'Stormfront' A Threat, Lefties Say

[Hugh Lincoln]

Website promoting view that (gasp!) whites might actually have a right to exist -- and its undeniably increasing popularity -- has liberals very concerned.

http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?category=oid%3A8073

Thousands are members and dare to chat back and forth about such crazy things as black-on-white crime, Jewish dominance and affirmative action's effect on whites. Who are these nutjobs, anyway? Don't they realize that whites should all be killed?

Joining Dickson as an online personality on Stormfront are a marquee array of other white nationalist luminaries: founder Don Black; day-to-day manager Jamie Kelso; America's best-known race polemicist, David Duke; former Reagan administration official Bob Whitaker; and Jared Taylor, a Yale-educated, self-declared "racial realist" who publishes the American Renaissance magazine.

Those men, all in their 50s or older, have the credibility of laboring long years in a movement that seldom elicits kind treatment from the media, much less polite discourse in mainstream culture.

Stormfront, Dickson says, "has enabled us to communicate directly with the people. And when people hear our message, they're not saying we're a bunch of crackpots. They're listening and many, yes many, are agreeing."

A key to the site's success is the apparent normalcy of its leadership cadre. They're not the skinheads or the lightning-bolt-SS-tattooed Aryans – although such folk crowd Stormfront's message boards. The website's masters and mentors sport coats and ties instead of sheets and hoods or brown shirts and jackboots. Racial epithets are verboten in the Stormfront realm (although some slip in), and Kelso dismisses the occasional swastikas that pop up as "expressions of members' frustration, but mostly it's kids having a little fun." Still, Germanic themes are pervasive, from Stormfront's circle-and-cross emblem to the Nordic mythology screen names and Nazi-era artwork icons used by many of the online community's members.

Bob Whitaker – in a previous political incarnation, he was in charge of the nation's civilian security clearances for Ronald Reagan – contends the online community is strong because it's ecumenical in its approach to the many issues that divide far-right groups.

"You can call us what you want," says Whitaker, who lives in Columbia, S.C. "But in the next 20 years, you'll see us become the voice of reason. Minorities are the Tontos, the mascots, of liberals, but that's going to break up. America will break up into political groups, with whites as the most powerful. And Stormfront, because it has no position, but welcomes the opinions of all right-thinking whites, will be there."

[Hugh Lincoln]

The site itself:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/

[Yurt]

What is the purpose of stormfront? Its motto?

[Hugh Lincoln]

A gathering of whites (and some non-whites - see the "opposition" section) opposed to what's happening to whites. From the erudite to the crude. If you're curious about white nationalism, you can look around there for ideas. If you oppose it, you can debate them. If you support it, you find friends.

Funny thing is that the crazier racial crap gets in the U.S., the more "Stormfront" looks normal and the comments people make could be found on any chat board. I think white people are generally more pissed off about things than they let on in public, because you never know who's listening in.

[GW in Ohio]

Hugh Lincoln: Stormfront is just an equal and opposite reaction to the black civil rights effort in this country. And both of them are full of shit, in my opinion.

Now, I will agree that the black civil rights thing has run its course. It was a good thing in its time, and black Americans would never have achieved equality if the whole civil rights thing hadn't been out there, pushing.

But I also think the struggle has been won. We have racial equality, so it's time to stop pushing the envelope.

But Stormfront? What is this but a bunch of insecure, stupid white guys stirring up trouble by perpetuating the whole white vs. black thing. We need to get past this racial shit and just deal with people as people. There are assholes among both races and they should be dealt with as assholes. But lose the racial crap.

And by the way, what's this about "Jewish dominance"? That's the kind of shit Adolf Hitler and his brownshirts were talking back in the '30s. No matter how you dress it up, it's still hate-mongering and anti-Semitism.

[Abbey Marie]

...
Now, I will agree that the black civil rights thing has run its course. It was a good thing in its time, and black Americans would never have achieved equality if the whole civil rights thing hadn't been out there, pushing.

But I also think the struggle has been won. We have racial equality, so it's time to stop pushing the envelope.
...


The same could be said for Feminism and Unions.

[GW in Ohio]

The union struggle has been over for some time. Unions have actually become counter-productive in many cases, the demands of unions causing businesses to fail or to cut back on staff.

As for women, they've made a lot of gains, but they still have a way to go.

Maybe the civil rights effort and the struggle for women's equality won't be completely won until we have a woman president and a black president.

So support Hillary and Obama in '08.

[OCA]

W.J. you know damn well that you left out alot of what Stormfront endorses.

