NAACP launches coalition watchdog site to ‘monitor’ Tea Party ‘racists’

[BoogyMan]

Does the hypocrisy and outright dishonesty of this not entertain? They will probably be lauded by the clown prince of Washington DC as a valuable part of society today for monitoring those dangerous TEA party people. Egads.......



Link (http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/02/naacp-launches-%E2%80%98coalition-watchdog%E2%80%99-site-to-%E2%80%98monitor%E2%80%99-tea-party-%E2%80%98racists%E2%80%99/)

The NAACP partnered with Media Matters, Think Progress and New Left Media to launch teapartytracker.org, a website that will specifically publish and monitor “racism and other forms of extremism within the Tea Party movement.”

Media Matters and Think Progress representatives said their content and reporting haven’t changed and that the NAACP approached their organizations seeking only to republish select content they’ve produced. The NAACP’s new teapartytracker.org is aimed specifically at highlighting “racism” in the Tea Party.

New Left Media, the duo of Chase Whiteside and Erick Stoll who use a “Trojan trick” to get interviews with Tea Partiers, is also a partner organization on the new site.

.: Read the rest of this article :. (http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/02/naacp-launches-%E2%80%98coalition-watchdog%E2%80%99-site-to-%E2%80%98monitor%E2%80%99-tea-party-%E2%80%98racists%E2%80%99/)

[Gaffer]

Anyone who is against democrats is a racist to them, so they won't have any trouble finding racists in the population. If they do a good job they may be offered a position with the government and can do it on an official basis. Let's get those jack boots shined up pretty.

[krisy]

How do we know they aren't going to have "plants"? Just like Sara Palin,the opposition is terrified of the tea party. I think the tea party should do the same back. "Watch" these jackasses for incidents of racism....that would be hilarious to give em a taste of their own medicine.

[avatar4321]

Well, they won't be too busy.

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

How do we know they aren't going to have "plants"? Just like Sara Palin,the opposition is terrified of the tea party. I think the tea party should do the same back. "Watch" these jackasses for incidents of racism....that would be hilarious to give em a taste of their own medicine. WELL that wouldn't be too hard.every time Grease Ball Al or Jesse Jackass open their mouths it's RACIST

[Agnapostate]

The assessment seems accurate enough. http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/racepolitics.html


For instance, the Tea Party, the grassroots movement committed to reining in what they perceive as big government, and fiscal irresponsibility, also appear predisposed to intolerance. Approximately 45%of Whites either strongly or somewhat approve of the movement. Of those, only 35% believe Blacks to be hardworking, only 45 % believe Blacks are intelligent, and only 41% think that Blacks are trustworthy. Perceptions of Latinos aren’t much different. While 54% of White Tea Party supporters believe Latinos to be hardworking, only 44% think them intelligent, and even fewer, 42% of Tea Party supporters believe Latinos to be trustworthy. When it comes to gays and lesbians, White Tea Party supporters also hold negative attitudes. Only 36% think gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to adopt children, and just 17% are in favor of same-sex marriage.

Of course, instead of actual response to the study, I can expect squawking about the "liberal communist Muslim atheist Marxist" university professor(s) who commissioned it, I'm sure. ;)


WELL that wouldn't be too hard.every time Grease Ball Al or Jesse Jackass open their mouths it's RACIST

"Grease Ball" is considered an ethnic pejorative, but why don't you elaborate on this statement about "RACIST"?

[Sweetchuck]

If someone started a website to monitor NAACP racists, it would grow bigger than fucking Facebook.

By it's very nature, the NAACP is racist.

Tell me every liberal on the planet wouldn't shit their pants if, say Hog started an organization called the National Association for the Advancement of White People.

[BoogyMan]

The assessment seems accurate enough. http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/racepolitics.html

Of course, instead of actual response to the study, I can expect squawking about the "liberal communist Muslim atheist Marxist" university professor(s) who commissioned it, I'm sure. ;)

I will jump in here. Your study seems to equate perception to racism, a more ignorant path to complete mental flacidity could not be found. My perception of someone doesn't make me a racist.



