Why non-white ethnocentrists are more palatable than white ones

[harjit]

I think I've figured out partly why they seem less harmful: In my observation, they aren't really all that racist.

Most black-power types probably wouldn't be adverse to having white friends, white spouses or other white involvements. In fact I'm pretty certain that most wouldn't say no to white tail.

Whereas judging from WNs on these boards, they tend to be more purist about these things.

Another example. I'm seen lots of Indian parents say things like they want their kids to marry Indians. However I've never heard of a case where someone is completely inflexible on this to the point of disowning or cutting off contact with their child or white son/daughter in law. They all come around eventually. ALL of them, without exception.

Whereas I get the impression that most of the white racists on these boards would literally freak if their kids did this, and would almost certainly disown their kids.

If non-white ethnocentrism was as purist and hard and resolute as the white variety it could probably be as unpleasant. However it seldom is.

If it sounds unfair to compare something like WN with normal garden-variety black or non-white ethnocentrism, well, my reason for doing so is because when people here complain of society's "acceptance" of non-white ethnocentrism, it's that very garden-variety ethnocentrism they are talking about. Society probably would NOT be accepting of extreme and inflexible non-white racism either.

[Arminius]

Most black-power types probably wouldn't be adverse to having white friends, white spouses or other white involvements. In fact I'm pretty certain that most wouldn't say no to white tail.

This doesn't sound right. So you like them because they are hypocrites? ;)

[harjit]

This doesn't sound right. So you like them because they are hypocrites? ;)

I don't respect the hypocrisy, but it's at least better than being a true-believing ideologue. It's more human and normal.

[Arminius]

I don't respect the hypocrisy, but it's at least better than being a true-believing ideologue. It's more human and normal and infinitely less creepy.

A few vocal loons on the internet don't really do anything to help their cause. I wouldn't compare these types with the average afrocentric black. As a cracker, I see more whites not caring about the race of a person than I see from the other side. That may be because I am only seeing the vocal loons, like the blacks may only see the WN-types. There are more important things to argue about, but I don't like the blatant double standard.

[Starr]

Most black-power types probably wouldn't be adverse to having white friends, white spouses or other white involvements. In fact I'm pretty certain that most wouldn't say no to white tail.

Whereas judging from WNs on these boards, they tend to be more purist about these things.

Another example. I'm seen lots of Indian parents say things like they want their kids to marry Indians. However I've never heard of a case where someone is completely inflexible on this to the point of disowning or cutting off contact with their child or white son/daughter in law. They all come around eventually. ALL of them, without exception.

First off, I don't really believe this is the case. Black power types are often extremely pissed when one of their own has involvment with whites. As for racial mixing they seem to personally be offended by it in a similar way to white racists. Another thing likely coming into play, if there is truth in this is that we are talking about minorities who have to deal with larger numbers of people outside of their race. They are going to be more forced, in a sense to deal with people outside of their race. If you went to a nation where their people were the dominant majority, you would likely see a big difference in their levels of "tolerance" as far as outsiders go. In some non white countries, people are killed for similiar things.(often with the support or at least indifference of their communities)

[Arminius]

Starr has a point. Some blacks don't like mixing any more than racist whites:
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=OgtIqeV-6mk

Edit, I can't believe I forgot this one:
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=khuu-RhOBDU
We need to give this guy a national TV show. He is hilarious.

[Felix the Cat]

Blacks are friendler to brown people than to whites for obvious reasons. No real mystery there.

As for Japan, you're being disingenuous: if hundreds-of-thousands of south Asians were entering Japan and demanding that the Japanese alter their culture and laws to accomodate them, I'm sure you would find as much to dislike about Japanese nationalists as you do about white ones

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Harjit, please don't ever confuse or conflate white euro ethno-centrists with White Nationalists/racialists.

[harjit]

Blacks are friendler to brown people than to whites for obvious reasons. No real mystery here

As for Japan, you're being disingenuous: if hundreds-of-thousands of south Asians were entering Japan and demanding that the Japanese alter their culture and laws to accomodate them, I'm sure you would find as much to dislike about Japanese nationalists as you do about white ones
I don't disagree with this, but I said nothing about Japan.

I also didn't say that blacks are friendlier to me (or browns), I said they are more accepting of whites than white racialists are of blacks.

LOL, did you even read the post? :whip:

[Felix the Cat]

This thread was clearly motivated by accusations made elsewhere that you were downplaying Japanese ethnocentrism, so it was natural to raise the subject of Japan here

[harjit]

This thread was clearly motivated by accusations made elsewhere that you were downplaying Japanese ethnocentrism, so it was natural to raise the subject of Japan here
No I wasn't even thinking about that thread to be honest.

This thread was motivated by the complaints a lot of WN types make about how society is not accepting of them but is accepting of non-whites in North America acting ethnocentric.

[Felix the Cat]

Fair enough, I shouldn't have mentioned the subject

The subject of acceptance of blacks-by-whites and whites-by-blacks is about tribal power: mulatto kids tend to identify more with their black families than their white ones, so white/black pairings will serve to strengthen the black community and weaken the white one over time

[harjit]

First off, I don't really believe this is the case. Black power types are often extremely pissed when one of their own has involvment with whites. As for racial mixing they seem to personally be offended by it in a similar way to white racists. Another thing likely coming into play, if there is truth in this is that we are talking about minorities who have to deal with larger numbers of people outside of their race. They are going to be more forced, in a sense to deal with people outside of their race. If you went to a nation where their people were the dominant majority, you would likely see a big difference in their levels of "tolerance" as far as outsiders go. In some non white countries, people are killed for similiar things.(often with the support or at least indifference of their communities)

When it comes to black power types who are really deadly serious and don't want any involvements or friendships with whites, yes, I would say they are as bad as WNs. Society too doesn't look favourably on them by any means. If they are cut any slack it may be because of the perception that they are from an underdog class.

You are right also about the part that minorities may have no choice but to deal with whites. That is a good point.

As for foreign countries, yes that is pretty scary especially if anti-white sentiment is state-sponsored. If there erupted some kind of major persecution of whites in South Africa or Zimbabwe I would be supportive of some kind of humanitarian military action, as there was in Bosnia and Kosovo by NATO forces.

[shanemac]

I don't respect the hypocrisy, but it's at least better than being a true-believing ideologue. It's more human and normal.

I actually think hypocricy is kind of just another word for pragmatism. You can espouse certain beliefs, but realise at the same time that you personally cannot change anything, so you might as well go along with an imperfect system in order to get along in the world.

Go along Jerry Go along!

[RuneX2]

Another example. I'm seen lots of Indian parents say things like they want their kids to marry Indians. However I've never heard of a case where someone is completely inflexible on this to the point of disowning or cutting off contact with their child or white son/daughter in law. They all come around eventually. ALL of them, without exception.I have never heard of anybody in Denmark being killed for marrying a black person, whereas there’s about an average a murder a year on Muslim girls by their family, for the crime of marrying – or just being with – white Danes. I expect the same is the case in Canada. When it comes to actual racist family murders, WN can’t touch the Muslim community. Sonay Ahmad Mohammad (http://politiken.dk/indland/article482045.ece), Ghazala Khan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghazala_Khan). If you’re really into anti-racist activity, you’d probably be better served hanging out at some Muslim forum.

[Omniel]

harjit, your depiction of Indian parents as more accepting of their children's marital decisions is obviously biased. There are no doubt plenty of cases where white familes overcome racist views and eventually accept a non-white, it's a fairly common scenario (especially with fathers). After a period of adjustment to the new situation, families tend to accept whatever makes their children happy, even if it conflicts with their ideological beliefs. It's true that the families of self-identified WNs are unlikely to accept a non-white, but as you seem to forget: the majority of ethnocentric/racist whites aren't WNs.

It's not insurmountable, because when it comes down to it, most families don't want to lose their kids for the sake of their beliefs or ideals. Still, I can think of some very well known exceptions to that rule, and they're not white. Almost nobody in the UK had even heard of 'honour killings' until South Asian parents started maiming and murdering their own kids for their marital choices. The concept of this is totally alien to white families, we imported it from your neck of the woods.

[Omniel]

You start by saying:

I think I've figured out partly why they seem less harmful: In my observation, they aren't really all that racist.

Most black-power types probably wouldn't be adverse to having white friends, white spouses or other white involvements. In fact I'm pretty certain that most wouldn't say no to white tail.
Now you're admitting:

When it comes to black power types who are really deadly serious and don't want any involvements or friendships with whites, yes, I would say they are as bad as WNs.
So actually you do admit that the serious ethnonationalists are just as bad as each other -in other words, when you compare apples with apples, there's little to choose between them.

What's the point of this thread again?

[Basil Fawlty]

What's the point of this thread again?I took it to be one of harjit's periodic attempts to wind up the racialists here.

[Omniel]

I took it to be one of harjit's periodic attempts to wind up the racialists here.
No, I think he means it actually. Harjit is just attempting (and failing) to rationalise his fear of white racism as opposed to the equally pernicious multicoloured varieties.

[harjit]

So actually you do admit that the serious ethnonationalists are just as bad as each other -in other words, when you compare apples with apples, there's little to choose between them.

What's the point of this thread again?

The thing is that when WNs here complain that society is accepting of non-white ethnocentrism yet not accepting of them, it's just the casual-racist kind of non-white ethnocentrism they are complaining about. This particular ethnocentrism is not that hardened and resolute and ugly, so of course it's not going to be as off-putting as WN.

So I was pointing out that that WNs are the ones comparing apples and oranges by comparing themselves with the casual ethnocentrism of non-whites.