[LiberalNation]

Stromfront is a racist white nationalist website. Don't know about it being dangerous though. They do have a right to free speech as well. If people are influanced by their crap it's their problem.

[trobinett]

W.J. you know damn well that you left out alot of what Stormfront endorses.

I'm pretty much at odds with what I see going on with welfare, and the BS down in NO, but I've paid a couple of visits to Stormfront, and its pretty much "over the top", for my taste anyway.

:salute:

[glockmail]

.... civil rights ..... was a good thing in its time, and black Americans would never have achieved equality if the whole civil rights thing hadn't been out there, pushing...... Are you aware when the civil rights movement was born? And by whom?

[Hugh Lincoln]

What is this but a bunch of insecure, stupid white guys stirring up trouble by perpetuating the whole white vs. black thing.

So, it's "insecure, stupid white guys" stirring up racial divisions. That's interesting. Can you name me one white man who's appeared on television to denounce blacks or black racism? GW in Ohio, tell me the name of the white mayor who announced that his city was meant by God to be "marshmallow city". Can you name him? How about the white athlete who announced, 'I don't sign autographs for black people'. What was his name, again?

When Hillary and Obama "recreate" the Selma march, what is that, exactly, GW in Ohio? An overture to whites? How about that story in the paper the other day about politicians "reaching out" to whites? Did you see it? Forward a link, please!

When we get 9 thousand racial discrimination suits a day, is that... racial love, my friend? Blacks, eh, reaching out to whites? Who's stirring, buddy?

Affirmative action is what, downplaying racial divisions? For whom? This is "stupid white guys" stirring up trouble?

The NAACP exists to... show love to white people?

Civil rights laws were enacted to... make the lives of whites more pleasant?

The black crime rate compared to the white crime rate is evidence that... we're all equal?

The hate crime in ]Long Beach where the white girls had their skulls bashed by blacks was... tell me again, chuckleboy? Something the guys on Stormfront pulled off?

Oh, right. I missed that. Well, just ignore those racists, then. They clearly don't have any legitimate beefs.

[GW in Ohio]

Hugh Lincoln: As I said, Stormfront is a reaction by insecure white guys who feel threatened by black people.

No one is saying there are not stupid black people out there, behaving badly and keeping the whole racial thing alive by their asshole behavior.

But that that doesn't mean you need to get out there and campaign for "white people's rights." You are just as guilty as some of these black people for perpetuating racial tensions in the USA.

We won't achieve racial harmony through a bunch of black people loudly asserting their "rights," matched by a bunch of white people loudly asserting their "rights."

Racial harmony will be achieved when we all stop looking at ourselves as black people or white people, and start looking at ourselves as just "people."

Don't you agree, Hugh Lincoln?

[glockmail]

So, it's "insecure, stupid white guys" stirring up racial divisions. That's interesting. Can you name me one white man who's appeared on television to denounce blacks or black racism? GW in Ohio, tell me the name of the white mayor who announced that his city was meant by God to be "marshmallow city". Can you name him? How about the white athlete who announced, 'I don't sign autographs for black people'. What was his name, again?

When Hillary and Obama "recreate" the Selma march, what is that, exactly, GW in Ohio? An overture to whites? How about that story in the paper the other day about politicians "reaching out" to whites? Did you see it? Forward a link, please!

When we get 9 thousand racial discrimination suits a day, is that... racial love, my friend? Blacks, eh, reaching out to whites? Who's stirring, buddy?

Affirmative action is what, downplaying racial divisions? For whom? This is "stupid white guys" stirring up trouble?

The NAACP exists to... show love to white people?

Civil rights laws were enacted to... make the lives of whites more pleasant?

The black crime rate compared to the white crime rate is evidence that... we're all equal?

The hate crime in ]Long Beach where the white girls had their skulls bashed by blacks was... tell me again, chuckleboy? Something the guys on Stormfront pulled off?

Oh, right. I missed that. Well, just ignore those racists, then. They clearly don't have any legitimate beefs.

All good points. What about BET? Is there a WET that I don't know about?

What about the White Music Awards?

The whole pile of shit is :pee:

[GW in Ohio]

Glock: Read what I said to Mr. Lincoln.

You and he are responsible for perpetuating racism in this country, just as much as the black people who keep calling attention to their race.

[glockmail]

Glock: Read what I said to Mr. Lincoln.

You and he are responsible for perpetuating racism in this country, just as much as the black people who keep calling attention to their race. I read it before, and felt it was not worth comment. Hugh Lincoln, AKA William Joyce has never made any remarks that I consider racist. His points are valid even though they may be unpopular with you.

