank]

Almost 50% of our membership is racist/racialist.

What is the point of a race-discussion forum if we ban such people? :confused:

It would be nice if you would get your story straight...

"We've been constantly attacked at MSF for being intolerant (of racists and whatnot). Damn right we are intolerant, and unapologetically so." - Harjit; post # 14

[Starr]

Excuse me!? I though MSF was 'intolerant' toward racists? You are not telling me that MSF permits a genocidal Israeli 'nationalist' to advocate murder on MSF? If you were truly 'intolerant' of racists and bigots why not ban him

Anti racists are intolerant of racist views, but there are a good amount of racists there now and they don't get banned or anything like that. From a few of the posts/threads I have seen this person recieves similar responses from the same kind of people.

[Burrhus]

harjit: Burrhus, I was raised to show respect to my elders, but come on, the NigNore function is for kids.

When you go to a bar (pub) with your friends and some drunken moron sits at your table blathering on about UFOs or Scientology do you just let him stay and continue or do you tell him to leave? If he doesn't leave do you not ask the bartender to get him away from you?

I come to a messageboard to converse with rational, civil people not to be a sitting duck for snotty cyberpunks who get off on irritating people to get a rise out them because they are starved for attention or to listen to irrational goofballs spew out nonsense. I want to learn from others and offer what I have learned in return. The people whom I put on ignore have nothing positive to offer and a lot of negative stuff that I don't need.

While you and I disagree on many issues, I don't put you on ignore because you a rational, civil man who presents his opinions in a like manner. You also have a good sense of humor. Few anti-racists and philo-semites do. Those that do, I pay attention to.

But the punks and morons are not worth the limited time that I have left on earth.

Harjit: If the purpose of your test is to prove that we are racist, you don't need to use such an extreme scenario. I'm sure I am racist in a lot of everyday situations as well. Not many people are 100% free of racism or generalizing or stereotyping.

Too extreme, hmmm? You are staying at a youth hostel where you have to share a room with a stranger. The manager tells you that he has two people to choose from--a black man and an Indian (or white) man--and tells YOU to choose sight unseen between them.

Which do you choose? Don't say that you would let the manager choose. He demands that YOU choose or he will assign neither and charge you double for the room which you cannot afford.

[Burrhus]

Originally Posted by Thaumiel
In other words you're insincere.

Whatever you say.

Get my point, Harj?

[harjit]

It would be nice if you would get your story straight...

"We've been constantly attacked at MSF for being intolerant (of racists and whatnot). Damn right we are intolerant, and unapologetically so." - Harjit; post # 14

I said we are intolerant of racialists in a pretty off-the-cuff way, in that we argue and joust with them.

I didn't mean we ban them.

There would be little point to a race-discussion forum if we banned racialists.

There are a number of Phora racialists who post there.

[harjit]

Too extreme, hmmm? You are staying at a youth hostel where you have to share a room with a stranger. The manager tells you that he has two people to choose from--a black man and an Indian (or white) man--and tells YOU to choose sight unseen between them.

Which do you choose? Don't say that you would let the manager choose. He demands that YOU choose or he will assign neither and charge you double for the room which you cannot afford.

Only you would think of me as being of youth hostel age (ageist joke alert :eek:).

Depending on the situation, yes, I might want to avoid the black person. For example, certain areas of Paris seem full of dodgy Africans selling cheap wooden elephants. An Indian in such a place might be a student or something similarly innocent, and a white may likely be a hippie. So the black (who I, perhaps prejudicially and incorrectly, assume is a seller of wooden elephants) may probably be the most likely to lift my wallet.

Thaumiel is now going to accuse me of hypocrisy since I am fine with being racist toward the black at the hostel, yet I debate with racists on the internet. Yes folks, making a privately-stated preference at a hostel is the same as calling for massive social divisiveness and upheaval, the forcible deportation of millions of innocent people, naming the Jew, opposing interracial marriage, denying the Holocaust, and wanting to change the culture in all manner of strange ways that I don't understand. :rolleyes:

[Empress Cheesatine]

It would be nice if you would get your story straight...

"We've been constantly attacked at MSF for being intolerant (of racists and whatnot). Damn right we are intolerant, and unapologetically so." - Harjit; post # 14

Harjit has an honesty/consistency problem.

MSF is a bash-whitey forum, founded by a Jew and populated with 3rd world migrants and disgruntled ancestors of slaves who want to take their anger out on anyone around them with a light skin.

IMO, most of the members of that forum should be deported, or at least put into Bergen-Belsen.

[Burrhus]

Only you would think of me as being of youth hostel age (ageist joke alert :eek:).