This was spelled out toward the end of the initial post. I won't do so a third time.

[Geist]

I just finished reading Ayaan Hirst Ali's biography so no I do not agree. Anti-white racism is accepted all over Africa. The term gaalo was common referring to whites who were either 'dirty' 'unbelievers' or 'naive' (in relation to politics. I agree). All ills were European but despite flocking to Europe for a better life Africans were above/superior to whites. The Islamic influence was also funny. I got quite used to kuffir. Pages and pages of easy going anti-European sentiment permeating a mainstream book. Ali is a rare voice for Enlightenment rationalism among such communities and would certainly take you to task for Indian family tolerance. She was the first to demand numbers for honour killings because liberals refused to. She also highlighted female genital mutilation. Both of which she suffered. So no I'm tired of naive, idealistic nonsense that suggests white ethnocentrism is someone more corrosive than benign non-white ethnocentrism. The battle of modern liberalism is against your attitude. Against a mythical Nazi revival. The Nazi revival is Islamic, or found in the homes of backward Somali families. Thats where anti-semitism is powerful, cultural: a force. Time to take your head out of the sand.

[harjit]

@Geist, I started out saying this is about my own observations. Honour killings and whatnot are another freakin planet.

I despise any kind of illiberalism, including the Muslim kind. I know next to nothing about it, besides what we get in the mainstream media. There is a War on Terror going on, to which possibly a trillion dollars will eventually be allocated, so it's not like nothing is being done about it either.

[Omniel]

The thing is that when WNs here complain that society is accepting of non-white ethnocentrism yet not accepting of them, it's just the casual-racist kind of non-white ethnocentrism they are complaining about. This particular ethnocentrism is not that hardened and resolute and ugly, so of course it's not going to be as off-putting as WN.

So I was pointing out that that WNs are the ones comparing apples and oranges by comparing themselves with the casual ethnocentrism of non-whites.

This was spelled out toward the end of the initial post. I won't do so a third time.
Let's be clear here: Your OP hypothesis was 'why non-white ethnocentrists are more palatable than white ones', not 'why WNs are wrong to complain about social bias towards them.' Ignoring the fact that you've conflated WNs with racists/ethnocentrists, you're wrong anyway. In the West, white racism is treated with a completely different level of gravity than non-white variants -whether it's political (WN/WS) or casual. Your post above was convoluted and you've said you don't want to spell it out again, so rather than expect you to explain yourself in plain english, I'll try a few permutations:

1. The casual racism of non-whites really is much more socially acceptable than the same thing by whites.

e.g . Black people such as Obama can publically refer to 'typical whites' and openly criticise white people, but the reverse would be unimaginable.

e.g. Asian people can speak publically of their insistence that their child marry only another Asian and it is seen as 'traditionalist' and a legitimate cultural concern, but a white person would be stigmatised for doing the same.

2. The hardcore racism of non-whites really is more accepted than the white equivalent.

e.g. A black man could openly support Louis Farrakhan, be a member of The Nation of Islam, support Black Nationalism or exclusively black causes in general and not have to deal with condemnation. A white supremacist supporter of David Duke or the BNP risks his job and his safety in public.

3. And also, even the hardcore racism of non-whites is more accepted than the casual racism of whites.

e.g. While that same black man could freely admit his support of Louis Farrakhan and not really encounter many problems as a result, a white man who dared to observe black crime statistics or criticise immigration or 'diverse' neighbourhoods would be well advised to keep a very low profile. He'd probably get the sack if he did so at work.

e.g. Crimes that involve the specific targetting of white people by black gangs are frequently not considered to be 'hate crimes', but even the inappropriate use of the word 'niggardly' by a white person is treated as a serious racial matter.

All in all, racism is consistently treated as a poisonous thing among whites but generally accepted (even encouraged) among non-whites. I can certainly see why White Nationalists complain of bias, and I don't see you rationally disputing this point so far.

[Geist]

@Geist, I started out saying this is about my own observations. Honour killings and whatnot are another freakin planet.

I despise any kind of illiberalism, including the Muslim kind. I know next to nothing about it, besides what we get in the mainstream media. There is a War on Terror going on, to which possibly a trillion dollars will eventually be allocated, so it's not like nothing is being done about it either.

The point is that they are not another freakin' planet. They are a part of the West. They are part of the Western narrative now. A problem for you, me, friends, family, nation or what neo-liberalism calls markets.

If you despise illiberalism in the modern West let go of the WN/Nazi fears. They are non-existent outside of Russia (and Russia looks after itself). And please stop talking to the board as if it is some VNN spin off when you know full well few people here are raving idiots caught in some random ideology for which a psychological reason can explain away their faults.

That you consider non-white racism less corrosive suggests that you do not value all forms of illberal behavior equal. Today's Nazis?

Islamic fundamentalists. Backward Somali clans. Moroccan anti-Semites, Turkish homophobes, jihadists, and yes even some white gangs but which one do you think is the fascist threat on a par with WW2 or Communism?

[Omniel]

The point is that they are not another freakin' planet. They are a part of the West. They are part of the Western narrative now. A problem for you, me, friends, family, nation or what neo-liberalism calls markets.

If you despise illiberalism in the modern West let go of the WN/Nazi fears. They are non-existent outside of Russia (and Russia looks after itself). And please stop talking to the board as if it is some VNN spin off when you know full well few people here are raving idiots caught in some random ideology for which a psychological reason can explain away their faults.

That you consider non-white racism less corrosive suggests that you do not value all forms of illberal behavior equal. Today's Nazis?

Islamic fundamentalists. Backward Somali clans. Moroccan anti-Semites, Turkish homophobes, jihadists, and yes even some white gangs but which one do you think is the fascist threat on a par with WW2 or Communism?
I just wanted to say, great debating there, Geist. You're definitely winning.

[harjit]

The point is that they are not another freakin' planet. They are a part of the West. They are part of the Western narrative now. A problem for you, me, friends, family, nation or what neo-liberalism calls markets.

I wasn't thinking of such extreme behavior when I started the thread.

I was just thinking of casual ethnocentrism by non-whites, which is something our WNs complain about and compare themselves to. My point was that the racism level is different between the two.

That's what I meant by honour killings being on a different planet. We're not discussing ethnocentrism or nationalism at that point, we're talking about cold-blooded homicide. In fact I would posit that such people are mentally ill.


If you despise illiberalism in the modern West let go of the WN/Nazi fears.

And abandon my WNs? They're all I've got on the internet. :(


They are non-existent outside of Russia (and Russia looks after itself). And please stop talking to the board as if it is some VNN spin off when you know full well few people here are raving idiots caught in some random ideology for which a psychological reason can explain away their faults.
There is a lot of extraordinary ugliness in many threads here. I want to take a shower after reading them. Not always about racism either... for example that one about the murdered goth couple getting what they deserve, etc.


That you consider non-white racism less corrosive suggests that you do not value all forms of illberal behavior equal. Today's Nazis?
I've never measured them with a tape. But my experience with non-white ethnocentrists is that they usually have white friends and are assimilated. Whereas WNs really want nothing to do with non-whites.

A very typical case in point is a longtime friend of mine living in Vancouver now who is half-Japanese and half-white (grew up in Canada, doesn't speak Japanese). He often talks shit about white people. But his own father is white, every girlfriend and wife (been married twice so far) he's had was white, and a bunch of our mutual friends are white. It makes me think he can't really mean it.

Would many WNs here have that kind of involvement with non-whites? However I think a lot of non-whites who say anti-white things are like the dude I mentioned above.


Islamic fundamentalists. Backward Somali clans. Moroccan anti-Semites, Turkish homophobes, jihadists, and yes even some white gangs but which one do you think is the fascist threat on a par with WW2 or Communism?
All are on another planet as far as I or anything I discuss here is concerned, including the white gangs.

[Omniel]

I wasn't thinking of such extreme behavior when I started the thread.
I was just thinking of casual ethnocentrism by non-whites, which is something our WNs complain about and compare themselves to. My point was that the racism level is different between the two.
No, your point was that one is 'more palatable' than the other. You gave the example about Indian parents attitude to interracial marriage to prove a point about their lack of severity. You weren't thinking about honour killings until I brought the subject up because you live in La-la-land. But still, you seem to be a nice enough bloke, just naive and foolish with a very immature outlook on life.

[Geist]

I wasn't thinking of such extreme behavior when I started the thread.

I was just thinking of casual ethnocentrism by non-whites, which is something our WNs complain about and compare themselves to. My point was that the racism level is different between the two.

Let me put it this way. There are white people and casual racism and black people and casual racism for example. Then white and black people and their extreme racist groups. Yet you place more emphasis on the dangers of one. I am suggesting this is false on a global scale and indeed almost archaic in terms of what the problems on the ground are i.e. anti-European bias in its various manifestations. If, and its unlikely, the far-right gains currency again then it is likely to arise as a response to radical Islam, minority street-gangs and the casual anti-white feeling that has festered. I merely think liberals are missing the point and thankfully this new liberal trend is gaining mainstream voice. I am just sad at the extent of the damage done already. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the position you espoused in the main post is no longer viable, useless, or pragmatic, but outdated, dangerous, and costly.

That's what I meant by honour killings being on a different planet. We're not discussing ethnocentrism or nationalism at that point, we're talking about cold-blooded homicide. In fact I would posit that such people are mentally ill.

Its not psychological though, but cultural. It is also prevelant across numerous societies and increasingly in Europe. And once it hit Europe on this scale we most certainly are discussing culture, nation, and so on. Honour killings are not a European tradition.The cultural cannot be conflated or bypassed all the time with psychological explanations which is a tactic on MSF for some reason.