[GW in Ohio]

I read it before, and felt it was not worth comment. Hugh Lincoln, AKA William Joyce has never made any remarks that I consider racist. His points are valid even though they may be unpopular with you.

My definition of racism is seeing human beings as "black human beings" or "white human beings" rather than as just human beings.

Mr. Lincoln, a.k.a. Mr. Joyce sees everyone in terms of their race. Moreover, he does not believe the two races should mingle, either by marriage or socially. (Does he also want to go back to segregation in the Major Leagues? Or is it okay now for blacks and whites to play ball with one another? Does he think it's okay for black people to serve in the armed forces of the United States?)

Here is what he said on the stormfront thread:

Most whites don't want to procreate with most blacks, and vice-versa. Races generally want to go their own way. The law -- and our cultural commanders -- won't allow this. That's wrong and needs to change.

Mr. Lincoln is a racist. There's no law against being a racist, so I won't call for his arrest (unless he commits a hate crime). But he seems to look longingly back to the 1920s and '30s, when Jim Crow laws were in place and segregation was the law of the land.

He meets my definition of a racist. Does he meet yours? Or is he just misunderstood?

(And by the way, I did not intend to take out after Hugh Lincoln so harshly.....until you started defending him.)

[glockmail]

My definition of racism is seeing human beings as "black human beings" or "white human beings" rather than as just human beings.

Mr. Lincoln, a.k.a. Mr. Joyce sees everyone in terms of their race. Moreover, he does not believe the two races should mingle, either by marriage or socially. (Does he also want to go back to segregation in the Major Leagues? Or is it okay now for blacks and whites to play ball with one another? Does he think it's okay for black people to serve in the armed forces of the United States?)

Here is what he said on the stormfront thread:

Most whites don't want to procreate with most blacks, and vice-versa. Races generally want to go their own way. The law -- and our cultural commanders -- won't allow this. That's wrong and needs to change.

Mr. Lincoln is a racist. There's no law against being a racist, so I won't call for his arrest (unless he commits a hate crime). But he seems to look longingly back to the 1920s and '30s, when Jim Crow laws were in place and segregation was the law of the land.

He meets my definition of a racist. Does he meet yours? Or is he just misunderstood?

(And by the way, I did not intend to take out after Hugh Lincoln so harshly.....until you started defending him.)

It is the liberals in society who insis on coding us all into racial groups. By your definition they are racists. Right?

[GW in Ohio]

By my definition, anybody who looks at people primarily in terms of their race, rather than their individual qualities and characteristics, is a racist.

That definition applies to white people, black people, liberals or conservatives.

Martin Luther King's goal of a color-blind society, where people are judged by the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin, is generally accepted as what we ought to have in this country.

[glockmail]

By my definition, anybody who looks at people primarily in terms of their race, rather than their individual qualities and characteristics, is a racist.

That definition applies to white people, black people, liberals or conservatives.

Martin Luther King's goal of a color-blind society, where people are judged by the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin, is generally accepted what we ought to have in this country.Then why not just say it: Liberals are racist?

[GW in Ohio]

You need to work on refining your thinking, glockie.

Some liberals are racists, just as some conservatives are racists, and some black people and some white people.

We all need to move past this racial thing. We need to deal with people as people, not as members of a racial group.

Don't you agree?

[glockmail]

You need to work on refining your thinking, glockie.

Some liberals are racists, just as some conservatives are racists, and some black people and some white people.

We all need to move past this racial thing. We need to deal with people as people, not as members of a racial group.

Don't you agree?


It is a Liberal policy to define us in groups, is it not? Is Affirmative Action supported by Conservatives? Of course not.

Therefore by your definition, Liberals are racists.

Unless you want to re-think your re-definition of the word.

Perhaps relying on Webster instead of creating your own reality would be a wiser choice.

[GW in Ohio]

Well, y'see, glock, you tend to categorize people into liberals and conservatives and assign all the bad qualities to liberals and all the noble qualities to conservatives.

It's not quite that cut and dried. A lot of conservatives hold some liberal convictions, just as a lot of liberals are conservative on a number of issues.

Demonizing liberals might provide some quick gratification, but anyone who's progressed beyond the rudimentary level of political sophistication knows that Americans can't be readily defined as liberals and conservatives.

Listening to Rush Limbaugh might give you some gratification on a basic level, but so does masturbation. And neither qualifies as valid political discourse.

[glockmail]

Well, y'see, glock, you tend to categorize people into liberals and conservatives and assign all the bad qualities to liberals and all the noble qualities to conservatives.