Depending on the situation, yes, I might want to avoid the black person. For example, certain areas of Paris seem full of dodgy Africans selling cheap wooden elephants. An Indian in such a place might be a student or something similarly innocent, and a white may likely be a hippie. So the black (who I, perhaps prejudicially and incorrectly, assume is a seller of wooden elephants) may probably be the most likely to lift my wallet.

Thaumiel is now going to accuse me of hypocrisy since I am fine with being racist toward the black at the hostel, yet I debate with racists on the internet. Yes folks, making a privately-stated preference at a hostel is the same as calling for massive social divisiveness and upheaval, the forcible deportation of millions of innocent people, naming the Jew, opposing interracial marriage, denying the Holocaust, and wanting to change the culture in all manner of strange ways that I don't understand. :rolleyes:

"I might want to avoid the black person"

More equivocation. No straight answer. Are you sure that you not a jew, Harj? :)

In what situation would you pick the black man over the Indian man sight unseen? You have not met nor do you know anything about either man except his race.

[Starr]

Thaumiel is now going to accuse me of hypocrisy since I am fine with being racist toward the black at the hostel, yet I debate with racists on the internet. Yes folks, making a privately-stated preference at a hostel is the same as calling for massive social divisiveness and upheaval, the forcible deportation of millions of innocent people, naming the Jew, opposing interracial marriage, denying the Holocaust, and wanting to change the culture in all manner of strange ways that I don't understand

It does show that, like "racists" you prejudge certain groups of people and adjust your behaviors accordingly. In reality most people who are not complete fools will do so. You have taken it a step further, though, in admitting something that most of those people would not.

Now, I need to ask if you could take this even a step further and see at least some positives in deporting problematic populations like the ones you admit to prejuding and avoiding?

[Vissario]

It does show that, like "racists" you prejudge certain groups of people and adjust your behaviors accordingly.

Altering your behaviour around a black man soley because of this color of his skin doesn't set you in the same group of people who want them deported and/or shot on sight.

WE are human beings, not angels. We have propensities to ignorant bigotries which we are brought up around, but that doesn't preclude us from having ideals about what we would like to see ourselves as. Just because harjit feels "uncomfortable" around a black person doesn't mean he and his ideals should be forfeit.

Now, I need to ask if you could take this even a step further and see at least some positives in deporting problematic populations like the ones you admit to prejuding and avoiding?


Racial bias = grounds for unilateral deportation?

What Brave New World do you belong to?

[Starr]

[QUOTE=Vissario]Altering your behaviour around a black man soley because of this color of his skin doesn't set you in the same group of people who want them deported and/or shot on sight.

WE are human beings, not angels. We have propensities to ignorant bigotries which we are brought up around, but that doesn't preclude us from having ideals about what we would like to see ourselves as. Just because harjit feels "uncomfortable" around a black person doesn't mean he and his ideals should be forfeit.

So a person being able to take an honest look at how certain groups of people are more likely to behave, and to respond accordingly is ignorant? I would say it would be a lot more ignorant to look at everything through rose colored glasses in the way taught to you by today's society and to believe that all people are equally as likely to behave in certain ways. This is an ignorance that could also result in harm being inflicted on you. Very stupid. A lot of those "ignorant bigotries" are just unfomfortable realities, formed, possibly yes from what one is taught by others(who have real world experience) but also confirmed by existing in society. Do you people ever stop once to think about the fact that certain so called ignorant stereotypes relating to racial groups are held by people on a universal basis by many different groups of people? If you think that countless groups of people having similar views about, negroes, for example, is the result of nothing more than untrue sterotypes, you desperately need to get your head out of the clouds. It is laughable to think these stereotypes have no basis in reality. There is nothing particularily saintly in denying reality. Expecting others to deny reality and beating them up with words like "ignorant" and "bigot" in scenerios like the one described is about as saintly as releasing a lamb in a den of wolves.


Racial bias = grounds for unilateral deportation?

What Brave New World do you belong to?

Please explain to me how it is more of a moral positive to force decent law abiding people to put up with the savage and unruly behaviors of people who do not even belong in their nation in the first place? Please go ahead and explain to me what positives outweigh the negatives.

[Vissario]

[QUOTE]

So a person being able to take an honest look at how certain groups of people are more likely to behave, and to respond accordingly is ignorant? I would say it would be a lot more ignorant to look at everything through rose colored glasses in the way taught to you by today's society and to believe that all people are equally as likely to behave in certain ways. This is an ignorance that could also result in harm being inflicted on you. Very stupid. A lot of those "ignorant bigotries" are just unfomfortable realities, formed, possibly yes from what one is taught by others, but also confirmed by existing in society. There is nothing particularily saintly in denying reality. Expecting others to deny reality and beating them up with words like "ignorant" and "bigot" in scenerios like the one described is about as saintly as releasing a lamb in a den of wolves.

