Discussion at Open Debate

[Fade the Butcher]

I will post my responses here because their server seems a choppy.

Because it breeds hate and stifles progress.Why is hatred wrong and how does racism stiffle progress? I will offer a different perspective. As Plato explains in The Laws (http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/laws.2.ii.html), the object of the educator is to instill hatred as well as love in the pupil.
"When pleasure, and friendship, and pain, and hatred, are rightly implanted in souls not yet capable of understanding the nature of them, and who find them, after they have attained reason, to be in harmony with her.

This harmony of the soul, taken as a whole, is virtue; but the particular training in respect of pleasure and pain, which leads you always to hate what you ought to hate, and love what you ought to love from the beginning of life to the end, may be separated off; and, in my view, will be rightly called education."Those are bad ingredients to use if you want to make a successful society.What is a successful society? A society driven by avarice, obsequiousness, and license? A society without reverence composed of citizens who are vicious and materialistic?I'm not interested in convincing you of my contentions, though I find it interesting that you accuse me of harboring "racial loyalties" when I categorically denounce the validity of the concept of race as a biological entity, whereas Harjit does not seem to be as convinced. My loyalities are to friends, family, nation, humanity and self. Not skin color and typological classifications.Why is that interesting? If I am correct, I would expect you to display such a double consciousness.It's true that many African-Americans are quite race concious and this identity was imposed on their ancestors derived from many African ethnic groups during the disapora who before hand had no concept of race before being conditioned by White Supremacist philosophies to do so.I don't see anything here that disputes the point I was making. Black Americans are quite race conscious. We agree.But as far as I am concerned, maybe I oppose racism for the same reason I oppose many other extremist ideologies. Because they are harmful to society. Infact yes, that is precisely why I do it.Explain how racism is harmful to society. Let me guess. Such racial prejudice prevents us from tapping into the genius of African-Americans. Where would we be (tongue-in-cheek) without peanut butter or the SuperSoaker water gun?Perhaps it has something to do with the multitude of genocides that have resulted as a byproduct of racial thinking.I'm guessing you have the destruction of American Indians in mind here. Please tell me. How was that a great loss for the human race?Systematic oppression is also a byproduct of this poison.This is negative?Racism is fundamentally based on the belief that there are scientific biological entities called races within the human species and that they have "essences" which cause these groups to behave a certain way which means they require the formation of social hierarchies in order for society to function "naturally".I know perfectly well that social constructionism (which is really just a secular version of creationism) rejects essentialism and its corollary modern science. I have dealt (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=2498010&postcount=5) with this issue in the past. Most natural scientists either laugh these people off or politely ignore them. This sort of reasoning has been dealt with before in books like Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0801857074/102-1355925-0982565?v=glance&n=283155), A House Built on Sand: Exposing Postmodernist Myths About Science (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195117263/ref=pd_sim_b_2/102-1355925-0982565?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155), and The Sokal Hoax: The Sham That Shook the Academy (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0803279957/ref=pd_sim_b_2/102-1355925-0982565?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155). There is no need to revisit the issue here, as anti-essentialism has failed to gain any traction outside of the epistemological sweepstakes of academia; disciplines like 'Queer Studies' and 'Cultural Anthropology'.Racists often look at the current socio-economic atmosphere and attempt to view it from a racial perspective justifying anything and everything that may rationalize their ideological beliefs while ignoring the way institutionalized racism historically played a large part in shaping that atmosphere.Oui. I must have forgotten that the admissions departments of Harvard and University of California Berkeley are secretly controlled by white supremacists intent on holding down blacks. All those professors at Princeton and Yale are burning up the Stormfront server with their daily progress reports to Don Black and David Duke. They then attempt to correct the "problems" they see in society by imposing a new racist institution based on their supremacist/separatist beliefs which if they were able to succeed would not turn society in a new direction but rather spin the proverbial wheel of life counter clockwise and create even more racial problems.Let me go get my violin.In short, racists are their own worst enemy.There is some truth to this, although not for the reasons you describe.Following a doctrine of discriminating on the basis of race only causes more problems for themselves and others.It makes much more sense to assume all human beings are inherently equal in their faculties, right?