It's not quite that cut and dried. A lot of conservatives hold some liberal convictions, just as a lot of liberals are conservative on a number of issues.

Demonizing liberals might provide some quick gratification, but anyone who's progressed beyond the rudimentary level of political sophistication knows that Americans can't be readily defined as liberals and conservatives.

Listening to Rush Limbaugh might give you some gratification on a basic level, but so does masturbation. And neither qualifies as valid political discourse.

Nice spin to avoid a simple question, a typical Liberal tactic. Let me put it to you simpler: Is someone who still supports Affirmative Action racist?

[GW in Ohio]

Yup.

[glockmail]

Yup. Then, since Affirmative Action Forever is a basic tenet of Liberalism, Liberalism is racist.

[GW in Ohio]

glockmeister: You don't speak for all liberals.

In fact, you don't speak for any of them.

There are not many people, liberal or otherwise, who subscribe to the "Affirmative Action Forever" concept.

Stop using badly-constructed, ersatz syllogisms. It reflects badly on your schooling.

[Hobbit]

glockmeister: You don't speak for all liberals.

In fact, you don't speak for any of them.

There are not many people, liberal or otherwise, who subscribe to the "Affirmative Action Forever" concept.

Stop using badly-constructed, ersatz syllogisms. It reflects badly on your schooling.

Mabye not, but every day, they'll get up and say they're for affimative action today and affirmative action tomorrow. Thus, the cycle continues. You have to be prepared to end affirmative action TODAY before it stops becoming a racist system.

[Hugh Lincoln]

By my definition, anybody who looks at people primarily in terms of their race, rather than their individual qualities and characteristics, is a racist.

That definition applies to white people, black people, liberals or conservatives.

Martin Luther King's goal of a color-blind society, where people are judged by the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin, is generally accepted as what we ought to have in this country.

That's interesting, because I am aware of no minority advocate who truly seeks a 'color-blind' society. To a person, they seek to advance the interests of their own racial group, without regard to either individuals or other racial and ethnic groups. When Al Sharpton hit Howard Dean for never having had a black person on his staff while governor of Vermont, you'll notice he didn't 1) ask whether the whites on staff were or weren't qualified, 2) ask whether the potential blacks would have been, or 3) make any othe kind of distinction based on individual merit. In other words, my friends, "the content of their character" wasn't anywhere near Sharpton's list of demands or concerns.

To say that Martin Luther King sought the good of "all of us" is absurd. He sought the good of blacks. Let me ask you a question: if the standard of living for American blacks doubled overnight, while the standard of living for whites was cut in half, can you think of a single black advocate who would step forward to say anything?

The constant knock against the racialist point of view is that we should look at everyone in terms of being an individual. But this just isn't possible or practical. A functioning society requires generalization on an almost constant basis. And the fact is that races differ generally enough that to make the generalization is eminently fair.

An example. The average black IQ is 15 points lower than the white IQ, and this is largely inherited. This data is not in doubt, so don't freak out about how this is "racist." Read the Bell Curve to check it out. So, you can expect that MOST blacks are less intelligent than MOST whites. But when these differences show up on standardized tests -- with blacks scoring lower -- the accusation is that "racism" is to blame. Whites are then punished by being made to feel guilty, the institution of affirmative action to "correct" this racism, the raising of taxes for more funding for black schools, etc. In other words, whites end up being punished for a 'crime' they didn't commit. That's unfair and it's a complete injustice.

I can see how it might be hurtful for blacks to live in a society where these differences are known. So, I think the most humane solution is moving toward racial separation. In the meantime, whites are on firm moral ground to fight against the injustices perpetrated against them by minority groups who aren't interested in anything but "gettin' ours."

Some of it boils down to differences in the ways blacks and whites view "diversity." Whites think "diversity" means "everyone caring and sharing together" or being "color-blind." Blacks view "diversity" as meaning "blacks getting ahead."

[gabosaurus]

Very true. We should have non-white concentration camps. Put dem peoples back in their place.

[Hugh Lincoln]

Very true. We should have non-white concentration camps. Put dem peoples back in their place.

The next people headed for concentration camps are whites.

[glockmail]

glockmeister: You don't speak for all liberals.

In fact, you don't speak for any of them.

There are not many people, liberal or otherwise, who subscribe to the "Affirmative Action Forever" concept.

Stop using badly-constructed, ersatz syllogisms. It reflects badly on your schooling.

I'm simply using your definition for "racism" and commenting on the policies of liberals, as stated. To refine it further: if you believe in Affirmative Action Forever, then you are racist.