No, what is ignorant is assuming you know all about someone based on their skin color alone.

You know how I judge people? I do it on the way they speak, the manner in which they dress, and most importantly, how they act around me. Not because their skin is darker or because they have nappy hair. Judging people and their worth to society by the mere fact that they are black without ever having known or talked to them is the same bullshit which got Italians, the Irish, and many other "white" ethnicity judged as inferior when they first came here. And why? Because their skin was only slightly darker than the average native.

You racialists are all the same; you think that by some magical algorithm you can either bring up or put down a person without having to know them, what they are like, and most importantly, what they have done.

Please explain to me how it is more of a moral positive to force decent law abiding people to put up with the savage and unruly behaviors of people who do not even belong in their nation in the first place?[/

People who offend against the laws of a country or state should be punished in all due accordance with the law.

People who do not offend against the laws of a country or state shouldn't be punished for they have commited no crime.

Punishing the latter because a large amount of the former share their skin color is fundamentally against the notion of "innocent until proven guilty". A notion, which I may remind you, protects you just as equally. So, if you are content forfeiting their right to it, then you should be comfortable giving up yours as well. Because whether or not you are ready for that day, when we as a country start deciding who gets special privileges and not, you may find yourself or your fellow "whites" discriminated against by the state for some other even more frivolous reason.

[Burrhus]

harjit: Depending on the situation, yes, I might want to avoid the black person. For example, certain areas of Paris seem full of dodgy Africans selling cheap wooden elephants. An Indian in such a place might be a student or something similarly innocent, and a white may likely be a hippie. So the black (who I, perhaps prejudicially and incorrectly, assume is a seller of wooden elephants) may probably be the most likely to lift my wallet.

Quote: Harjit: Thaumiel is now going to accuse me of hypocrisy since I am fine with being racist toward the black at the hostel, yet I debate with racists on the internet. Yes folks, making a privately-stated preference at a hostel is the same as calling for massive social divisiveness and upheaval, the forcible deportation of millions of innocent people, naming the Jew, opposing interracial marriage, denying the Holocaust, and wanting to change the culture in all manner of strange ways that I don't understand

It does show that, like "racists" you prejudge certain groups of people and adjust your behaviors accordingly. In reality most people who are not complete fools will do so. You have taken it a step further, though, in admitting something that most of those people would not.

Now, I need to ask if you could take this even a step further and see at least some positives in deporting problematic populations like the ones you admit to prejuding and avoiding?

Not so fast, Starr. Above are TWO of Harjit's responses. In the first he says, "yes, I might want to avoid the black person.". In the second he says, "I am fine with being racist toward the black at the hostel".

Which is it Harj, you're fine with it or you might be in certain situations? You just cannot come right out and say it unequivocally...I would not choose the black roomate or save the black family, I would choose the Indian rommate and save the Indian family on the roof knowing only their race. Saying those things is too painful for you because then you have to admit that you are a racist...that is that you will make decisions about people based solely on race.

That's racism.

These quibbling and rhetorically guarded and evasive answers seem to me to indicate a state of cognitive dissonance. You believe that you are not a racist but in your heart you know that you are...just like everyone else.

Racism isn't about hatred of the other...it's about love of one's own. Rational racists don't hate non-whites, want to kill them or see them suffer. We just don't want them around us. We want to be with our own kind.

Now try again Harj: Please answer the following questions with one word only, either black or Indian, nothing more with no equivocation about conditions or other factors, straightforward and plain...all that you know is the race of the people that you are choosing. Know what Harj, I don't think that you can do it? Prove me wrong.

A) On the burning roof, will you save the black family or the Indian family?

B) At the hostel, will you choose the black roomate or the Indian roomate?

[Burrhus]

Vissario: No, what is ignorant is assuming you know all about someone based on their skin color alone.

You know how I judge people? I do it on the way they speak, the manner in which they dress, and most importantly, how they act around me.

That's how YOU judge people, Vissario. Fine, do so. That's not how I judge people. The problem is that YOU think that it is alright for the police with guns to force ME to behave like YOU.

No white man is going to kill me BECAUSE I am white.

A black man WILL.

No white man is going to rape a white woman BECAUSE she is white.

A black man WILL.

After your wife is killed or raped by a black man are you going to say, "Oh well, I guess that he wasn't one of the good ones. Too bad I didn't have time to get to know him and judge him properly on the basis of his character."?