There is a lot of extraordinary ugliness in many threads here. I want to take a shower after reading them. Not always about racism either... for example that one about the murdered goth couple getting what they deserve, etc.

Use the ignore button as I do. You can filter out the idiots. This means you will waste less time on the ugliness.


I've never measured them with a tape. But my experience with non-white ethnocentrists is that they usually have white friends and are assimilated. Whereas WNs really want nothing to do with non-whites.



How many WNs do you know IRL? You often use real-world examples or stories to bolster your claims, but never on WNs for whom contact in a rather anonymous rag-tag place known as the Phora.


All are on another planet as far as I or anything I discuss here is concerned, including the white gangs.

Then you are censoring the world to suit a narrative.

[I realise there is a different European/North America experience].

[Omniel]

There is a lot of extraordinary ugliness in many threads here. I want to take a shower after reading them. Not always about racism either... for example that one about the murdered goth couple getting what they deserve, etc.

WTF? That was a thread in which every single poster (bar one) who contributed condemned the comment utterly. You're being dishonest again to prove some kind of point about everyone here being howwible. But of course, rather than admit you're wrong you'll just keep blathering on as if nothing happened.

[harjit]

No, your point was that one is 'more palatable' than the other. You gave the example about Indian parents attitude to interracial marriage, but you weren't thinking about honour killings until I brought the subject up because you live in La-la-land. But still, you're a nice enough bloke, just naive and foolish with a very immature outlook on life.
*sigh*

Again, for at least the third time at this point (yes, I broke my promise not to bring it up again) I was comparing:

(1) People like Indian parents who don't want their daughter to marry a white guy but eventually come around

with

(2) WNs.

Yes, damn right one is more palatable than the other, because it is not as hard and resolute.

When people in (2) complain that liberal society treats them badly but not non-white ethnocentrists, they are talking about (1). And (1) was NOT meant to include those who practice honour killings or any of the extraterrestrial behaviours you or Geist brought up. As if mainstream liberal society is remotely accepting of that. :confused:

[Geist]

I guess the honour killing point is to show that although WNs or whites in general might be pissed if their daughter marries a a black guy or son an Indian girl at no point will that manifestation of racism morph into killing. On the other hand in the UK and Holland such stories about Indian or Somali girls killed for having white boyfriends is now common. In my eyes this is a prime example of why white ethnocentrism has no become mild, even not worthy of thought whereas non-white racism is the new fascism that real liberals should fight against.

[harjit]

WTF? That was a thread in which every single poster (bar one) who contributed condemned the comment utterly. You're being dishonest again to prove some kind of point about everyone here being howwible. But of course, rather than admit you're wrong you'll just keep blathering on as if nothing happened.
Thaumiel, if you're going to keep calling me a liar and insulting me frankly I'm not going to engage you.

With you this inevitably happens every single time. You used to be an antiracist and now you simply can't contain your utter contempt toward those who "haven't woken up". Maybe because you've had headaches with blacks in London.

I'm here for fun and have decided that I really only have time deal with people who are friendly and personable and non-pedantic. Consider yourself on nignore until you become such.

[Omniel]

*sigh*

Again, for at least the third time at this point (yes, I broke my promise not to bring it up again) I was comparing:

(1) People like Indian parents who don't want their daughter to marry a white guy but eventually come around

with

(2) WNs.

Yes, damn right one is more palatable than the other, because it is not as hard and resolute.

When people in (2) complain that liberal society treats them badly but not non-white ethnocentrists, they are talking about (1). And (1) was NOT meant to include those who practice honour killings or any of the extraterrestrial behaviours you or Geist brought up. As if mainstream liberal society is remotely accepting of that. :confused:
Yes, and it is one of the examples you give to demonstrate that 'non-white ethnocentrists are more palatable than white ones'. You're deliberately confusing the issue, which is another one of your techniques for playing this silly game of yours.

What part of this sentence do you not understand: You are comparing apples with oranges. This concept you keep peddling about 'WNs comparing themselves to mild mannered Indian parents' is just a dotty idea you've become fixated on, it has no bearing on reality. Your entire argument stinks and has been refuted on this thread several times now. You can huff and puff but I can point you to at least three posts on this thread that have completely refuted your OP.

[Omniel]

Thaumiel, if you're going to keep calling me a liar and insulting me frankly I'm not going to engage you.

I'm here for fun and have decided that I really only have time deal with people who are friendly and personable and non-pedantic. Consider yourself on nignore until you become such.
There we go, regular as clockwork: harjit makes a totally disingenuous statement and then goes 'la-la-la-I can't hear you'. Pathetic. You are a liar, because you just made a dishonest statement and you knew it. If you can't handle someone calling you out on that, you shouldn't even be posting on boards like this.

[harjit]

I guess the honour killing point is to show that although WNs or whites in general might be pissed if their daughter marries a a black guy or son an Indian girl at no point will that manifestation of racism morph into killing. On the other hand in the UK and Holland such stories about Indian or Somali girls killed for having white boyfriends is now common. In my eyes this is a prime example of why white ethnocentrism has no become mild, even not worthy of thought whereas non-white racism is the new fascism that real liberals should fight against.
I don't disagree with this. I wouldn't be sure where to start though. It mostly sounds like a European issue for one thing.

And again, I wasn't thinking about honour killings or anything crazy like that when I started the thread.

[Geist]

And again, I wasn't thinking about honour killings or anything crazy like that when I started the thread.

Then maybe you should?

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=d05e437f-4661-4965-9455-ff30c6b9d4a5&k=20265

Just one of many.

And for more information in general: http://www.stophonourkillings.com/

But yeah I mean if we don't stop a couple of guys calling people nigger on the internet the Klan might get into power, and well that would be truly dreadful now wouldn't it?

[harjit]

Then maybe you should?

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=d05e437f-4661-4965-9455-ff30c6b9d4a5&k=20265

Just one of many.
That's pretty sick shit. Yes it should be dealt with.

I also can't see how they can't be mentally ill.

Along with extreme traditional beliefs, there are deeper mental health issues that need to be considered, Muhammad said.

Quite often, people who are willing to kill members of their own family to restore some notion of honour are doing so, not just because they believe it to be right based on culture, but also because they are mentally ill in some way.

[Geist]

That's pretty sick shit. Yes it should be dealt with.

I also can't see how they can't be mentally ill.

I mean the cultural basis precedes the mental part. If one is a psychopath and ones culture does not require this reaction to a heated situation it is likely not to occur. If one is mentally ill in a culture promoting, indeed questioning honour, for some transgressions then it is likely to occur because consequences are good: restored honour, pleasing God, whatever. Mental illness is just an easy way of avoiding the elephant in the room: Islam.

[harjit]

I mean the cultural basis precedes the mental part. If one is a psychopath and ones culture does not require this reaction to a heated situation it is likely not to occur. If one is mentally ill in a culture promoting, indeed questioning honour, for some transgressions then it is likely to occur because consequences are good: restored honour, pleasing God, whatever. Mental illness is just an easy way of avoiding the elephant in the room: Islam.
You could be right, although it would depend on how many Muslims do actually think the consequences are good. Maybe a lot of them are afraid to speak out.

I suspect mental illness is a prerequisite. Or at least an inhuman proclivity for violence. The culture is an enabler, certainly, and shouldn't be coddled either.

[Winston]

I've never measured them with a tape. But my experience with non-white ethnocentrists is that they usually have white friends and are assimilated. Whereas WNs really want nothing to do with non-whites.

A very typical case in point is a longtime friend of mine living in Vancouver now who is half-Japanese and half-white (grew up in Canada, doesn't speak Japanese). He often talks shit about white people. But his own father is white, every girlfriend and wife (been married twice so far) he's had was white, and a bunch of our mutual friends are white. It makes me think he can't really mean it.

Would many WNs here have that kind of involvement with non-whites? However I think a lot of non-whites who say anti-white things are like the dude I mentioned above.

Again, you are comparing the wrong two groups. All your experience tells us is that ordinary non-Whites can still display racist opinions without penalty. You're then trying to compare them to the small circles of angry people that you associate with on the internet, when really they only have anything in common with the ordinary Whites that you know who have had this low-level ethnocentrism and ability to make negative racial remarks bullied out of them. We were all once capable of the sort of speech you've heard coming from your mixed-race friend, but Whites are no longer permitted to talk like that and as a result all you have are politicized White racialists/nationalists to use as a yardstick.

If you dislike the harder, more fundamentalist forms of ethnocentrism and racism then you should give up your little half-serious crusades against Whites and focus on the non-Whites, as their 'illiberalism' is much more pervasive in Western society than ours is, despite the obvious demographic imbalance. People like you just don't want to accept this reality, and your gymnastics in this thread are clear evidence of that.


When people in (2) complain that liberal society treats them badly but not non-white ethnocentrists, they are talking about (1). And (1) was NOT meant to include those who practice honour killings or any of the extraterrestrial behaviours you or Geist brought up. As if mainstream liberal society is remotely accepting of that.

If Whites behave as (1) then they are treated no better than if they were (2). In fact, as Thaumiel said, non-White examples of (2) are treated better than White examples of (1). That's what we complain about.

[Sandee]

Misunderstanding maybe? "Insert color/ethnicity" Nationalism is the same as far as I'm concerned.

*sigh*

Again, for at least the third time at this point (yes, I broke my promise not to bring it up again) I was comparing:

(1) People like Indian parents who don't want their daughter to marry a white guy but eventually come around

with

(2) WNs.

Yes, damn right one is more palatable than the other, because it is not as "hard and resolute.