Isn't that the only logical conclusion with your personal definition of racist?

[GW in Ohio]

The next people headed for concentration camps are whites.

Hugh........my man........

You keep talking like that and you'll be heading for the Happy Place, where the nice young man in the white coat brings you your meds every day.

You make a lot of assumptions with that one sentence. You assume:

1. Black people hate whites.
2. Black people hate us enough to put us in concentration camps.
3. Do you also think black people want to do a little genocide number on us, like Hitler tried to do to the Jews?

As Elmer Fudd would say:

You are one cwazy wabbit.

[Hugh Lincoln]

Hugh........my man........

You keep talking like that and you'll be heading for the Happy Place, where the nice young man in the white coat brings you your meds every day.

You make a lot of assumptions with that one sentence. You assume:

1. Black people hate whites.
2. Black people hate us enough to put us in concentration camps.
3. Do you also think black people want to do a little genocide number on us, like Hitler tried to do to the Jews?

As Elmer Fudd would say:

You are one cwazy wabbit.

Because you're showing a willingness to actually engage my arguments (rare for liberals and even most conservatives), I'll engage back. Politically, I've gone from libertarian/conservative in college to what has been described as "white nationalist" today, though I myself prefer the term "white advocate." You'll note the word "supremacist" is not used, as I don't feel the need to be "supreme" over anyone --- I'd just like to see groups survive and do well.

To say that whites are headed for concentration camps would be rhetorical hyperbole, but if you gave me the chance I could make the case for similiarities between the white gentiles of today and other groups in the past.

I don't think blacks by themselves are the primary "enemy" of whites, if you will. It's a combination of many blacks, many Hispanics, many Jews, and many whites themselves, eager as they are to support anti-white policies like affirmative action in an effort to cleanse themselves of the taint of "racism."

My main point is that whites today are in crisis. They are dropping fast as a percentage of the American and European populations. They are discriminated against through affirmative action and through application of civil rights laws. They are being pushed aside by immigration from Hispanic countries, both legal and illegal. They are the victims of unreported hate crimes committed by minorities. They are disparaged in the popular media. The educational establishment has them fixed as the source of all evil. Young whites today don't think of themselves as "white," they'd prefer to be "hip hop," etc., because they escape "whiteness". A top song right now is called "White and Nerdy," by Weird Al. The anti-white sentiment PERVADES our culture. But if anyone makes a peep about it, they're destroyed, completely destroyed, on charges of "racism."

I oppose all this. So you will find me on Stormfront, talking about these issues in earnest with others, some of whom I agree with, some of whom I don't.

But you can rest assured of one thing: however much you might oppose white nationalism, not all its adherents are the raving lunatics you describe.

[GW in Ohio]

Hugh: I understand your point of view, but I don't share it.

I'm unable to see people as members of groups, as you do.

I can only deal with people as individual people, not as members of one ethnic group or another. And accordingly, I only see people as individuals....some good, some bad, some mediocre, irregardless of race.

Let me ask you a question......

Do you think Martin Luther King's goal of a color-blind society, where people are judged by the content of their character, rather than by the color of their skin. is where we ought to be in this country?

[The ClayTaurus]

Because you're showing a willingness to actually engage my arguments (rare for liberals and even most conservatives), I'll engage back. Politically, I've gone from libertarian/conservative in college to what has been described as "white nationalist" today, though I myself prefer the term "white advocate." You'll note the word "supremacist" is not used, as I don't feel the need to be "supreme" over anyone --- I'd just like to see groups survive and do well.

To say that whites are headed for concentration camps would be rhetorical hyperbole, but if you gave me the chance I could make the case for similiarities between the white gentiles of today and other groups in the past.

I don't think blacks by themselves are the primary "enemy" of whites, if you will. It's a combination of many blacks, many Hispanics, many Jews, and many whites themselves, eager as they are to support anti-white policies like affirmative action in an effort to cleanse themselves of the taint of "racism."

My main point is that whites today are in crisis. They are dropping fast as a percentage of the American and European populations. They are discriminated against through affirmative action and through application of civil rights laws. They are being pushed aside by immigration from Hispanic countries, both legal and illegal. They are the victims of unreported hate crimes committed by minorities. They are disparaged in the popular media. The educational establishment has them fixed as the source of all evil. Young whites today don't think of themselves as "white," they'd prefer to be "hip hop," etc., because they escape "whiteness". A top song right now is called "White and Nerdy," by Weird Al. The anti-white sentiment PERVADES our culture. But if anyone makes a peep about it, they're destroyed, completely destroyed, on charges of "racism."