[Keystone]

No white man is going to rape a white woman BECAUSE she is white.

A black man WILL.
But white men rape white women...and children and even babies. I'm sure the victims were glad there were no hard feelings about race involved...:confused:

[Starr]

[QUOTE=Vissario][QUOTE=Starr]

No, what is ignorant is assuming you know all about someone based on their skin color alone.

i am not assuming I know all about a person based on race(which contrary to popular opinion is a little more than skin deep), but I am going to base certain judgements according to behaviors more common to the group in question. this is really just common sense. Quite obviously there will be other factors that come into play. Am I going to feel the same level of apprehension upon encountering a well dressed black male in a suit as i would a black gangsta looking thug in a dark alley? no. Am I going to feel more apprehensive about a negro in a dark alley than I would about a white or asian male in a dark alley ? yes, since statistics show the black male, on average is more likely to be a violent criminal than the white or asian male. Again common sense.


People who do not offend against the laws of a country or state shouldn't be punished for they have commited no crime.

Is deportation a punishment? Is anyone and everyone who wants to come to our nations entitled to? Does a nation have no right to decide who and who cannot live among their borders?

[kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman]

The problem I see is that people use individualism to deny group realities.

Its all good to point out that there are some cultured blacks like alan keyes, but anybody who understands statistics and tendencies realizes that blacks tend to not be that way. Sometimes liberal propaganda can endanger people, as they really do believe that there is no group average difference. So they'll walk into a black neighborhood. And they'll get themselves hurt.

edit:
I also think the idea of rounding up every non-white (or whatever group you chose to target) and deporting them is ludicris, but that doesn't mean that America has to cower to the doctrine of equality and that some of the underclass shouldn't be taken care of by either being jailed or deported.

[Burrhus]

But white men rape white women...and children and even babies. I'm sure the victims were glad there were no hard feelings about race involved...:confused:

We agree. I'm sure that they were glad too.

@ Phora women: IF you are going to be raped, would you rather it be by a black man or a white man?

[Keystone]

We agree. I'm sure that they were glad too.

@ Phora women: IF you are going to be raped, would you rather it be by a black man or a white man?
Are you nuts?

[Vissario]

The problem I see is that people use individualism to deny group realities.


I never denied that as a demographic group, there is a much larger percent of black people being incarcerated than there are comparatively towards other demographic groups in this country. But this still doesn't justify a blind, ignorant hatred towards a person based purely upon the color of their skin. It is not "liberal propaganda" to not judge a person based on their skin color alone, it is common sense.

yes, since statistics show the black male, on average is more likely to be a violent criminal than the white or asian male. Again common sense.

And those same statistics show that black males, on average, are likely to be of a lower socio-economic strata than your average white male. In any society to date, a person who lives near or in poverty is likely to have a higher propensity to crime, be it violent assault to larceny, than a person in the middle class or upper classes.

Saying that black people are more prone to crime than white people is a poor logical argument in any debate. Moreover, the principle cause of crime is as it has always been in any society; poverty, poor parenting brought on by lack of education, and a generally negative atmosphere of hopelessness brought on by poverty. The mere fact that they have black skin is in no way the reason for some broad social failures in black America.

Yes, I would also be weary of a black person in a dark alley way. But I would also be weary of any person stalking me in a dark alley way. Why? Because chances are that they are not there because they are lost like myself. Walk around any poor neighborhood, be it made up of white, black, or Asian people, and it's unlikely you will be comfortable in any of them.

Is anyone and everyone who wants to come to our nations entitled to?

What kind of argument is that?

Most black people in this country have roots dating back probably before your ancestors arrived in this country. They have as much entitlement to live here as any person descended from Germans, Irish, Italians, Poles, or whatever other ethnicity that has came here and propagated.

Anyways, as I said earlier, if you start deporting people based on "unfavorable" race and ethnicity, it won't be long until people with "unfavorable" ideologies and political beliefs are deported as well. That is simply unamerican.

After your wife is killed or raped by a black man are you going to say, "Oh well, I guess that he wasn't one of the good ones. Too bad I didn't have time to get to know him and judge him properly on the basis of his character."?


Chances are I wouldn't be his best buddy after the event, but I wouldn't blame his offenses on the sole count that he was "black". I would blame it on his crappy family, his bad community, and most of all, on his foul character. Seriously, this argument doesn't prove a thing; people rape other people for the feeling of power and dominance, not because they are of a different ethnicity or such.

[Starr]

And those same statistics show that black males, on average, are likely to be of a lower socio-economic strata than your average white male. In any society to date, a person who lives near or in poverty is likely to have a higher propensity to crime, be it violent assault to larceny, than a person in the middle class or upper classes.