[raven]

Ok my brain is pretty shot right now so I can't guess who you are debating? :D It doesn't seem like Kam. I'm not into "racialism"... I just have the belief that North America should be for Europeans as it's been since its inception (until Trudeau screwed everything up) with a minority of "visible minorities" and of course the Amerindians (or as we canucks call them, First Nations). Granted "visible minorities" over here are a minority but in some constitutenties they actually make up majorities. There is a 100,000+ population neighbourhood in the Vancouver area that is over 50% Chinese apparently. Way too much. Visible Minority populations should remain to a certain standard.

I don't think that 16% (our current number) is a whole lot. Though it is considering how 16% national average usually means that you have lots of fairly white areas with certain areas that are heavily concentrated with "visible minority" communities. For example, in my constitutenty people of European descent are not a majority, "visible minorities" are. Another problem is the jamaican immigrants in Toronto tend to be scum (Jamaicans are turd-worlders who on top of that bring with them their decadent violent culture. They don't offer value to our society so why are they here?).

Also even though the national average doesn't look that bad, that number is definately on the rise. I don't like the idea that more than half of the student body at the University of Toronto are foreigners, 40% of all students are of Asian descent (north-east, south asian, south-east, etc.) and that a majority of students are "visible minorities". Our education system is supposed to be representative of a nation's future. Is this our future? Is it racist to not want the face of Canada to change into that of an asian rather than a european? Is it racist to not want the face of the United States of America to change into that of a mestizo?

[Fade the Butcher]

Antiracism involves a great variety people with a broad range of political thought. That people share the same ends doesn't mean they advocate the same means to it.I never suggested otherwise. There are people who come to anti-racism from all sorts of different perspectives with different agendas and different motives. There same is true of just about any philosophy. White Nationalism is no exception.Again, that's something you'd best quiz him about. It's not my opinion; nor is it the opinion of the majority of antiracists, as far as I know. You don't recall multimoot making such posts at MSF?A good many WNs, those of the NS ideology for instance, advocate the imprisonment, murder or deportation of non-whites from "their" lands.This is true. White Nationalists share a common goal in that they advocate the creation of a homogeneous racial polity, but they differ on many other issues.It would be idiotic to suggest that they represent the majority of opinion among WNs at large.Very true. I haven't suggested that the majority of anti-racists embrace censorship or advocate the extermination of their opponents. I just pointed out that it is not unreasonable for anti-racists to turn out like multimoot.That's what I was getting at when I said that, as an antiracist and a moderate social democrat, I resent being lumped in with people who, while sharing certain core values with me, advocate or employ means I consider repugnant and counterproductive. But you agree it is fair to say that you share similiar ends, namely, fighting racism?There's war and then there's war. If killing is in the name of empire or theft of resources, as was the case with Hitler's expansionism and as is the case in Iraq for example, I'd say the invaders deserve to be repelled by whatever means the defenders and their allies have at their disposal.I didn't suggest that killing is always justified in war. I said that killing isn't necessarily wrong in the context of war or self-defense. The justice or injustice of such acts in war would have to be determined in relation to their ends. And such ends would have to be justified in relation to some overarching conception of the good.Pacifism and a belief in the sanctity of human life doesn't mean people ought to roll over for every bully that comes along, obviously.How did you arrive at the conclusion that human life is sacred?I believe that in a democracy the will of the majority should shape the society. That conclusion would certainly follow if you embrace democracy. Is it wise to advocate democracy in the first place, though? Is the common man a good judge of the affairs of state? Does he have much knowledge of diplomacy, justice, or economics? Is it reasonable to expect him to make sensible judgements about matters of which he is largely ignorant? And if you concede that he is possesses little knowledge of the practice of statecraft (and that he is driven by self-interest), then what warrants his enfrancisement? Should the substance of the practice of medicine be determined by whims of the common man too? Why not? If the common man can determine how the state itself ought to be run and what constitutes right and wrong, then why not let him pretend to be a doctor? I also acknowledge that societies exist that have been culturally homogeneous historically. If the majority in those societies want to retain that homogeneity, that should be their right.What if the majority or a plurality of the people decide that Adolf Hitler should be a dictator and that he should be granted the power to exterminate Jews and homosexuals? Isn't a fallacy to assume that a point of view is right because it is popular? The truth might very well be otherwise, no?North America is a different case than say, Japan or Iceland, however. Because Canada and the United States have been pluralistic societies since their very inception'African-Americans' were chattel slaves at the very inception of the United States. Most women (and quite a few men) could not vote. Naturalization was limited to whites only. it would be impossible to undo centuries of multiculturalism without violating peoples' basic rights as granted by the American Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which I'd certainly consider immoral.'Multiculturalism' has not existed since the inception of the United States. The term was unknown until it originated in Canada during the 1960s. The United States is not officially a 'multicultural' country even today.So, I don't view ethnocentrism as immoral, per se, but I oppose stripping people of their rights as citizens along ethnic or racial lines.Why is that? If such rights have no moral legitimacy, then what is the basis of criticizing those would dispense with them? Are you making an appeal to tradition here? :p