When people in (2) complain that liberal society treats them badly but not non-white ethnocentrists, they are talking about (1). And (1) was NOT meant to include those who practice honour killings or any of the extraterrestrial behaviours you or Geist brought up. As if mainstream liberal society is remotely accepting of that. :confused:

I think the problem here lies with your title "Why non-white Ethnocentrists are more palatable than white ones" which seems to indicate that white Ethnocentrists are worse. "ones" should be replaced with WNs. White-Ethnocentrism and the non-White variety are the same, IMHO. They're similar. No difference.Same prejudices you might see in one, you'll see in the other. I think most White Ethnocentrists are not of the same level as White Nationalists. I'm sure there are countless examples of white Ethnocentrists who have behaved in much the same way Indian Ethnocentric parents have when their sons and daughters marry outside of their ethnicities. WNs, on the other hand, are another crowd or offshoot (let us say).

You did mention WNs and I quote:

"Whereas judging from WNs on these boards, they tend to be more purist about these things."

but then you went on to say (which might confuse many):

"If non-white ethnocentrism was as purist and hard and resolute as the white variety it could probably be as unpleasant. However it seldom is."

White variety of what? White Ethnocentrism? Is there only one variety? WN? See, I wouldn't compare a White Ethno-centric Conservative or Traditionalist with a White Ethno-centric Nationalist, for example. A White parent might prefer you marry White without stopping you from having Non-White friends. In the case if you did marry Non-white, they might not be too thrilled but will come around. There are countless examples of these for every ethnicity.

I would say when it comes to most Ethnocentrists, they behave the very same way, whether White or non-White. Both tend to become more accepting - i.e.if we go by your example of marrying outside one's ethnicity. White Nationalism, on the other hand, is a different story. I'm trying to be open-minded and I think that even though many WNs (who wish ill on others and despise them for being different for whatever reason) match your description, there are also WNs who would still be friendly with others of different races that share similar views and are in their ancestral countries. I can accept and understand this viewpoint. It's their ideal. Everyone has their own. Honor-killings and disowning someone though not on the same level (as one leads to a loss of life) both raise concern because there's a form of personal harm.

I mean, you could be a White Euro-centric Christian and yet not mind Non-white Christians in say, Africa. In the same way, you could be a White Eurocentric preferring your children marry within your own ethnicity and culture but in the case that they don't, you might accept them later, especially if the family they're marrying into is Christian too or if they respect and harmonize with your ideals. Or if they convert or show some other merits. This applies to Indians, Blacks and others as well.

[Basil Fawlty]

There we go, regular as clockwork: harjit makes a totally disingenuous statement and then goes 'la-la-la-I can't hear you'. Pathetic. You are a liar, because you just made a dishonest statement and you knew it. If you can't handle someone calling you out on that, you shouldn't even be posting on boards like this.There are ways of circumventing nignore. :)

harjit - You said I was comparing:

(1) People like Indian parents who don't want their daughter to marry a white guy but eventually come around

with

(2) WNs.

Yes, damn right one is more palatable than the other, because it is not as hard and resolute.Why I initially thought you were just trying a wind up (a less harsh way of saying you were trolling :p) is the utterly arbitrary and artificial basis of this comparison. It reads as if it designed just to annoy the WN types. The real question would be to compare manifestations of white and non-white racism across the spectrum of intensity and manifestation before coming to any conclusion about which is worse.

[Basil Fawlty]

I mean the cultural basis precedes the mental part. If one is a psychopath and ones culture does not require this reaction to a heated situation it is likely not to occur. If one is mentally ill in a culture promoting, indeed questioning honour, for some transgressions then it is likely to occur because consequences are good: restored honour, pleasing God, whatever. Mental illness is just an easy way of avoiding the elephant in the room: Islam.Islam does not condone honour killings so I don't know why you make that association. These are ancient tribalistic customs that persist.

I agree though that invoking mental illness is a form of laziness.

[Warka]

Geist, Thaumiel, Basil, integrity- you guys are, like, the most awesome debaters. :) :) :) :)

*high-fives*

[harjit]

harjit - You said Why I initially thought you were just trying a wind up (a less harsh way of saying you were trolling :p) is the utterly arbitrary and artificial basis of this comparison. It reads as if it designed just to annoy the WN types. The real question would be to compare manifestations of white and non-white racism across the spectrum of intensity and manifestation before coming to any conclusion about which is worse.
OK, I understand that now.

The only non-white ethnocentrism I've seen is one that is amenable to compromise and "coming around", one that is ultimately accepting of white people.

And the only white ethnocentrism I've seen is that of WNs on these boards.

I'm not saying that's all that's out there, it's just all I'm familiar with, and I just wanted to compare those.

The point is taken that there are many other varieties and degrees of both.

[Geist]

Islam does not condone honour killings so I don't know why you make that association. These are ancient tribalistic customs that persist.



I tried to add tribal where I could as it occurs in all manner of nations. A better way would be to note that Islam is often evoked, rightly or wrongly, as a justification of honour killing. Or another way the mood of Islam makes it conducive to tribalistic customs.

[Basil Fawlty]

I tried to add tribal where I could as it occurs in all manner of nations. A better way would be to note that Islam is often evoked, rightly or wrongly, as a justification of honour killing. Or another way the mood of Islam makes it conducive to tribalistic customs.Oh come on now. Christians invoke their religion to give sanction to all sorts of atrocious practices that are in no way sanctioned by their religion. This is a very human trait.
Islam is a universal religion so by definition it is opposed to tribalism.

[Basil Fawlty]

OK, I understand that now.

The only non-white ethnocentrism I've seen is one that is amenable to compromise and "coming around", one that is ultimately accepting of white people.

And the only white ethnocentrism I've seen is that of WNs on these boards.

I'm not saying that's all that's out there, it's just all I'm familiar with, and I just wanted to compare those.

The point is taken that there are many other varieties and degrees of both.Then you should have said this was a highly personal enterprise but the thread title makes a general statement -
"Why non-white ethnocentrists are more palatable than white ones."
and the OP mixes up personal observation with generalisations.
You could have avoided the barrage of criticism if you had made it clear that you were making statments of personal preference based solely on personal experience. But then the question would be: How is that interesting? I mean, surely we want to aim for something more illuminating in discourse than the personal peculiarities of others?

[Geist]

Oh come on now. Christians invoke their religion to give sanction to all sorts of atrocious practices that are in no way sanctioned by their religion. This is a very human trait.
Islam is a universal religion so by definition it is opposed to tribalism.

Sure, but the mix of tribal politics and Islam in places such as Somalia or Pakistan has produced the major honour killing cultures. Rarely is Islam absent from these cultures. I think this has a lot to do with the place of women in Islam. As I said conducive.

[Starr]

When it comes to black power types who are really deadly serious and don't want any involvements or friendships with whites, yes, I would say they are as bad as WNs. Society too doesn't look favourably on them by any means. If they are cut any slack it may be because of the perception that they are from an underdog class.
.


There is also the perception that their racism is justified. You will very often hear non white racism explained away as being the result(sometimes solely) of white racism. Keystone even said something similar yesterday in one of the many threads about Obama and Pastor Wright. Now it would be foolish to deny that this does play a part, but it also very much goes against what is an acceptable view in society when it comes to any other group.(behaviors of a group bearing some responsibility or justification for dislike of that group as a whole)



(1) People like Indian parents who don't want their daughter to marry a white guy but eventually come around

with

(2) WNs.

Yes, damn right one is more palatable than the other, because it is not as hard and resolute.

There are many whites out there who are racist to some degree who are not as uncompromising in their views. Whites like this surely make up the majority of whites with some degree of racist views. You will find both people who are compromising and uncompromising among any race. both varieties are quite a bit more acceptable when we are talking about non whites or jews,etc. The thought also comes to my mind that since their ethnocentrism is more acceptable, they might not have as much of a need to express the most hardcore of views. Non white groups are not as likely to have to deal with people all around them and a society that constantly tells their people that having a preference for their own is wrong. Is this, alone not going to create a stronger animosity, and need to be "hard core" or uncompromising, possibly?

[Omniel]

We were all once capable of the sort of speech you've heard coming from your mixed-race friend, but Whites are no longer permitted to talk like that and as a result all you have are politicized White racialists/nationalists to use as a yardstick.
That's an exact diagnosis of the problem here.

Hella good debating right there! *ghetto handshake*

[Winston]

That's an exact diagnosis of the problem here.

Hella good debating right there! *ghetto handshake*

*respek knuckles* all round.

[Geist]

word!!!

...

[Basil Fawlty]

Sure, but the mix of tribal politics and Islam in places such as Somalia or Pakistan has produced the major honour killing cultures. Rarely is Islam absent from these cultures. I think this has a lot to do with the place of women in Islam. As I said conducive.Oh dear. What do you base all this on? Honour killing pre-exists Islam so it can;t be in the causal chain. Do you blame Catholicism because we used to tie rags to bushes at sacred wells? (some still do) or do you blame it for not stamping out the practice.

[Geist]

Oh dear. What do you base all this on? Honour killing pre-exists Islam so it can;t be in the causal chain. Do you blame Catholicism because we used to tie rags to bushes at sacred wells? (some still do) or do you blame it for not stamping out the practice.

More of a reciprocal relationship. Tribal politics informed by Islam. Not Islam=honour killings. The world is a little too complicated for that. I am aware that something like Sufi Islam is not so easily equated with such practices.

[Basil Fawlty]

More of a reciprocal relationship. Tribal politics informed by Islam. Not Islam=honour killings. The world is a little too complicated for that. I am aware that something like Sufi Islam is not so easily equated with such practices.This is like saying the trouble in the north was all about religion.