Yes, the old poverty excuse that always assumes poverty is a cause rather than a symptom. Yes, negroes are also more likely to be poor on average compared to whites. Their poverty and destitution is also a universal condition for them. And the reason for this, is?

Anyways, as I said earlier, if you start deporting people based on "unfavorable" race and ethnicity, it won't be long until people with "unfavorable" ideologies and political beliefs are deported as well. That is simply unamerican.

How can it be unamerican when american policy up until 1965 superficially had immigration laws that kept non european immigration to a bare minimum? Opening up our borders, racial integration,etc. are all relatively new phenomenons in the history of this nation. Looking at the views of the founding fathers and the policies that have a much longer history in this nation, it might be more correct to refer to what is happening now as unamerican.

[kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman]

The reason many will blame is white racism.

But then when you point out that Chinese and Japanese often outperform Whites in America, they are left with no defense but to bring up slavery or something totally irrelevant.

[1-800]

Only you would think of me as being of youth hostel age (ageist joke alert :eek:).

Depending on the situation, yes, I might want to avoid the black person. For example, certain areas of Paris seem full of dodgy Africans selling cheap wooden elephants. An Indian in such a place might be a student or something similarly innocent, and a white may likely be a hippie. So the black (who I, perhaps prejudicially and incorrectly, assume is a seller of wooden elephants) may probably be the most likely to lift my wallet.

Thaumiel is now going to accuse me of hypocrisy since I am fine with being racist toward the black at the hostel, yet I debate with racists on the internet. Yes folks, making a privately-stated preference at a hostel is the same as calling for massive social divisiveness and upheaval, the forcible deportation of millions of innocent people, naming the Jew, opposing interracial marriage, denying the Holocaust, and wanting to change the culture in all manner of strange ways that I don't understand. :rolleyes:

harjit, nobody here gives a shit about your retarded anecdotes. just a little head's up.

[Burrhus]

Are you nuts?

Not the last time I checked.

[Vissario]

Yes, the old poverty excuse that always assumes poverty is a cause rather than a symptom. Yes, negroes are also more likely to be poor on average compared to whites. Their poverty and destitution is also a universal condition for them. And the reason for this, is?

That is a straw man argument and you know it.

Instead of addressing the fundamental point that poverty often leads to criminal tendencies in any society, you simply say "black is synonymous with poverty". In fact, not only is that a straw man, but it is is a straw man which uses circular logic to "prove" its point. In this case, the point is that because black people are poor today, they have always been poor because they are poor today.

Seriously, what are you going to pull out of your sack of logical fallacies this time to prove this point? Fallacious "scientific" reports detailing how the black person's mind is physically inferior to that of a white person's mind and therefore not worthy of our society?

Looking at the views of the founding fathers and the policies that have a much longer history in this nation, it might be more correct to refer to what is happening now as unamerican.

Looking at the actual constitution, you know, the charter of our government, you see no where that it makes a distinction between white, black, orange, or brown in how they should be treated. But, thanks to people like you through-out history, that distinction has been made before and probably will be again.

But then when you point out that Chinese and Japanese often outperform Whites in America, they are left with no defense but to bring up slavery or something totally irrelevant.

The difference between the two demographics is that 1st generation Asians who came to this country where ambitious, socially-upward individuals who came from a culture which stressed a high level of communal development and had a large safety net. Black people brought from Africa where stripped of their social identity, degraded and treated like cattle, and ultimately were given a new culture as the 1st-generation died off and the new one was born. The southerners and northerners who owned black slaves did a very effective job at instilling the values of servitude, mediocrity, and lack of ambition in their slaves all for the same purpose; to prevent them from ever rising against them.

It seems that they did an excellent job and their handiwork is going to be with us for a long, long time. Really, if you want someone to blame for the "Black problem" in America today, it is those who practiced slavery.

[kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman]

In my opinion, Blacks were more cultured when Southerners kept rule white rule over them with Jim Crow, then they are now. The more freedom blacks are show, the more their true nature is revealed.

I do agree that immigrant blacks are different from native ones.

[Vissario]

In my opinion, Blacks were more cultured when Southerners kept rule white rule over them with Jim Crow, then they are now. The more freedom blacks are show, the more their true nature is revealed.

I do agree that immigrant blacks are different from native ones.

So you basically concede to my point that as a result of cultural selection on the part of white plantation owners, "modern" blacks descended from the institution itself are less ambitious, less productive, and generally "worse" than their peers in America today?

I guess racialists are always looking for the answer that suits their ideology, not the actual answer.

[kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman]

That is no longer an acceptable excuse in my opinion.