I oppose all this. So you will find me on Stormfront, talking about these issues in earnest with others, some of whom I agree with, some of whom I don't.

But you can rest assured of one thing: however much you might oppose white nationalism, not all its adherents are the raving lunatics you describe.Hugh, you say you not feeling the need to be superior to anyone renders you not a white supremacist.

While I'm sure some white supremacists do in fact need to be superior, I would argue a white supremacist is actually anyone who believes their race is somehow better than any other race in general.

Would you agree?

[Hugh Lincoln]

GW:

I think the colorblind "ideal" is a nice idea, it just doesn't work in practice. People can't be colorblind. Colorblindness rests on the idea that we're all complete equals, as groups, and if we just get past "skin color," we'd have utopia. But the research shows that races aren't just "skin colors," they're complete DNA packages. So we naturally end up wary of each other. That's just natural and we can't get past that. The best course of action is to recognize it and move on from there. I don't think we should have total cruelty or automatic assumptions everywhere based on race, but general assumptions would apply. If blacks commit 50 times more murders than whites, well, you can generalize that blacks commit more murder, for instance. And it would be silly to have a society that, because of a "colorblind" ideal, pretended that whites were just as likely to commit murder.

Clay:

This is true, but the hard fact is (and I want to be honest here) that in certain categories, some groups ARE generally "superior," however nasty the word sounds. Asians ARE superior in non-verbal IQ categories, for instance --- the data shows it. Ashkenazi Jews are "superior" for IQ overall... they have the highest IQ's in the world. I'd say whites are "superior" when it comes to creating and maintaining attractive, productive civil societies. This of course means some groups are "inferior" in those categories. I don't think that means we should kill everyone who isn't white... but it's equally foolish to totally ignore this reality, as we currently do.

[The ClayTaurus]

GW:

I think the colorblind "ideal" is a nice idea, it just doesn't work in practice. People can't be colorblind. Colorblindness rests on the idea that we're all complete equals, as groups, and if we just get past "skin color," we'd have utopia. But the research shows that races aren't just "skin colors," they're complete DNA packages. So we naturally end up wary of each other. That's just natural and we can't get past that. The best course of action is to recognize it and move on from there. I don't think we should have total cruelty or automatic assumptions everywhere based on race, but general assumptions would apply. If blacks commit 50 times more murders than whites, well, you can generalize that blacks commit more murder, for instance. And it would be silly to have a society that, because of a "colorblind" ideal, pretended that whites were just as likely to commit murder.

Clay:

This is true, but the hard fact is (and I want to be honest here) that in certain categories, some groups ARE generally "superior," however nasty the word sounds. Asians ARE superior in non-verbal IQ categories, for instance --- the data shows it. Ashkenazi Jews are "superior" for IQ overall... they have the highest IQ's in the world. I'd say whites are "superior" when it comes to creating and maintaining attractive, productive civil societies. This of course means some groups are "inferior" in those categories. I don't think that means we should kill everyone who isn't white... but it's equally foolish to totally ignore this reality, as we currently do.So it's not that you feel the white race is all in all better than every other race, per se. Just that there are certain categories, I'll call them, where a particular race thrives.

When it comes to recognizing this "reality," does this mean appointing governmental leadership positions mostly to whites? How far, in your ideal world, would you carry stressing the differences in race?

[Hugh Lincoln]

So it's not that you feel the white race is all in all better than every other race, per se. Just that there are certain categories, I'll call them, where a particular race thrives.

When it comes to recognizing this "reality," does this mean appointing governmental leadership positions mostly to whites? How far, in your ideal world, would you carry stressing the differences in race?

I'd be happy for starters if we just pulled up the government heat we have currently and let people go as they would. Allow people to associate as they choose. Right now, for instance, you can't associate with your own race in business, housing, etc., unless you're non-white, and then, nobody cares. But if whites do, they are criminally or civilly prosecuted. I would stop that. And stop the demands of some races on others. Blacks currently threaten to riot in the streets if we don't give in to their demands on us. This is utter madness. And stop the illegal immigration. It continues with a browbeating that we're "racist" if we stop it. So what if we are?

But these are small and passive steps, almost.

With respect to appointing whites to government positions, I do think we could at least consider some kind of peaceful move toward separation. I realize that sounds impractical to most, and in the short term, I imagine it would be. Short term, I would just like it if whites grew a fucking spine and said, hey, this multiculturalism is a scam designed to screw us, and we're going to fight back. But we are SO SCARED right now to even think this --- so help me, it's not "goodness" that motivates all this, it's FEAR, complete FEAR of what will happen if we stand up and say what's on our minds!