[raven]

Who are you debating with Fade?

[Fade the Butcher]

As I said, you are misrepresenting your opposition.I addressed this matter in a previous post.

"The expression of such a theory in reality is bound to be only a poor reflection of its form (which, of course, is a much finer thing)."
--Deconstructionist (http://www2.iptcp.net:36668/opendebate/showpost.php?p=9200&postcount=28)Try thisLet's go.1) Racists are unjust because they judge other human beings on their racial make-up as opposed to their beliefs and actions. 2) People should not judge others on their racial origin as this is a contradiction of basic principles of accountability and ethical reward or punishment. ) For this reason, antiracists believe that people should be held to account and punished or rewarded for their actions and motives and not for their race alone. Nobody is saying you cannot be judgemental. It is good to see we are finally getting down to the nuts and bolts of our disagreement, but we must first establish what justice is before we can declare who is just and who is not. What is justice, Scales? No wait. I think there is a far deeper issue involved here. Let's resolve this before we touch upon the larger issue of the nature of justice. Am I correct in assuming that you believe people should be judged as individuals and not as a group?There's a key difference when it comes to race. Race, in the context being discussed, is not a subscribed-to ideology, belief system, cultural entity or action. It does not require a decision to opt-in, and cannot be opted out of. I disagree. There is no essential difference. Why? Because other forms of association are treated in the exact same way. The liberal state adopts the same attitude of indifference (read: tolerance) towards culture, ethnicity, and religion that it does towards race. It does so for the same reason too. The individual in a liberal state has the same veto over all forms of group association. These groups do not possess any authority in their own right. Whatever authority they have rests ultimately upon the 'consent' (i.e., "opting into" as you put it) of the individual who can 'freely' enter and exit such associations at whim. He has no duty or inherent obligation to such associations. This veto possessed by the individual is justified ultimately by 1.) his priority over the group and 2.) subjectivism in ethics. This is why Mansa Musa has the right to become a homosexual Buddhist who dresses like a Scandinavian but consumes Mexican food if he so desires. Hell. You can marry a dolphin in some countries these days if that is what you want.You seem to think this is a brilliant dissection of anti-racism. As I said before, I consider anti-racism to be nothing more than liberalism applied to race relations.It's not, it's just a misapplied truism, presented with a pointless rhetorical flourish. Of course it's hypocritical to demand non-judgemental behaviour and yet judge others that don't comply. Not to mention logically unworkable.I never said liberalism or anti-racism was rational. That is why your typical anti-racist liberal is an expressionist who lives from moment to moment. I think you can guess who I have in mind. She is justified in doing pretty much whatever she pleases, as the mood strikes. She doesn't have to provide a reason to justify her actions. It isn't reason that matters to her. It's choice. And if choice is the gold standard (assuming it exists), that is, the guiding principle around which we organize our lives, then why choose to be rational?But, as I have said to you already, you are repeatedly presenting a fallacy. The argument is not: 'Do not judge anyone'. That would be ludicrous. The argument is 'Do not judge others on the basis of their racial origin.' You are mischaracterizing my position. I have argued that anti-racists make the judgement to be non-judgemental and judge people on that basis; that this twisted reasoning is derived from the principle of tolerance which is turn derived from ethical agnosticism. For example, a racist is a bad person because, unlike the anti-racist, he chooses to judge a black man by his racial ancestry. The proper thing to do in such a case would be to refrain from making racial judgements (to be non-judgemental). This is because we should be tolerant. And we should be tolerant because nothing is inherently right or wrong; any view is just as good as any other.This is quite different, and permits an antiracist to judge another on the basis of their ideology or actions, without falling foul of this logical incoherency you gleefully acclaim.Let's leave the racial argument aside for a moment and look more closely at the larger issue. Take religion for example. Suppose I were to say that Jesus Christ was the God and that those who deny this, namely the Jews and some atheist homosexuals, are going to burn in Hell. The Christian religion should serve as the basis of how we distinguish right from wrong and our legal system should be derived from the principles of this morality. The Bible says homosexuality is immoral and should be made illegal. Now . . . how would you react? I think we both know.An antiracist can quite reasonably 'judge' and condemn a racist, as they are judging another individual for their ideological standpoint expressed via their actions, which is compliant with the principle that forms the basis of the antiracist argument. . . . Antiracism only condemns cruel or unjust treatment of an individual due to their racial origin -so when they judge a racist they are not contradicting their stance. And this principle is, as you said above, that we should judge people, not on the basis of ascriptive characteristics such as race, but on the basis of their actions and beliefs. This principle is of no use because it lacks any substance. What are the right actions and right beliefs? What are the wrong ones? And what is the basis of such a principle? Oh. People should he held 'accountable'. That tells us a lot. Accountable to some standard, yes? I agree. What standard is that though? What kind of irrational nonsense is this?