With immigrant blacks, they are artificially selected to be hardworking. An immigrant comes because they want to work.

But that doesn't change the group reality, that blacks, as a whole, are not hardworking, even in their native countries.

[Starr]

[QUOTE]The difference between the two demographics is that 1st generation Asians who came to this country where ambitious, socially-upward individuals who came from a culture which stressed a high level of communal development and had a large safety net. Black people brought from Africa where stripped of their social identity, degraded and treated like cattle, and ultimately were given a new culture as the 1st-generation died off and the new one was born. The southerners and northerners who owned black slaves did a very effective job at instilling the values of servitude, mediocrity, and lack of ambition in their slaves all for the same purpose; to prevent them from ever rising against them.

It seems that they did an excellent job and their handiwork is going to be with us for a long, long time. Really, if you want someone to blame for the "Black problem" in America today, it is those who practiced slavery.

:nopity:

Slavery ended how long ago, now, vassario? How long are we going to allow this excuse? also, do you think this excuse helps or even further harms negroes? The answer to this question gives some of the reasons why black immigrants tend to do a little better. People who live their entire life with a chip on their shoulder and therefore feel some need to say screw you to society are going to find themselves in even worse conditions than others who have similar capabilities to themselves. Excuses you give them feed into this. Do you honestly believe(I ask this question with much amusement)that there is an effort in our over the top pc negro apologist society today to keep blacks down? If so what is the best solution for everyone?
I actually do agree with your last line, but my reasoning rests more on the fact that they would not be here, today for us to deal with if they were not sold by their own people and then brought here in the first place.
everything you list are the typical excuses given for american blacks, now what is the excuse for blacks in other parts of the world? why do they have the exact same types of problems in Europe? Why is a nation like Haiti in the condition it is? Is there a worldwide conspiracy to keep the black man down? Universal black failure is what anti racist types ignore when they began to throw out any number of endless excuses for black americans. This is not a black american phenemenon.

[Vissario]

[QUOTE=Vissario]



:nopity:

Slavery ended how long ago, now, vassario? How long are we going to allow this excuse? also, do you think this excuse helps or even further harms negroes? Do you honestly believe(I ask this question with much amusement)that there is an effort in our over the top pc negro apologist society today to keep blacks down? If so what is the best solution for everyone?
I actually do agree with your last line, but my reasoning rests more on the fact that they would not be here, today for us to deal with if they were not sold by their own people and then brought here in the first place.
everything you list are the typical excuses given for american blacks, now what is the excuse for blacks in other parts of the world? why do they have the exact same types of problems in Europe? Why is a nation like Haiti in the condition it is? Is there a worldwide conspiracy to keep the black man down?

Slavery ended in 1865. The state-imposed economic and political oppression of black peopled ended in the late 1950's. The next step, making black people the relative equals of other demographic groups in this country, should be there own. And, yes, slowly this is happening as black people are currently earning 2/3 of what the average white person makes in this country as compared to 1/4 in the 1950's.

I don't have any pity for anyone and I am not in favor of giving them money and expecting them to clean up their act. What I am in favor of, however, is treating everyone in this country exactly the same without any regard to race, color, creed, and yes, economic status.

You see Starr, I am not justifying the seemingly large amount of laziness, failure, and sloth which plagues a great percent of black communities in this country. I am simply correcting the flawed assumption that it is race, not socioeconomic factors, which has created the present situation. You can deride me all you want as being a "negro apologist", but you still haven't really responded to my theory with anything more than circular logic. You claim that a society can change itself in less than 50 after hundreds of years of cultural selection, yet you provide nothing which really supports that conclusion except the reasoning that it should happen.

And I am still waiting for you to provide some documentation on how being black racially determines you to be a failure no matter what.

As to your corollary about Haiti and Africa, I can't really say as I haven't learned that much about those countries to make an educated opinion. But I highly doubt you have learned all you need to know about them either to conclusively say that race is the determining factor in why they are poor.

[Burrhus]

Chances are I wouldn't be his best buddy after the event, but I wouldn't blame his offenses on the sole count that he was "black". I would blame it on his crappy family, his bad community, and most of all, on his foul character. Seriously, this argument doesn't prove a thing; people rape other people for the feeling of power and dominance, not because they are of a different ethnicity or such.

2005 Dept. of Justice data:

Black on white rapes and sexual assaults: 15,000

White on black rapes and sexual assaults: less than 10

Let me repeat that: LESS THAN 10 (TEN).

[Vissario]

2005 Dept. of Justice data:

Black on white rapes and sexual assaults: 15,000

White on black rapes and sexual assaults: less than 10

Let me repeat that: LESS THAN 10 (TEN).
Unless you are going to cite a source that is little more than statistic hocus pocus.