Nobody thinks it's scandalous that Jews want their own nation, and to be able to exclude others from it. In fact, we give Israel billions, protect it with our military, and every American politician pledges full support to Israel. So why not something for whites?

I like to criticize Jews myself, but the truth is that I see nothing inherently wrong with them wanting to survive as a people and live in peace (and maybe war too) on their own patch of land, determining their own destiny as a people, electing THEIR OWN PEOPLE as their leaders, and so forth. What could be more natural, I ask you? Again, why not for whites, too?

[The ClayTaurus]

I'd be happy for starters if we just pulled up the government heat we have currently and let people go as they would. Allow people to associate as they choose. Right now, for instance, you can't associate with your own race in business, housing, etc., unless you're non-white, and then, nobody cares. But if whites do, they are criminally or civilly prosecuted. I would stop that. And stop the demands of some races on others. Blacks currently threaten to riot in the streets if we don't give in to their demands on us. This is utter madness. And stop the illegal immigration. It continues with a browbeating that we're "racist" if we stop it. So what if we are?

But these are small and passive steps, almost.You would prefer to work on allowing whites to associate (or deny access) based on their race rather then work to eliminate said association (or access denial) amongst the other races?
With respect to appointing whites to government positions, I do think we could at least consider some kind of peaceful move toward separation. I realize that sounds impractical to most, and in the short term, I imagine it would be. Short term, I would just like it if whites grew a fucking spine and said, hey, this multiculturalism is a scam designed to screw us, and we're going to fight back. But we are SO SCARED right now to even think this --- so help me, it's not "goodness" that motivates all this, it's FEAR, complete FEAR of what will happen if we stand up and say what's on our minds!Separation how? Different governments entirely? States? Georgia will become a black state, california an asian state, that kind of thing? Are you for actively preventing someone of a certain color from working or serving in a field for which their race is not inherrently superior?
Nobody thinks it's scandalous that Jews want their own nation, and to be able to exclude others from it. In fact, we give Israel billions, protect it with our military, and every American politician pledges full support to Israel. So why not something for whites?I will be completely honest with you in that I know very little in the grand scheme of things regarding the complex situation with Israel. As such, I'm not sure I can bring much to the table regarding a discussion on them. My apologies.
I like to criticize Jews myself, but the truth is that I see nothing inherently wrong with them wanting to survive as a people and live in peace (and maybe war too) on their own patch of land, determining their own destiny as a people, electing THEIR OWN PEOPLE as their leaders, and so forth. What could be more natural, I ask you? Again, why not for whites, too?So how about a concrete, ideal world for you, summarized in a couple generic statements:

Would you prefer each country be racially inclusive/exclusive? You could visit Africa if you wanted, but taking up residence there would be prohibitted? Or would you prefer if it was just strongly discouraged?

Do you think it's possible for a host of races to thrive under one country's flag? Is there any organizational structure that would allow it, barring obvious violations of human rights such as slavery?

Am I on the right track?

[GW in Ohio]

Hugh Lincoln: If you're ever going to progress as a spiritual person, you have to get beyond treating people as members of one group or another, and start dealing with people as individuals.

You're a prejudiced person because you have pre-judged people based on what you see as their racial characteristics and tendencies.

But individual people will never fit your racial stereotypes.

On the other hand, if you go out to meet people with a certain set of expectations in your mind, you'll find that people will usually live up, or live down, to your expectations.

[Hugh Lincoln]

Hugh Lincoln: If you're ever going to progress as a spiritual person, you have to get beyond treating people as members of one group or another, and start dealing with people as individuals.

You're a prejudiced person because you have pre-judged people based on what you see as their racial characteristics and tendencies.

But individual people will never fit your racial stereotypes.

On the other hand, if you go out to meet people with a certain set of expectations in your mind, you'll find that people will usually live up, or live down, to your expectations.

Fancy the liberal now appealing to "spirituality" --- it's the last refuge of those without an argument, second behind "you're not patriotic". Next you'll offer, "I'll pray for your soul tonight." I hear that sometimes, usually from conservatives who want to bash me for my "racism", but I wager the one in prayer is praying, "Dear God, this racist jerk can't possibly be RIGHT, can he?"

Your position is that group generalizations can't be made, and that individuals are the exclusive analytical unit for policy. I disagree. The facts say otherwise. Would you agree that men are generally taller than women? Would you say that Danny DeVito "proves" the opposite? Your approach might work on a personal level, but how about as government edict? Should a legislature decide to pass laws tailored to every individual? Obviously, they can't do such a thing.