[Geist]

This is like saying the trouble in the north was all about religion.

In what way? I fail to see any relation.

[Basil Fawlty]

In what way? I fail to see any relation.You're trying to set up some causal relation between Islam and primitive tribal customs.

[Geist]

You're trying to set up some causal relation between Islam and primitive tribal customs.

I am merely describing a group of influences that exist in areas where honour killings occur. Two common influences on such behaviour, at least on the cultural level, are the diminished role of women in Islam and feuding/bad blood that arises in tribal culture. I don't see which point is disputable. I am not implying Islam is inherently going to lead to honour killings if that is what you mean. I am aware it occurs outside of Islamic societies.

[harjit]

There are ways of circumventing nignore. :)

I'm not using the Nignore (with the capital N :D) function on Thaumiel, but as long as he is going to call me a liar I'm not going to respond.

A liar is someone who makes up shit that didn't happen. I pointed out that murdered goth thread as an example of a thread on the Phora that made me want to take a shower. Thaumiel pointed that Prac was on his own in that one, so he's right that it may not have been a good example, but he accused me of lying for using that as an example.

I haven't been called a liar by anyone else on any of these boards, whereas he has said it numerous times since we've been on the Phora. He hurls that accusation very lightly. It's exactly the same as how quickly antiracists call their opponents mentally ill, and find some way to rationalize it. I've never encountered such a person on these boards, or real life in any significant way, and I honestly don't know how to deal with someone like that except to avoid them.

[Jake Featherston]

If there erupted some kind of major persecution of whites in South Africa or Zimbabwe I would be supportive of some kind of humanitarian military action, as there was in Bosnia and Kosovo by NATO forces.

Its great you'd be supportive of it, but it still wouldn't happen. The Whites will either be killed en masse, or they would organize themselves into an effective ability to defend themselves, and carve their own state out of southern Africa. Then the UN blue helmets would definitely roll.

If the Blacks of southern Africa ever start really massacring the local Whites, China should intervene on their behalf, on a pledge of loyalty to the PRC, and establish southern Africa as a White-ruled (but backed by Chinese force) province of the Chinese Empire (half the diamonds, gold, platinum, and uranium could be shipped straight to China, free of charge). I'm not saying that would be good, but it could be smart, seeing as how the Whites of southern Africa are a natural ruling caste, and would likely be far more effective at it than a bunch of Chinese overlords not familiar with the region. It'll never happen, of course, but I'm not really sure why not.

[Jake Featherston]

If you’re really into anti-racist activity, you’d probably be better served hanging out at some Muslim forum.

Except that Muslims aren't a race.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Except that Muslims aren't a race.

No they're not, but Islam itself is very, very anti-racist. Which is what makes all the "Brown-Green Alliance" stuff look incredibly hilarious.

[Jake Featherston]

Would many WNs here have that kind of involvement with non-whites? However I think a lot of non-whites who say anti-white things are like the dude I mentioned above.

If Whites were but a small minority of the population, I'm sure most of us would have more social contact with them, too.

[Jake Featherston]

I guess the honour killing point is to show that although WNs or whites in general might be pissed if their daughter marries a a black guy or son an Indian girl at no point will that manifestation of racism morph into killing. On the other hand in the UK and Holland such stories about Indian or Somali girls killed for having white boyfriends is now common. In my eyes this is a prime example of why white ethnocentrism has no become mild, even not worthy of thought whereas non-white racism is the new fascism that real liberals should fight against.

When a White girl gets together with a Black guy, its often some thugged-out nigger scumbag. You can't really compare that to the Hindu engineering grad student who marries the White law student. Would Hindu or Sikh parents be so forgiving of a daughter who married a gang-banging nigger thug? I suspect not.

[President Barbicane]

A very typical case in point is a longtime friend of mine living in Vancouver now who is half-Japanese and half-white (grew up in Canada, doesn't speak Japanese). He often talks shit about white people. But his own father is white, every girlfriend and wife (been married twice so far) he's had was white, and a bunch of our mutual friends are white. It makes me think he can't really mean it.


Hmm. Interesting. You said he 'talks shit about white people'. What did he say?

Also, if I were to marry an Indian girl, would I then be entitled to 'talk shit' about Indians?

My little brother is dating a black girl. Does that mean he can talk shit about black people?

[harjit]

Hmm. Interesting. You said he 'talks shit about white people'. What did he say?

All the stock left-wing stuff about white imperialist oppression and capitalism. The phoniness of WASP politeness, how it masks violent traits.

(One difference between America and Canada is that in the latter the left-wing narrative leans more toward blaming Anglos specifically, rather than whites generally. This guy's white half is Eastern European).

Also, if I were to marry an Indian girl, would I then be entitled to 'talk shit' about Indians?

My little brother is dating a black girl. Does that mean he can talk shit about black people?

Well, I'm not the arbiter of what's right and wrong, so I assume you're only asking my subjective thoughts here. If so then in both cases, hell yes, it would 100% fine. I personally don't care about what's being said, only where it's coming from.

[President Barbicane]

he usual left-wing stuff about white imperialist oppression and capitalism.

God, the irony. A Japanese complaining about white imperialism and oppression. It was whites that rescued many Asians from imperialism and oppression at the hands of his own ancestors. And the Japanese are super-capitalists these days. And I would rather have wasp politeness then violent traits any day.

Anyway, I'm not dating an Indian girl, but I think I should talk some shit about Indians anyway. I am sick of Indians immigrating to America and taking our jobs and other economic opportunities. I'm also sick of Indians who think just because they were born here that they have a 'right' to be here. The USA as a country was founded by whites, and has been almost entirely white (except for a few Negroes) for its entire history. Asian Indians are foreigners! Stop complaining about how "people treat me as a foreigner when I was born here, I have a right to be here" STOP! For 400 years people of British descent have lived in America, you can't erase 400 years of history.

Anyway, you live in Japan, so let me tell you a story I once read in National Geographic. This journalist for National Geographic is riding a cab in western Japan, and he starts talking to the cab driver about the differences between Western Japan and Eastern Japan. The cab driver said something like
"Yeah, things are different around here. They don't change much, very much into tradition. But I'm not a Western Japanese, my family moved here from the east."
"Oh, really? When was this?" The journalist asked.
"About" The cab driver looks up and starts thinking "three hundred years ago."

Man, when I read that, I thought: by that definition, I'm not even an American, I'm European (except for a few ancestors who had already moved to America before the American Revolution). But all Asians (including Indians and East Asians) are not American. It is not only where you are from, i.e. where you are born, that decides your nationality, it is who you are! I don't know why this Japanese cab driver can accept that, but these other Asians can't.

[Warka]

God, the irony. A Japanese complaining about white imperialism and oppression. It was whites that rescued many Asians from imperialism and oppression at the hands of his own ancestors.

Such as...?

[harjit]

God, the irony. A Japanese complaining about white imperialism and oppression. It was whites that rescued many Asians from imperialism and oppression at the hands of his own ancestors. And the Japanese are super-capitalists these days. And I would rather have wasp politeness then violent traits any day.

Well, he's wrong to generalize about WASPs, but his partial Japanese ancestry is irrelevant.


Anyway, I'm not dating an Indian girl, but I think I should talk some shit about Indians anyway. I am sick of Indians immigrating to America and taking our jobs and other economic opportunities. I'm also sick of Indians who think just because they were born here that they have a 'right' to be here. The USA as a country was founded by whites, and has been almost entirely white (except for a few Negroes) for its entire history. Asian Indians are foreigners! Stop complaining about how "people treat me as a foreigner when I was born here, I have a right to be here" STOP! For 400 years people of British descent have lived in America, you can't erase 400 years of history.

You're actually correct in one part. I just realized how it's ridiculous to complain about being treated as a foreigner by a bunch of internet racists on a board that I voluntarily log into. Bardamu also once mentioned something in that vein.

As for the rest of it... ya, right, whatever.


Anyway, you live in Japan, so let me tell you a story I once read in National Geographic. This journalist for National Geographic is riding a cab in western Japan, and he starts talking to the cab driver about the differences between Western Japan and Eastern Japan. The cab driver said something like
"Yeah, things are different around here. They don't change much, very much into tradition. But I'm not a Western Japanese, my family moved here from the east."
"Oh, really? When was this?" The journalist asked.
"About" The cab driver looks up and starts thinking "three hundred years ago."

Man, when I read that, I thought: by that definition, I'm not even an American, I'm European (except for a few ancestors who had already moved to America before the American Revolution). But all Asians (including Indians and East Asians) are not American. It is not only where you are from, i.e. where you are born, that decides your nationality, it is who you are! I don't know why this Japanese cab driver can accept that, but these other Asians can't.

He was being silly. There is an ongoing comic rivalry between Eastern Japan (Kanto) and Western Japan (Kansai). Almost nobody identifies with their roots 300 years back with any kind of sincerity. Few people even know about it. If anything Westerners (and Indians, for that matter) are far more into genealogy and family trees and such things than are the Japanese.

[President Barbicane]

Such as...?

World War II. The Japanese imperialists.

Japan conquered Korea, Manchuria, the Philippines, etc. America helped stop the Japanese.

[President Barbicane]

Well, he's wrong to generalize about WASPs, but his partial Japanese ancestry is irrelevant.

Hmm. I don't follow. What's wrong with generalizing about WASPs? I'm a WASP (at least in part) and I kinda agree with him. Politeness does push down violent traits, that's a good thing.

Anyway, his Japanese ancestry is relevant, and here's why: He talked about white imperialism and oppression. It's an explicitly racial argument. His race has no shortage of imperialism and oppression. If race is irrelevant, he shouldn't mention it in the first place.