But to reply to it anyways, that still wouldn't alter my perception of the event. Just because some people may be racist and bigoted doesn't mean that it is the right thing to do.

[Boleslaw]

Unless you are going to cite a source that is little more than statistic hocus pocus.

I believe he did cite a source, and is quoted within your own post.


But to reply to it anyways, that still wouldn't alter my perception of the event.

So your perception is unalterable no matter what evidence is given that refutes it; which really comes as a big surprise to us all. This still of course begs the question as to why the hell we should pay attention to anything you say. The obvious answer is we shouldn't.

[Burrhus]

Not so fast, Starr. Above are TWO of Harjit's responses. In the first he says, "yes, I might want to avoid the black person.". In the second he says, "I am fine with being racist toward the black at the hostel".

Which is it Harj, you're fine with it or you might be in certain situations? You just cannot come right out and say it unequivocally...I would not choose the black roomate or save the black family, I would choose the Indian rommate and save the Indian family on the roof knowing only their race. Saying those things is too painful for you because then you have to admit that you are a racist...that is that you will make decisions about people based solely on race.

That's racism.

These quibbling and rhetorically guarded and evasive answers seem to me to indicate a state of cognitive dissonance. You believe that you are not a racist but in your heart you know that you are...just like everyone else.

Racism isn't about hatred of the other...it's about love of one's own. Rational racists don't hate non-whites, want to kill them or see them suffer. We just don't want them around us. We want to be with our own kind.

Now try again Harj: Please answer the following questions with one word only, either black or Indian, nothing more with no equivocation about conditions or other factors, straightforward and plain...all that you know is the race of the people that you are choosing. Know what Harj, I don't think that you can do it? Prove me wrong.

A) On the burning roof, will you save the black family or the Indian family?

B) At the hostel, will you choose the black roomate or the Indian roomate?

Cat got your tongue, Harj?

[Vissario]

This still of course begs the question as to why the hell we should pay attention to anything you say. The obvious answer is we shouldn't.

Wait, rabid, nonwhite-bashing racists deserve more air-time than people with neutral perspectives on other human beings?

I believe he did cite a source, and is quoted within your own post.

He failed to provide a source document on the Web or a book from which to find the study. Obviously, if he had found one, he would have posted the citation to it, but he didn't.

[Starr]

I believe this is what he is refering to. Table 42.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus0502.pdf

there were 111,490 rapes of white women of which 33% were committed by negroes, so the figure is actually going to be a little more than twice the 15,000 figure(37,000, give or take) while 0% of black women were raped by white men or men of any other race for that matter.(percentage of negro rapists of negro women accounted for 100% according to this)

there is an entire thread on this topic, here:

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=23686

You can see in this thread, that sulla did not believe what was being said either, but it is right there.

[Boleslaw]

Wait, rabid, nonwhite-bashing racists deserve more air-time than people with neutral perspectives on other human beings?

No rather people who can actually construct a real argument deserve more air-time then people who seem unable to.

By admitting to having a "neutral" position(I challenge this assertion), you further expose the fact that you indeed have very little in substance to say on the topic; which is indeed the case.

At best, your rants constitute a low-grade version of Kung-sun Lung-tzu's famous "White Horse dialogue" (http://faculty.vassar.edu/brvannor/Reader/whitehorse.html), in which he argues at great length that a "white horse is not a horse".

[Vissario]

I believe this is what he is refering to. Table 42.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus0502.pdf

there were 111,490 rapes of white women of which 33% were committed by negroes, so the figure is actually going to be a little more than twice the 15,000 figure(37,000, give or take) while 0% of black women were raped by white men or men of any other race for that matter.(percentage of negro rapists of negro women accounted for 100% according to this)

there is an entire thread on this topic, here:

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=23686

You can see in this thread, that sulla did not believe what was being said either, but it is right there.
That still doesn't "prove" the argument that they were motivated purely by racial factors.

But of course, to you and boleslaw, you don't have to "prove" your argument with anything, all you have to do is cherry-pick and add-on to things to make them fit into your little world vision. Sure, to you, this is more than enough "evidence" to support your conclusion that black people prey specifically on white women, but to anyone with a neutral point of view, this fails to meet the burden of proof which your accusation requires.

Until you get every single black on white rapist to say "Yes, I choose white women because I really hate white people and enjoy being a detriment to their race solely by raping them", your point is little more than conjecture.

As an aside, it is flattering that you gave up your last course of dialogue Starr. I guess the cat really did get your tongue.