I can think of plenty of blacks, for instance, who fit the racial stereotype of a black person. No, that doesn't mean all do. But enough for there to be relevant pattern. And that's the the point.

[Hugh Lincoln]

So how about a concrete, ideal world for you, summarized in a couple generic statements:

Would you prefer each country be racially inclusive/exclusive? You could visit Africa if you wanted, but taking up residence there would be prohibitted? Or would you prefer if it was just strongly discouraged?

Do you think it's possible for a host of races to thrive under one country's flag? Is there any organizational structure that would allow it, barring obvious violations of human rights such as slavery?

Am I on the right track?

Huh - because white advocacy is so heavily marginalized, I don't think too much in these terms, as they're probably not going to be seen in my lifetime. I can tell you there's a whole community of people in America who do think in terms of a "white homeland," and I usually tire of those discussions as "pie in the sky" kinds of things. I live in the real world and I try to match my ideology with that as much as I can.

I think a host of races living under one flag is not an ideal. It's generally going to be tension-filled, anxiety-ridden and less - gasp - progressive than a more monocultural society.

Just a tidbit to give you some insight: I have never been to Japan, though I know a few Japanese people and one acquaintance in particular who is very familiar with Japan. I understand that if you leave a personal effect on the Tokyo subway and get off, the chance is almost one hundred percent that the item will be carefully picked up, traced to you, and returned to you, if at all possible. Contrast this with what happens in New York City.

So what's the difference? Japan is a monoracial society, and NYC is very clearly not. That, to me, explains what's going on.

In other words, there are concrete advantages to a monoracial society that we in America probably used to take for granted, but now cannot. When you lock your door at night, is it because you fear that a WHITE person is going to rob you? No, of course not. Do you live in the neighborhood you do, and not Harlem, because you think Harlem would be safer? No, of course not.

So, that's a clue to where I am, policy wise. I actually do NOT think that racial isolationism is a good thing. I am absolutely for cultural exchange and cross-pollination, it's just got to be on VOLUNTARY terms instead of through terrorism, as we have now. But generally, yes, I think some form of racial separation would be a positive step, for ALL races, though specifics I don't know about.

[The ClayTaurus]

Huh - because white advocacy is so heavily marginalized, I don't think too much in these terms, as they're probably not going to be seen in my lifetime. I can tell you there's a whole community of people in America who do think in terms of a "white homeland," and I usually tire of those discussions as "pie in the sky" kinds of things. I live in the real world and I try to match my ideology with that as much as I can.

I think a host of races living under one flag is not an ideal. It's generally going to be tension-filled, anxiety-ridden and less - gasp - progressive than a more monocultural society.

Just a tidbit to give you some insight: I have never been to Japan, though I know a few Japanese people and one acquaintance in particular who is very familiar with Japan. I understand that if you leave a personal effect on the Tokyo subway and get off, the chance is almost one hundred percent that the item will be carefully picked up, traced to you, and returned to you, if at all possible. Contrast this with what happens in New York City.

So what's the difference? Japan is a monoracial society, and NYC is very clearly not. That, to me, explains what's going on.

In other words, there are concrete advantages to a monoracial society that we in America probably used to take for granted, but now cannot. When you lock your door at night, is it because you fear that a WHITE person is going to rob you? No, of course not. Do you live in the neighborhood you do, and not Harlem, because you think Harlem would be safer? No, of course not.

So, that's a clue to where I am, policy wise. I actually do NOT think that racial isolationism is a good thing. I am absolutely for cultural exchange and cross-pollination, it's just got to be on VOLUNTARY terms instead of through terrorism, as we have now. But generally, yes, I think some form of racial separation would be a positive step, for ALL races, though specifics I don't know about.I was actually hoping you had something more concrete in your hopes for what life would be like if indeed there was a pie in the sky, but, alas, there is not, and I can certainly appreciate not wasting your time thinking about it.

I will be totally honest with you regarding your questions... I don't lock my door in fear of the white man, but I don't in fear of the black man either. I lock my door for fear of anyone breaking into my house. I really did objectively think about it, and that's the truth. Now, I'm sure you could speculate that I'm brainwashed into thinking that, and deep down it's really the black man I fear, but I'm not sure either of us are capable of really knowing if that's true.

And you're right, there's a reason I don't live in Harlem. Because it's not safe. I'm not convinced that it's the nature of those who live in Harlem based on a skin color so much as it is based on an economic level. Might race play some factor? Perhaps. It's difficult to tell, though, because most poor white people live spread out. I can't think of any densely populated, predominantly white urban areas.