[Warka]

World War II. The Japanese imperialists.

Japan conquered Korea, Manchuria, the Philippines, etc. America helped stop the Japanese.

I see. I thought you were referring to Whites having rescued the Japanese from Asian imperialism somehow. I misunderstood.

[President Barbicane]

Anyway, harjit, I just realized the ultimate irony in this thread. You started a thread talking about how whites who complain about a double standard are wrong, and that really just illustrates the double standard.

A person partially of Asian descent makes an explicitly racial argument about white imperialism, and you say: "Oh, that's OK, he doesn't really mean it, he married a white woman!" When a white person makes any explicitly racial argument, it's seen as racist.

I hope you don't take offense at my venting about Asian Indians, but really, that was the point of the Phora to begin with. Daedalus started this board as a place where people could say anything about race, because he had been kicked off of other message boards.

In my opinion this is a more genuine dialog about race than you see anywhere else (although admittedly the dialog is biased towards white racialists, since they seem to outnumber others here). Barack Obama called for a dialog about race in a speech a few weeks ago, and already people have said things like: "You can't say that in a dialog about race, that's racist". The entire point about having a dialog is having an exchange of information. If some people are forbidden from expressing their opinions because they are 'racist', then it isn't a valid dialog.

[Jake Featherston]

When a White girl gets together with a Black guy, its often some thugged-out nigger scumbag. You can't really compare that to the Hindu engineering grad student who marries the White law student. Would Hindu or Sikh parents be so forgiving of a daughter who married a gang-banging nigger thug? I suspect not.

Any chance of Harjit responding to this?

[Jake Featherston]

Daedalus started this board

Please refer to him as "Fade the Butcher."

[harjit]

When a White girl gets together with a Black guy, its often some thugged-out nigger scumbag. You can't really compare that to the Hindu engineering grad student who marries the White law student. Would Hindu or Sikh parents be so forgiving of a daughter who married a gang-banging nigger thug? I suspect not.

I haven't heard of too many cases of Indian chicks and thugged-out black guys.

My assumption, whenever I talk about parents (or anyone) opposing interracial marriage, is that the other party is a decent and well-behaved person from a similar educational and economic station. In the case of a thugged-out black they would probably be worrying about her life, let alone race prejudice and disowning her, etc.

So, would many Hindu parents be accepting of a Sidney Poitier type a la Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? Hmm, I guess it would depend on each family... there would certainly be a, umm, process involved. But if he is able to maintain his status as a good husband and good father then I suspect they eventually might. I'm pretty certain my own parents would.

Sikhs may be a bit more traditional than Hindus on average, it would be a tougher nut to crack.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

I haven't heard of too many cases of Indian chicks and thugged-out black guys.

I've seen it here in Toronto, but on a small scale. It's much more prevalent amongst the East Indian communities here by way of Trinidad and Guyana.

[harjit]

In my opinion this is a more genuine dialog about race than you see anywhere else (although admittedly the dialog is biased towards white racialists, since they seem to outnumber others here). Barack Obama called for a dialog about race in a speech a few weeks ago, and already people have said things like: "You can't say that in a dialog about race, that's racist". The entire point about having a dialog is having an exchange of information. If some people are forbidden from expressing their opinions because they are 'racist', then it isn't a valid dialog.
I agree it's a genuine dialog, and have not suggested it should be forbidden. Hell, if the U.S. ever goes the way of Canada I'd offer to host the thing in Japan.

One minus of this place, however, is that so much emphasis seems to be on scoring points. I know as much as anyone how out on a limb and provocative this thread was, and I'll admit there are points (particularly brought up by Starr and Integrity) that made me realize a couple of things that I hadn't considered at the beginning.

[Sandee]

Would Hindu or Sikh parents be so forgiving of a daughter who married a gang-banging nigger thug? I suspect not.

Any chance of Harjit responding to this?

Lol, by that definition and if it were really the case, they'd throw a fit for sure. The guy should have some standards and merits, whatever his race. Most Hindu parents are still concerned about values like dignity and how society sees them. It's a bit more palatable to them if the guy in question is a decent fellow. They might not disown the daughter but I know they'll oppose someone that met that description you gave for sure, or that failing, they'd distance themselves. I've seen it happen. They still love their kids and visit them but there is going to an emotional distance if she married someone of a different race and of questionable character or into a culture that allows the above.

If East Indian girls turn permissive and take part in such behaviors that go against the values of their families, I'm sure the parents (still traditional when it comes to dating and marriage - sex not allowed before marriage, etc) will be bitter about the union. Girls that do it probably do it behind their parents' backs. Most eventually marry who their parents choose. It's been the case for 3 of my Indian friends. My one friend is dating a black guy, though he's somewhat decent but she's doing so behind her parents' back. It's just convenient that she's here and her folks aren't in Canada. They'd give her hell else. I know she got called names when they found out about her first black boyfriend and this is the second one (she kept it a secret after seeing how they reacted with the first one). It's been 3 years now that they're dating in secret and my friend has talked of getting married on the sly but she herself doesn't even seem all too enthusiastic about marriage yet. She wants to be independent and study more. I'm using her as an example. I see 2 likely events: 1. She marries the guy in secret and her folks are forced to accept or 2. She ends up marrying someone her parents chose for her. The way it's going I wouldn't be shocked if it's 2. because she's scared to confront her parents. Though 1. is just as likely, it's really hard for Hindu girls to go against their parents' wishes and 'break' their hearts. They see marriage as two families coming together. If the families aren't compatible, they'll feel like they've lost a daughter, instead of gaining a 'son' (the husband). Not all parents are like what I described but I know quite a few who are like that.

I know for sure that my dad would totally give me hell, even at this age, if I brought shame on the family's name by engaging in a shameful behavior in public or in any way that taints the family dignity as they would see it. He'll have a bigger issue with promiscuousness than race as would most Indian parents that I know.

[Omniel]

I'm not using the Nignore (with the capital N :D) function on Thaumiel, but as long as he is going to call me a liar I'm not going to respond.

A liar is someone who makes up shit that didn't happen. I pointed out that murdered goth thread as an example of a thread on the Phora that made me want to take a shower. Thaumiel pointed that Prac was on his own in that one, so he's right that it may not have been a good example, but he accused me of lying for using that as an example.
It's clear what you were attempting to do, as your criticism of 'a lot of extraordinary ugliness' here and 'needing to take a shower' was made in an attempt to rebut this comment by Geist:

"And please stop talking to the board as if it is some VNN spin off when you know full well few people here are raving idiots caught in some random ideology for which a psychological reason can explain away their faults."

You've done this a number of times, falsely imply the ethical degeneracy of the board itself to prove a point. If anything, in the example you attempted to use, the opposite was true. I could name at least two other examples of you using this underhanded strategy just recently. So don't play the victim, if you keep your comments honest in future you won't have to get huffy and pretend to put me on 'nignore' (not that I could care less...).

[harjit]

You've done this a number of times, falsely imply the ethical degeneracy of the board itself to prove a point. If anything, in the example you attempted to use, the opposite was true. I could name at least two other examples of you using this underhanded strategy just recently. So don't play the victim, if you keep your comments honest in future you won't have to get huffy and pretend to put me on 'nignore' (not that I could care less...).

Someone using a poor example of something makes them a liar? Stop using that word, and other words like "dishonest" and "underhanded", so lightly.

[Ahknaton]

Why non-white ethnocentrists are more palatable (to harjit) than white ones:
....Feelings.......nothing more than feelings......

PfRrJyMLc-s

[Jake Featherston]

I haven't heard of too many cases of Indian chicks and thugged-out black guys.

Yeah, well it happens with decent (but foolish) White women quite a bit. What does your intuition tell you?

[harjit]

Yeah, well it happens with decent (but foolish) White women quite a bit. What does your intuition tell you?
I have trouble understanding it.

If the thugged-out thing is more than merely looks and fashion, and they really are scumbags, all I can surmise is that these girls have issues.

Kind of like the way some women are attracted to selling their bodies, some stay with abusive husbands, some fuck themselves up with drugs or alcohol, etc. There is no shortage of irrational or self-defeating human behaviours.

That's my intuition, I'm sure there are other possibilities.

[Jake Featherston]

If the thugged-out thing is more than merely looks and fashion, and they really are scumbags, all I can surmise is that these girls have issues.

White girls sometime have issues (the fact that the dominant mass media portrays thugged-out niggers as the most desirable of all men might tend to exacerbate those issues, however). Don't South Asian girls ever have issues?

[harjit]

White girls sometime have issues (the fact that the dominant mass media portrays thugged-out niggers as the most desirable of all men might tend to exacerbate those issues, however). Don't South Asian girls ever have issues?
Of course, I'm sure they do.

I don't know if they manifest themselves in the form of relationships with thuggish black guys though. Maybe there just isn't the same proximity to them as white girls may have.

Although Niccolo says he's seen a few black male / Indian female couples in the Greater Toronto Area, which has a very large number of immigrants from Guyana and Trinidad of Indian origin. They've been in that part of the world for generations and may have more proximity with blacks (mentally and culturally) than do immigrants from the Subcontinent.

The other thing is that we're just talking about my own observations here. I don't know any black male / white female couples either, personally.

If the point you're trying to get at is that Indians are more racist than whites, toward blacks, well, OK I don't deny that that may be the case. However this thread was not comparing non-whites with normal whites, but with WNs. Some have said this was not a fair comparison and maybe it wasn't, but that's all the intention was.