"1) Racists are unjust because they judge other human beings on their racial make-up as opposed to their beliefs and actions.
2) People should not judge others on their racial origin as this is a contradiction of basic principles of accountability and ethical reward or punishment.
3) For this reason, antiracists believe that people should be held to account and punished or rewarded for their actions and motives and not for their race alone."

^^ Your conclusion is assumed in your premise. This is a circular argument. You are begging the question. You also seem to have forgotten that racial separatism is a belief. It is the belief that whites should value their race and they should act on this belief to separate themselves from other races.Your straw man is a tired, manipulative lie that seems to deliberately ignore the basic and obvious principles of an antiracist's philosophy, or even (as I suppose I consider myself) that of a 'non-racist'. The basic and obvious principles of anti-racist philosophy are 1.) tolerance, 2.) individual freedom, and 3.) individual self-expression. As I said before, anti-racism is just liberalism applied to race relations.A summary of the point: Judge away, by all means. But sentence on the basis of action and motive, not genes.The idea that race is significant is a belief. Racial separatism is an action.It's a chore to wade through I admit, and not directly related to the thread title, but essentially, they are saying that a denial of the right to judge others is the fundamental basis of antiracism, and therefore a hypocrisy -because antiracists judge racists.What I am actually saying is this: racial discrimination is condemned on the grounds that it is intolerant. This basis for this judgement is the anti-racist ideal of tolerance. Tolerance is derived from ethical subjectivism. This ultimately makes no sense. A judgement is made to be non-judgemental which is used as a standard to pass judgement.Whatever you might think of it as a standpoint, in essence, it is not what Deconstructionist is attempting to portray it as.Au Contraire! The same principle that is used to justify racial diversity (i.e., tolerance) is used to justify cultural, ethnic, and religious diversity as well.Personally, I'm happy to praise or denigrate a culture, religion or political movement.Ja. The individual chooses to partake in a culture. The individual chooses to identify with a religion. The individual chooses to join a political movement. Wait a minute. If we believe in choice, then the individual can choose to identify with his race too. Uh oh. He chooses to separates himself from others on the grounds of race and ethnicity. Oh no.

And another question: does the individual really choose any of these things in the first place? He possesses the ability to flaunt nature and causality through a magical act of will? I choose to reverse cause and effect. I choose to turn lead into gold. I choose to fly like a bird, as if I can wish upon a star like Jiminy Cricket and have all my dreams come true.

[Ambrosio Spinola]

A quick link to the debate itself would be helpful for those who might want to partake.