[Vissario]

No rather people who can actually construct a real argument deserve more air-time then people who seem unable to.

By admitting to having a "neutral" position(I challenge this assertion), you further expose the fact that you indeed have very little in substance to say on the topic; which is indeed the case.

At best, your rants constitute a low-grade version of Kung-sun Lung-tzu's famous "White Horse dialogue" (http://faculty.vassar.edu/brvannor/Reader/whitehorse.html), in which he argues at great length that a "white horse is not a horse".
Yes, by saying that there are deeper reasons than race for the current condition of black Americans, I am making an argument with "very little substance". Seriously, argue the actual points and drop the ad hominem attacks.

[Warka]

That still doesn't "prove" the argument that they were motivated purely by racial factors.

But of course, to you and boleslaw, you don't have to "prove" your argument with anything, all you have to do is cherry-pick and add-on to things to make them fit into your little world vision. Sure, to you, this is more than enough "evidence" to support your conclusion that black people prey specifically on white women, but to anyone with a neutral point of view, this fails to meet the burden of proof which your accusation requires.

Until you get every single black on white rapist to say "Yes, I choose white women because I really hate white people and enjoy being a detriment to their race solely by raping them", your point is little more than conjecture.

As an aside, it is flattering that you gave up your last course of dialogue Starr. I guess the cat really did get your tongue.

So, Vissario, in your estimation it's just coincidence that roughly 37,000 White women were raped by negroids but no black women, not a single one, were raped by White men? No racial factor at work at all here?

[Vissario]

So, Vissario, in your estimation it's just coincidence that roughly 37,000 White women were raped by negroids but no black women, not a single one, were raped by White men? No racial factor at work at all here?

I could't say truthfully whether they were or not and neither can you.

[Warka]

I could't say truthfully whether they were or not and neither can you.

I can truthfully say that I don't believe the fact that nearly 37,000 White women being raped by negroids while absolutely no negroid women were raped by White men is merely coincidental and that race is irrelevant in this case. Furthermore, I would say anyone claiming this is either incredibly naive or dishonest.

[Boleslaw]

Yes, by saying that there are deeper reasons than race for the current condition of black Americans, I am making an argument with "very little substance".

No, rather your arguments are just incomprehensible BS. If that really is your position, then you're doing a pretty shitty job at asserting it.

My main point in starting this discussion was to stimulate serious discussion between racialists and anti-racists. So the notion Im ripping on you for making an anti-racist argument is nothing more than a delusion of your own making.

Rather your incompetent style of argumentation, and the way it has degraded numerous otherwise decent discussions is what is actually irritating me.

Seriously, argue the actual points and drop the ad hominem attacks.

Very pretentious of you to tell me to argue "actual points" in a discussion I started. If anything, it's you who should be arguing the actual points. Seriously, start making actual comprehensive arguments in favor of your supposed position.

[Burrhus]

That still doesn't "prove" the argument that they were motivated purely by racial factors.

But of course, to you and boleslaw, you don't have to "prove" your argument with anything, all you have to do is cherry-pick and add-on to things to make them fit into your little world vision. Sure, to you, this is more than enough "evidence" to support your conclusion that black people prey specifically on white women, but to anyone with a neutral point of view, this fails to meet the burden of proof which your accusation requires.

Until you get every single black on white rapist to say "Yes, I choose white women because I really hate white people and enjoy being a detriment to their race solely by raping them", your point is little more than conjecture.

As an aside, it is flattering that you gave up your last course of dialogue Starr. I guess the cat really did get your tongue.

I just wasted 5 minutes of my rapidly diminishing time left on earth trying to compose a response to this blather.

Are you an anti-racist sock-puppet for the holocaustian Globus? Your styles are SO similar.

Good-bye.

[Burrhus]

Pracnownik: So, Vissario, in your estimation it's just coincidence that roughly 37,000 White women were raped by negroids but no black women, not a single one, were raped by White men? No racial factor at work at all here?


I could't say truthfully whether they were or not and neither can you.

"From 1882-1968, 4,743 lynchings occurred in the United States. Of these people that were lynched 3,446 were black."
http://faculty.berea.edu/browners/chesnutt/classroom/lynchingstat.html

No racial motivation here either, Viss, right? I mean the white men who did these lynchings aren't documented as SAYING that race was a factor.

[Burrhus]

I can truthfully say that I don't believe the fact that nearly 37,000 White women being raped by negroids while absolutely no negroid women were raped by White men is merely coincidental and that race is irrelevant in this case. Furthermore, I would say anyone claiming this is either incredibly naive or dishonest.

In re Viss: I'll go with naive. (Such a tactful word.)