[Jake Featherston]

If the point you're trying to get at is that Indians are more racist than whites, toward blacks, well, OK I don't deny that that may be the case. However this thread was not comparing non-whites with normal whites, but with WNs. Some have said this was not a fair comparison and maybe it wasn't, but that's all the intention was.

My point was that there's a world of difference between an upper-middle class Indian marrying an upper-middle class White (a relatively common pairing), and a working-to-lower-middle class White marrying a thuggish Black (or at least being impregnanted by her live-in, Black boyfriend, which is also a relatively common pairing). Even when the Black guy isn't a thug, you can't blame older Whites for worrying that he might be one. I don't think too many Hindu parents are overly worried that the upper-middle class White grad student their daughter is interested in is going to bust a cap in anyone's ass. Given the social realities of the different pairings being referenced here, the burden on the Hindu families not to be racist is a much easier one to shoulder.

I don't think too many White parents mind if their child marries a Hindu either; the only instance of this that I am personally familiar with involved White parents who certainly had no issue with it what-so-ever, but they were classic, baby boomer, White guilt liberals, so they probably would have been thrilled if their son had married a Black woman instead. Lots of not-known-as-racist White parents would not desire their offspring to marry a Black, however, because Blacks are trouble. Hindus are probably less likely than other Whites to be trouble, in fact. Its the trouble factor that tends to interest most White parents, not the DNA or skin tone.

[delete]

I know for sure that my dad would totally give me hell, even at this age, if I brought shame on the family's name by engaging in a shameful behavior in public or in any way that taints the family dignity as they would see it. He'll have a bigger issue with promiscuousness than race as would most Indian parents that I know.
To understand your father, you should perhaps think about wether it is/was dangerous for a girl to get a bad reputation where your father came from?

I very much suspect that this is one part of the explanation, as women with what society considers loose morals are free game for all kind of shady people, as society is so constructed, that reporting the abuse would bring a bigger penalty on the victim than the purputrator, unless the woman's record was spotless.

How "honorable" the woman must be to escape, probably varies from society to society, where the hardcore muslims are the worst. I know for instance that in my society, where it is not so strict, it is a fact that nobody gets as much raped as prostitutes, because they are more or less unable to get a conviction, unless she was beaten bad.

If you take your friend as an example, she would probably be in a very weak position to report any abuse, as the consequences for her social life if her lifestyle would be to big. She or society, depending on how you look at it, has in a way put her in a position where she can not report a lot of abuse, if it were to happen.

[Sandee]

To understand your father, you should perhaps think about wether it is/was dangerous for a girl to get a bad reputation where your father came from?

It is not dangerous but people talk and it can be a blow to what he considers his reputation or the family's reputation. My dad has told me that he'd take his life if any of his children (me or my bro) brought him disgrace. Could this be emotional blackmail? Perhaps, but then again, they also think about a lot of other things like image, status, values/morals and safety. It's a bit like that. That's usually how things are. Parents feel humiliated but won't harm the girl, nor will the Hindu community, for that matter, do it in their place - at least, that's how it tend to be where they're from. What happens is that the whole family will get stigmatized due to the conduct of one and traditional Hindus give so much importance to how they are perceived in society. They're strict in that aspect: Whatever you do, as an individual, you have to bear in mind, your actions reflect/has bearing on your family and relatives.

However, I've witnessed one situation, a Muslim girl getting dragged by her mother in public when caught dating without supervision (She went to a cyber café after school. Her mom had been reading her emails, I think). Her mom was at the PC and the moment the girl walked in, she got slapped so hard that you could hear it in the whole room. I was there, and was like 'wow'. She caught her red-handed. The Muslim girl was dating a Hindu guy in secret.

That's how things go there. No honor killings but parents forcibly preventing, as far as they can, what they think is unacceptable. Many are even against dating while at school (High School/University). They're strict like that. My dad had serious objections to me dating when I was still in High School but he never got physical. He'd just lecture. He told me he was against in principle but never even once raised a hand on me. Now, he doesn't even lecture but since it matters what they think, both my bro and myself will introduce prospect dates to our parents first before getting all too serious. It's good to seek their approval or at least let them be aware. Character is like so important. Things are more palatable if they get to meet the date and judge for themselves if he's of good or shady character. In case it's the latter, then they will probably object. My friend's parents threatened to take her back home to continue her studies there when they found out about the first boyfriend.

If you take your friend as an example, she would probably be in a very weak position to report any abuse, as the consequences for her social life if her lifestyle would be to big. She or society, depending on how you look at it, has in a way put her in a position where she can not report a lot of abuse, if it were to happen.

Agreed. I think that in the case she gets into trouble, she'll get the blame because she wasn't upfront and honest about it. Abuse can come from boyfriends or exes. I think it's a delicate situation, given her previous experience. The first black boyfriend was two-timing or undecided and had a Black ex that kept threatening my friend on the phone, calling her all the time, telling her she was pregnant from him, etc. She dumped him afterwards. The guy she's with at the moment isn't like that but if she does love him, she should be honest about it to her parents, I think. When I listen to her, at times, I feel she might not be as serious with him because she says she doesn't want to hear about marriage or kids for a long while.

[Omniel]

Someone using a poor example of something makes them a liar? Stop using that word, and other words like "dishonest" and "underhanded", so lightly.
It wasn't an 'honest mistake', it was a subtle but deliberate manipulation to prove a point, and therefore dishonest. It's not the first time I've seen you try this.

[Lily]

They aren't more palatable.

[harjit]

It wasn't an 'honest mistake', it was a subtle but deliberate manipulation to prove a point, and therefore dishonest. It's not the first time I've seen you try this.
Think what you will.

I know for a fact what was or wasn't in my head, and in this case I wasn't thinking anything complicated. I just pointed out a thread I viscerally disliked, which unfortunately was a poor example of a point I tried to make. You constantly, constantly, keep hammering this dishonesty point. That is more or less the sum total of our interaction on this board. Nobody else is like that.

It's ALL about speculating what's in the other person's head, right? And you have the gall to accuse Kamandi of that.

So this time Ignore is real, and permanent. And don't delude yourself into thinking it means you've "won" either. Some mindless antiracist coming here and replying to every post with "You're an evil Nazi!!!!" would get ignored pretty quickly but it hardly means he's won. You're similarly trollish, assiduously bringing the conversation to the topic of my intentions or strategy or the detailed structure of my mind and thoughts.

I would rather discuss the issue than continuously defend myself from allegations of lying. That's what most (nearly all) debates you and I get in seem to come down to.

[harjit]

They aren't more palatable.
Did you read the initial post? Or was that just a reply to the thread title?

[Sandee]

I think it's your thread title that's confusing, Harj, because at a quick glance, I'd have answered the same way as Lily. It's only when you clarified, in one of your later posts, that I got what you meant (only WNs).

[Warka]

Did you read the initial post? Or was that just a reply to the thread title?

It's an empty one-liner assertion lacking any substantiation whatsoever, unfortunately, an all-too-common occurrence on the Phora. Such posts should be deleted.

[Lily]

Did you read the initial post? Or was that just a reply to the thread title?
It's a disagreement with the initial post.

Your premise compares apples with oranges. White Nationalists can't be compared with Black people (for example) who simply would prefer their child to marry a member of their own race. In the same way more extreme Black Nationalists can't be compared with White people who want their child to have a White spouse but would accept it if they did not.

Black Nationalists are just as unpalatable as White Nationalists and White ethnocentrists who would accept (though not prefer) their child marrying 'out' are just as palatable as your traditional Indians.

You made your White example more extreme than your non-White one when there are shades of grey (:p) on both sides.

[Kodos]

I think I've figured out partly why they seem less harmful: In my observation, they aren't really all that racist.

Most black-power types probably wouldn't be adverse to having white friends, white spouses or other white involvements. In fact I'm pretty certain that most wouldn't say no to white tail.

Whereas judging from WNs on these boards, they tend to be more purist about these things.

I think you are confusing the bulk of the Archie Bunker type racist in the world with the hardcore nazi types.

[harjit]

You made your White example more extreme than your non-White one when there are shades of grey (:p) on both sides.

I addressed this in the initial post too.

The best rebuttals I saw to this were:

1) By Starr, that non-whites (being the minority) are forced to deal with whites much more than the other way round, so there is less leeway for them to become as uncompromising as WNs

and

2) By Integrity, that whites are generally less racist to begin with, so the result is that those who are tend to be more politicized and hardline (i.e. WNs)

[1-800]

I would rather discuss the issue than continuously defend myself from allegations of lying. That's what most (nearly all) debates you and I get in seem to come down to.

Then maybe you should stop lying? Whether you are doing it consciously or not is of no consequence.

If you've so mastered the art of self-delusion as to believe that non-white ethnocentrists are more palatable to you than white ones because they are willing to compromise, then my hat is off to you, sir: that is truly a feat.

However, if you are willing to be honest with yourself for one nanosecond, you'd realize that the real reason you find non-white ethnocentrists more palatable than white ones is that you are a non-white who hails from a nation composed primarily of Northwestern Europeans.

[Sandee]

Then maybe you should stop lying? Whether you are doing it consciously or not is of no consequence.

If you've so mastered the art of self-delusion as to believe that non-white ethnocentrists are more palatable to you than white ones because they are willing to compromise, then my hat is off to you, sir: that is truly a feat.

However, if you are willing to be honest with yourself for one nanosecond, you'd realize that the real reason you find non-white ethnocentrists more palatable than white ones is that you are a non-white who hails from a nation composed primarily of Northwestern Europeans.

Your 777th post.

[Omniel]

I addressed this in the initial post too.