[Fade the Butcher]

A quick link to the debate itself would be helpful for those who might want to partake.I was posting responses here because their server goes in and out.

http://www2.iptcp.net:36668/opendebate/showthread.php?t=607&page=5

[Ambrosio Spinola]

I was posting responses here because their server goes in and out.

http://www2.iptcp.net:36668/opendebate/showthread.php?t=607&page=5

You are correct, yet having this interesting debate in our open forums will get people interested (like me). :D

[Professor John Frink]

Deconstructionist: I am sure by now that many of you have heard the claim by anti-racists that "race does not exist" on account of the fact that there is no clear point where one race becomes another.

That's basically a clines vs. clusters issue - the good ole "fuzzy sets".

A new study (Dec '05) says:

"Thus, analysis of the 993-locus dataset corroborates our earlier results: if enough markers are used with a sufficiently large worldwide sample, individuals can be partitioned into genetic clusters that match major geographic subdivisions of the globe, with some individuals from intermediate geographic locations having mixed membership in the clusters that correspond to neighboring regions."

http://genetics.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pgen.0010070

[ironweed]

WTF is up with all those nose-picking threads in the lounge? Ewww.

http://www2.iptcp.net:36668/opendebate/forumdisplay.php?f=19

[Fade the Butcher]

You don't think American indignation at segregation had a great deal to do with it?No, I don't. Segregation was nothing really compared to the lynching of the Jim Crow Era.There are several overlapping reasons for the success of the Civil Rights Movement.I agree.It's reductive to say that it all came about simply because it was outlawed and we all had to obey. Brown vs Board of Education says "All deliberate speed", which gave the south time to delay. People just don't sit back and let the south get away with whatever they want -- they are filled with indignation.That's not what I am saying. I am saying the Civil Rights Movement had been going nowhere under its own steam for decades. It was in utter disarray by the 1920s. The condition of blacks in America grew steadily worse during the early twentieth century. Their advocates were marginalized. This changed around the the time of the Second World War. You can see the frequency of racial stereotypes and caricatures start declining in American newspapers and magazines. The concept of race starts to decline in anthropology. Blacks are presented in a more positive light in the U.S. media.

The racial attitudes of the American elite suddenly changed. Something brought this on. It wasn't a newfound sympathy for poor oppressed blacks. Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan began to challenge liberal international system established by the Western Allies in the aftermath of the Great War. The object of these countries (plus the Soviet Union) was to overthrow the old liberal system and replace it with autarkic trading blocs and spheres of influence. Britain and France went to war with Nazi Germany over the pretext of its invasion of Poland to defend this system.

The USA had a stake in the preservation of liberal internationalism (i.e., access to foreign markets and natural resources) and ultimately entered the war on the side of the Allies to defends its interests once the possibility of a stalemate and/or defeat of the Allies threatened. America represented itself in its war propaganda as a champion of humanitarianism and liberal political principles (a theme it has stuck with this to this day) to disguise its imperial ambitions. Nazi Germany was condemned as a particularly wicked racist regime bent on world domination (nevermind that this description could more easily be applied to Britain or the United States).

America emerged from the war victorious and a changed nation. It had achieved its aim of defeating the Axis threat and went about re-establishing the liberal international system in a host of new organizations and agreements like Bretton Woods and the United Nations. This time America did not retreat into isolationism. Western Europe and East Asia were in ruins. The Western Allies held only a tenuous control of their colonies. The USSR was identified as a threat to the new liberal world order. America was forced to establish an imperial presence abroad.

This created new problems that had not existed before. As the de facto head of the Western capitalist alliance, America was open to pressure from foreign nations as never before. It's own domestic institutions, namely white supremacy in the South, came under international scrutiny. This posed a huge problem for America which was now in the position of justifying its new leadership role. The USSR was stirring up trouble all across the third world and was using 'racism' in America to discredit the West; to present Americans as hypocrites who did not practice the equality they preached. The subject was brought up again and again at the United Nations.

This is absolutely crucial. It is why the Truman administration, urged on by the State Department, took up civil rights reform whereas FDR had balked at the idea just several years ago. The international system and the role America played in it had changed. American ambitions were no longer limited to the Western hemisphere. The USA now aspired to world domination. The Soviet Union was a rival that had to be vanquished. So white supremacy was sacrificed to the cause of anticommunism and liberal internationalism. These reforms were pushed through by the two most unaccountable branches of government: the courts and executive branch. This was the rationale. It was plainly stated in the amici briefs filed in Brown v. Board of Education.

What is known today as 'globalization' (the subordination of the entire world to a liberal capitalist internationalist system dominated by the USA and its allies) is just a continuation of this process that has been underway for decades. Barriers such as race, ethnicity, religion, culture etc. that stand in the way of the march of the open society and the reduction of life to economics must be rendered irrelevant. The ever present threat is indigenous nationalism based upon some organizing collective principle that rejects incorporation into this system. The 'bad guys' all have this in common: white nativists in the West, Iranian mullahs, secular Ba'athists in Iraq, Serb nationalists, North Korean communists, nationalists in Vietnam and Nicargua. These people are all perverse in some way because they want to be left alone.I don't think this was unjust. Is there something that overrides minority rights so that they can't live, work, and go to school where they please?It was never about minority rights. That is just a convenient legitimizing discourse.

[Scales]

Who are you debating with Fade?I'm named in one small part of that mammoth, convoluted lecture -but he's debating with Eddy, harjit and a few others there. Thanks to the posturing, ranting writing style and self-indulgent hyperbole, the whole thing is nowhere near as interesting as Fade seems to believe; in fact it's the debating equivalent of wading through mud.

[raven]

I checked this thread on OD out and Fade didn't indicate whom he was quoting on OD there so it was all very confusing when I read it over. :D He also debated Mansa I saw... the rest I couldn't tell, it was very confusing.

[Scales]

I checked this thread on OD out and Fade didn't indicate whom he was quoting on OD there so it was all very confusing when I read it over. :D He also debated Mansa I saw... the rest I couldn't tell, it was very confusing.
If I stare too long at those ranting posts, I can make out faces and shapes, and even in one section, the face of the Virgin Mary herself.

[Fade the Butcher]

I can't access Open Debate for some reason. Also, I am not arguing with Eddy.

[The Retard]

Also, I am not arguing with Eddy.

It would be a complete waste of time if you were.

[Felix the Cat]

I can't access the server either

And why on earth is it on port 36668?

[daisy]

Explain how racism is harmful to society. Let me guess. Such racial prejudice prevents us from tapping into the genius of African-Americans.
about black and white racism
well most people don't take into account that africans did bring that brown and black monkey pigmentation over here and shared it with u.s. white albinos.
i don't think anybody would be an educated genius after being breeded with monkeys so give some of them poor africans and muded albinos a break.
this is just an assumption on my part. i still wonder if those africans did not get dark pigmentations from monkeys then where did they get it from?
i don't believe the sun gave it to them because human african's pigmentation is the same color as african monkey's pigmentations.
guess what they even have white monkeys in africa that look as white as white albinos.
i hope we were not breeded with those white monkeys in the past.
just a crazy daisy thought don't neg rep me jcs !

[Meursault]

WTF is up with all those nose-picking threads in the lounge? Ewww.

http://www2.iptcp.net:36668/opendebate/forumdisplay.php?f=19

Yeah, not sure why he felt the need to make so many. In our increasingly diverse societies I guess we all have to get used to such things.

I can't access the server either

Yeah, we were down for a few hours last night, back up now.

And why on earth is it on port 36668?

The forum is hosted by a friend of Sandee's at the moment.

If I stare too long at those ranting posts, I can make out faces and shapes, and even in one section, the face of the Virgin Mary herself.

I saw all that, and kept staring for a while longer. Eventually I saw the face of Michael Jackson on a piece of toast.

[Morpheus]

Explain how racism is harmful to society. Let me guess. Such racial prejudice prevents us from tapping into the genius of African-Americans.
about black and white racism
well most people don't take into account that africans did bring that brown and black monkey pigmentation over here and shared it with u.s. white albinos.
i don't think anybody would be an educated genius after being breeded with monkeys so give some of them poor africans and muded albinos a break.
this is just an assumption on my part. i still wonder if those africans did not get dark pigmentations from monkeys then where did they get it from?
i don't believe the sun gave it to them because human african's pigmentation is the same color as african monkey's pigmentations.
guess what they even have white monkeys in africa that look as white as white albinos.
i hope we were not breeded with those white monkeys in the past.
just a crazy daisy thought don't neg rep me jcs !

A crazy thought indeed.