The best rebuttals I saw to this were:

1) By Starr, that non-whites (being the minority) are forced to deal with whites much more than the other way round, so there is less leeway for them to become as uncompromising as WNs

and

2) By Integrity, that whites are generally less racist to begin with, so the result is that those who are tend to be more politicized and hardline (i.e. WNs)
Everyone who has has tried has successfully refuted your ludicrous premise at this point, not just those names. Your entire viewpoint on this matter sucks and has been put to bed. Your argument was incredible poorly structured, obviously biased and so weakly expressed that some on the thread even assumed you were trolling. It's done, rebutted, you should now gracefully STFU.

[Ahknaton]

Everyone who has has tried has successfully refuted your ludicrous premise at this point, not just those names. Your entire viewpoint on this matter sucks and has been put to bed. Your argument was incredible poorly structured, obviously biased and so weakly expressed that some on the thread even assumed you were trolling. It's done, rebutted, you should now gracefully STFU.
I think that part of the problem is that despite the orderly and rational discussion that goes on in most threads here, a small portion of the membership is probably sending harjit nasty "stfu, currymuncher" rep messages, which understandably poisons the experience of the forum for him and contributes to the opinion that the Phora is full of "nasty White racists". That's just a guess, but it is quite common, and it's one of the reasons I think the rep system should be abolished.

[Omniel]

I think that part of the problem is that despite the orderly and rational discussion that goes on in most threads here, a small portion of the membership is probably sending harjit nasty "stfu, currymuncher" rep messages, which understandably poisons the experience of the forum for him and contributes to the opinion that the Phora is full of "nasty White racists". That's just a guess, but it is quite common, and it's one of the reasons I think the rep system should be abolished.
I disagree, his friendly nature means he's received more rep on this forum than most of the other posters, and as far as I can detect, he's generally been treated with respect on the forum. Even so, oversensitivity is no excuse when you're discussing these issues. I've experienced some offensive comments myself over the years and I've never taken it personally. The problem here isn't about rep, it's that people like harjit have a very shallow and sentimental 'good versus evil' grasp of the issues they discuss and have no inclination to expand their understanding. He's previously admitted that his only experience of racism pretty much comes from sites like this.

[Warka]

I think that part of the problem is that despite the orderly and rational discussion that goes on in most threads here, a small portion of the membership is probably sending harjit nasty "stfu, currymuncher" rep messages, which understandably poisons the experience of the forum for him and contributes to the opinion that the Phora is full of "nasty White racists". That's just a guess, but it is quite common, and it's one of the reasons I think the rep system should be abolished.

Of the 300-400 current active members of the Phora, harjit's reputation level places him within the Top 20 having him sitting fairly pretty rep-wise. Obviously, for whatever amount of negative reputation and its accompanying disparaging remarks he may receive, he receives a multitude of positive rep, and we're to assume encouraging remarks, dwarfing the negative. Furthermore, harjit's been known to fire off the occassional rather crude negative rep and remarks himself, sometimes later publicly apologizing for doing so. A two-way street, to be sure.

I understand you desire to see the rep system dismantled, Ahknaton, but you've really got to come up with more convincing argument than this.

[harjit]

I think that part of the problem is that despite the orderly and rational discussion that goes on in most threads here, a small portion of the membership is probably sending harjit nasty "stfu, currymuncher" rep messages, which understandably poisons the experience of the forum for him and contributes to the opinion that the Phora is full of "nasty White racists". That's just a guess, but it is quite common, and it's one of the reasons I think the rep system should be abolished.
To be fair I have to say that wasn't the case. I did get one neg rep for this thread but it wasn't offensively worded.

As Prac points out I've dished out abuse via the repsys as much as I've taken.

As for the Phora being full of "nasty white racists", I also have to admit that is not based on personal experience (except by a small handful of people). It's mostly the racism in response to news article threads etc. that makes me think that. Sandee is a co-racial and is treated very well here (although it helps that she's a girl, and at maybe ten times as polite :p).

[harjit]

Then maybe you should stop lying? Whether you are doing it consciously or not is of no consequence.

If you've so mastered the art of self-delusion as to believe that non-white ethnocentrists are more palatable to you than white ones because they are willing to compromise, then my hat is off to you, sir: that is truly a feat.

However, if you are willing to be honest with yourself for one nanosecond, you'd realize that the real reason you find non-white ethnocentrists more palatable than white ones is that you are a non-white who hails from a nation composed primarily of Northwestern Europeans.

No delusions there, I assure you.

If racism must exist, it goes without saying that anyone would find racism that can potentially be directed at himself more threatening that that which can't, or is less likely to be. Is that novel or interesting?

I started this thread because from what I'd observed non-whites who talk shit about whites also seemed pretty involved with whites, and I thought therefore perhaps not as racist as WNs.

That was what I wanted to discuss, and a discussion ensued.

What's there even to discuss by saying something like "Gee, as a brown dude white waycism seems so much scarier..." ?

[Sandee]

I started this thread because from what I'd observed non-whites who talk shit about whites also seemed pretty involved with whites, and I thought therefore perhaps not as racist as WNs.*

That was what I wanted to discuss, and a discussion ensued.

What's there even to discuss by saying something like "Gee, as a brown dude white waycism seems so much scarier..." ?

* Typical love-hate phenomena. Every ethnicity experiences that. Involvement isn't synonymous with being more accepting or less racist. It might be due to compromises and despite one's views (because you can't do a thing about what you really think - powerless). This is why I disagree in essence. Giving in doesn't mean better.

Harj, imagine a scenario where more Blacks are in positions of power, world wide. Let's say Africa becomes the Next America. The trend has shifted. Wouldn't you see Black Nationalism as a bigger threat and more racist than the others, even though you might have plenty of Black friends you're involved with as an Indian. You'd probably never focus your attention on White Nationalism because they'd be less talked about than, say Black Nationalism and easily overlooked. That is why both aren't palatable as Lily said.

It's a power struggle. Members of a race gather, talk shit about the other racial group they think is threatening (even if it represents only a tiny portion of the race) but tend to overlook those that are of their own because it's not an immediate concern. Yet, they'd rather be involved with the very people they criticize because they know they gain more than they lose.

Remember how you said that The Bharatiya Janata Party (Hindu Nationalists) were just as bad?

http://www.twf.org/News/Y1998/India.html

^ Wouldn't you show concern for this as well? Wouldn't you say that the majority of Hindus are involved with Muslim and other minorities (Christian Whites), and yet how do those minorities feel when a Hindu Nationalist Party gains power?


Still, a BJP government will make India's neighbors and the west very nervous. BJP vows to ruthlessly crush Sikh nationalists, and the independence movement in war-torn Kashmir, where 600,000 Indian security forces repress rebellious Muslims by terror and torture.

BJP preaches the 1947 division of India must be reversed. The nation must be reunited into `Bahrat ' (greater) India by `crushing' and reabsorbing of Pakistan , then Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. BJP irredentism could easily spark a war between India and Pakistan, both of whom have nuclear weapons.

BJP also advocates rapid development of India's large, but still covert nuclear weapons program, including long-ranged ICBM.s, capable of striking North America. BJP refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty until the US, Russia, and China do so.

[Omniel]

I started this thread because from what I'd observed non-whites who talk shit about whites also seemed pretty involved with whites, and I thought therefore perhaps not as racist as WNs.
...and as it's been said to you by at least 4 different contributors to this thread: you are comparing apples with oranges. You are comparing casual racist non-whites with hardcore White Nationalists, of course there will be a difference in severity. It's an unequal comparison, it's invalid. But typical babbling harjit, you simply block out even this basic fact and ramble on regardless. Reality on 'Nignore'.

[Kriger]

...and as it's been said to you by at least 4 different contributors to this thread: you are comparing apples with oranges. You are comparing casual racist non-whites with hardcore White Nationalists, of course there will be a difference in severity. It's an unequal comparison, it's invalid. But typical babbling harjit, you simply block out even this basic fact and ramble on regardless. Reality on 'Nignore'.

It's a game harjit plays to get attention.

[Omniel]

It's a game harjit plays to get attention.
Yes, he's referred to posting here as a game a number of times. IIRC, he compared it to 'The Sims'. It's no surprise that he never really engages with the rebuttals he recieves (great responses guys, good work, interesting!), his contributions are so vapid and shallow and he gets so affronted when anybody dares to criticise his style. He's like a teenaged girl on Bebo.

[Basil Fawlty]

Reality on 'Nignore'.Are you familiar with Dame Edna's song 'Niceness'?

[Omniel]

wCYXIh5WjIk

I am now. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Sandee]

She reminds me of Mae Young...

[Basil Fawlty]

I am now. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:I knew you'd enjoy that. ;)

[delete]

I think I can understand why Harjit thinks it is worse with white nationalists, as it would be confirmation that he aknowledges, what I think is true, that white people really are superior i many ways.

I would be thrilled if the negroes suddenly desided that they did not want to live among my kind, because they felt superior to me. Same would go for any other ethnicity, that all can think they are as superior as they want, as long as they refuse to live where I live.

[delete]

Yes, he's referred to posting here as a game a number of times. IIRC, he compared it to 'The Sims'. It's no surprise that he never really engages with the rebuttals he recieves (great responses guys, good work, interesting!), his contributions are so vapid and shallow and he gets so affronted when anybody dares to criticise his style. He's like a teenaged girl on Bebo.

Have you not noticed that the racist stereotypes of the colored aping but not understand what white people do, actually does seems true with a lot of the colored?

It is like it is all surface and no core with these people, where the surface changes according to what brings the most social status. God know we have enough of these people in our own populations, to starting importing more of these empty people.

People like Harjit don't understand why white people are racist, as there is no social reward for being it, making it out of reach for his conceptual horizont.