Chimpanzees, the closest animal genetically to humans have pale skin, genius.

http://www.african-safari-pictures.com/image-files/baby-chimpanzee-picture.jpg

These racist comparisons of Blacks to apes and monkeys as if to dehumanize them exudes a level of ignorance stereotypically found among illiterate "trailer trash".

I know trying to sound intelligent is the "in thing" now for the modern racialist
so clearly such comments are counter-productive to the image many of you would like to portray, but it is to be expected.

All human beings have a genetic origin that traces our lineage back to tropical Africa.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/shurikenjay/OutofAfrica-genetics-evolution.gif

People of color did not introduce dark skin pigment into the White American gene pool, the genetic code for dark skin has always been there, that's why Whites tan in the sun (although some have lost that ability (http://anthro.palomar.edu/adapt/adapt_4.htm)). Whites are not albino extreme depigmentation in European skin, hair and eyes (I.E. "Blonde Hair, Blue eyes, Fair skin") is a result of adaptation to a Northern Eurasian enviroment in which dark skin was not beneficial to a climate the caused a vitamin D deficiency because of less sunlight than the tropcial regions. None of this proves that Blacks are more closely related to primates than any other group, Africans have been adapting to various enviroments in Africa longer than any other group to the various climates of the world.

Besides it's not as if Black Africans are the only group morphologically similar to certain primates. Whites are too.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/shurikenjay/longnosesketch.jpghttp://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/shurikenjay/proboscismonkey.jpg

Primates such as Orangutans and some monkey species have foreheads fully as vertical as the typical Englishman or German.

I hope you enjoyed your dose of common sense for the day.

Nice board you have here Fade. I hope it lasts longer than the other Phora that allegedly got hacked by an MSF member.

I hear this board is far more tolerant of varying opinions than boards like Stormfront.

[Fade the Butcher]

I hear this board is far more tolerant of varying opinions than boards like Stormfront.We censor people here on account of their behavior, not their political views. The Phora is just a discussion forum. It does not have an ideological orientation like Stormfront. Also, I see you have already made the mistake of taking daisy seriously. :p

[Morpheus]

Also, I see you have already made the mistake of taking daisy seriously. :p

No mistake, I was just screwing around hoping to get a rise out of people with my first put but now you have ruined it. :(

It's too early in the day any way to get a real response.

[Ahknaton]

Besides it's not as if Black Africans are the only group morphologically similar to certain primates. Whites are too.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/shurikenjay/longnosesketch.jpghttp://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/shurikenjay/proboscismonkey.jpg

I'm not even going to say it, it's just too easy...

P.S. When are you going to start up MootPhora.org? ;)

[raven]

Nice board you have here Fade. I hope it lasts longer than the other Phora that allegedly got hacked by an MSF member.

I hear this board is far more tolerant of varying opinions than boards like Stormfront.
Phora was hacked by an MSF member? Is this why Scooby was banned? Don't understand why the Phora would be hacked... the Phoranites are more moderate in their views than SFers and especially VNNers. Even on PANF (surprisingly since I thought that a board that was more inclusionary would be less extreme) I was greeted with a sense of some hostility when I dared to mention that having some non-whites in a nation is not going to kill the phenotype of the natives in that nation.

Btw welcome :D

[Morpheus]

I'm not even going to say it, it's just too easy...

Oh Jesus Christ.....

Can't a White man for just one second get away with being White without being called a JEW because of his nose?

http://www.jrbooksonline.com/jew-bwa-ha-ha.gif

Phora was hacked by an MSF member? Is this why Scooby was banned? Don't understand why the Phora would be hacked... the Phoranites are more moderate in their views than SFers and especially VNNers. Even on PANF (surprisingly since I thought that a board that was more inclusionary would be less extreme) I was greeted with a sense of some hostility when I dared to mention that having some non-whites in a nation is not going to kill the phenotype of the natives in that nation.

Yes, Scooby was banned not only for claiming to have hacked the Phora but for bragging about it on MSF.

I don't know whether he did it or not but whoever did it was not a fan of Fade. I saw the hack page the hacker wrote some incoherent rationale for hacking the site and then accused Fade of being a homosexual, posting "evidence" from his email inbox with tons of gay porn, apparently that was hacked too.

Btw welcome :D

Thanks. :)

Although it appears as though you have turned to the darkside. :(

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/shurikenjay/AnakinDarkside.jpg

....

I post too many pictures don't I?

[jcs]

Oh Jesus Christ.....

Can't a White man for just one second get away with being White without being called a JEW because of his nose?
He might have been wanting to comment about the penis-nose monkey.

[Morpheus]

He might have been wanting to comment about the penis-nose monkey.
Maybe, although if so he could have only included that pic and not the other one as well with the sentence above it.

As far as I'm concerned he is guilty until proven innocent.

[Jimbo Gomez]

Welcome aboard mansa.

[Anima Eternae]

Hey mansa:


NEGRO.

[Jimbo Gomez]

Are you a negro?

[Jimbo Gomez]

Well, I'm a tolerant admin, I don't even ban negroes unless if they screw up the board. :p

[Morpheus]

Hey mansa:


NEGRO.

Different board different rules.

[OVERWATCH]

Nice board you have here Fade. I hope it lasts longer than the other Phora that allegedly got hacked by an MSF member.

I hear this board is far more tolerant of varying opinions than boards like Stormfront.

Greetings Mansa. This site is under a cabal of new ownership now, one of which is your truly.:cool: The old days of losing all our posts from attacks are over.

If you find that a post violates the guidelines for posting as stated in announcements, don't hestitate to report it for review. We don't censor with regards to ideology here, just (mis)behaviour.

Welcome aboard/.

[Morpheus]

Thanks for the warm welcome.

The rules seem simple and reasonable enough.

[raven]

Thanks. :)

Although it appears as though you have turned to the darkside. :(

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/shurikenjay/AnakinDarkside.jpg

....

I post too many pictures don't I?
The power of the darkside was always there, I just didn't embrace it until later. Kind of like with Anakin. :D Nah I'm not a WN, a nationalist but I don't agree on the concept of "white" however I do feel that North America, Europe and Australia should remain majority European. I also tend to not trust SF (I believe its as you said, VNN with elbow pads.), especially not the nordicist VNN and even PANF (well its not that I dont trust them, it's just that I find them to have the same sort of atmosphere as a SF but with middle-easterners and arabs. :D)

[daisy]

Mansa Musa i don't believe one word of the links you posted
lies i tell you all lies ! many whites, blacks, browns, yellows, are albinos
many jews are not white albinos like hungarian jews have peach skin not white albino skin and they can tan and also they can be in the sun everyday if they want without feeling like they will have a heat stroke.
Mansa Musa you truly have white albinos mixed up with peach skin jews
the monkey skin pic you posted is peach not white
and also most white albinos don't have narrow long noses like your other pics
welcome to the phora !

[raven]

Join Daisy's Pan-Albino National Front cult. :D how many members are we up to?

[Sandee]

Humanist and Mansa are waiting for you to get back to them regarding the topic Jared Diamond (http://www2.iptcp.net:36668/opendebate/showthread.php?t=741).

[Fade the Butcher]

I will reply soon. The Jared Diamond debate is also going on at Stormfront and I am working on my response to that thread at the moment. It's going to be really good. In the future, I will refrain from posting on three forums simultaneously.

[Sandee]

I will reply soon. The Jared Diamond debate is also going on at Stormfront and I am working on my response to that thread at the moment. It's going to be really good. In the future, I will refrain from posting on three forums simultaneously.

Take your time. :)

You're debating the same topic on three forums at the same time? I'm guessing SF, here and ODF? Lol. Chapeau to you, Mister.

[daisy]

Mansa Musa posted Whites are not albino
false i am white and i am albino

[Excorcism]

what a gay fucking thread. i think my penis just fell off

LOL! wtf? Did a mod edit that last part or something? LOL!

[Fade the Butcher]

Take your time. :)

You're debating the same topic on three forums at the same time? I'm guessing SF, here and ODF? Lol. Chapeau to you, Mister.I finished my response this morning. If that debate winds down on SF, then I will return to the discussion on OD.

[Victates]

I finished my response this morning. If that debate winds down on SF, then I will return to the discussion on OD.

Well, I can't honestly see 'Who Are You?' actually winning against that monster of a post on SF, but pigs might fly and he/she/it might think they can.

I shall watch with interest.