Link (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism)

rac·ism   /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ Show Spelled
[rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA

–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Liberals have, for decades now, felt that they had the right to redefine terms in order to make them fit their political and social agendas. I won't sit by while you try this here and not point it out.

[Agnapostate]

If someone started a website to monitor NAACP racists, it would grow bigger than fucking Facebook.

By it's very nature, the NAACP is racist.

Tell me every liberal on the planet wouldn't shit their pants if, say Hog started an organization called the National Association for the Advancement of White People.

This comment is idiocy, and not simply because there is an existent NAAWP that was started by David Duke. There was a need for ethnic minorities to organize together because they were all the common victims of discriminatory state policies that targeted them as a whole, and they needed to band together and react as a whole. "Whites" as a whole have never been the victims of such discrimination, though individual white ethnic groups (Irish, Italians, etc.), have, which is why there are still interest groups for these ethnicities within what is currently defined as the larger "white race." So it would be a matter of organization against oppression compared to organization to perpetuate such oppression.


I will jump in here. Your study seems to equate perception to racism, a more ignorant path to complete mental flacidity could not be found. My perception of someone doesn't make me a racist.

Actually, if your perceptions involve persistently negative stereotypes about racial and ethnic minorities, I would say that they do.


Liberals have, for decades now, felt that they had the right to redefine terms in order to make them fit their political and social agendas. I won't sit by while you try this here and not point it out.

Since I am not a "liberal," this comment is inapplicable to me. But I wish you luck in your valiant crusade to change word meanings so that they're consistently inaccurate. Sounds like a good cause.

[BoogyMan]

Actually, if your perceptions involve persistently negative stereotypes about racial and ethnic minorities, I would say that they do.

That would be because liberals (you included) have so misused the term "racist" that it actually has no meaning any longer.


Since I am not a "liberal," this comment is inapplicable to me. But I wish you luck in your valiant crusade to change word meanings so that they're consistently inaccurate. Sounds like a good cause.

I want words to mean what they actually mean, not what you (an unabashed liberal whether you like the term or not) would like to redefine them to mean.

A perception that a certain group has specific qualities means nothing without intent to portray oneself as superior.

[Kathianne]

If someone started a website to monitor NAACP racists, it would grow bigger than fucking Facebook.

By it's very nature, the NAACP is racist.

Tell me every liberal on the planet wouldn't shit their pants if, say Hog started an organization called the National Association for the Advancement of White People.

I've no doubt that Hog would love to, problem is whites are not so much PC as much as not as charged up about racism-for or against themselves or others.

On the other hand, regarding the 'study' and use of regression to 'tease' out the findings, that there are biases in all groups seems to be a given. To use it to extrapolate to racism seems a huge leap. Wonder what the results would be of members of ACLU and bias against conservatives?

[Agnapostate]

That would be because liberals (you included) have so misused the term "racist" that it actually has no meaning any longer.

I am not a "liberal." That said, this sentiment is one of racial resentment, a facet of "angry white male" syndrome. It's repeated by many white supremacists. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t696224/


The tea party crowd are comprised of ordinary White Americans, just as White Nationalists are. Culturally and traditionally, they're basically the same as White Nationalists - both rooted in the earlier paleo-conservative value system. The only difference might be that the neo-conservatives seem to think they can manipulate the tea partiers much more easily than they can manipulate White Nationalists. Of course, from the liberal side, the only thing they can throw out is the "race card," so therefore they will keep using the label of "racist" against the tea partiers. "Racist" is really the only rhetorical weapon the liberals have in their arsenal, and since they disingenuously overuse that label as much as they do, even that is starting to lose its power.

Instead of mindlessly throwing around labels like "racist," liberals might actually have to make real, genuine arguments in the future - something they've proven incapable of doing. They've come to rely so much on calling people "racist" to get their way, they use it mostly as a crutch these days.

That's because they are at their core socially right-wing and share the same underlying moral views as mainline rightists. They regard ethnic minorities as disproportionate violators of their moral codes (high welfare users, etc.), with Tea Partiers more likely to make a subconscious association between their race and their immorality because their ethnicity functions as a convenient mechanism for quick categorizations and generalizations, and white nationalists and other supremacists having transformed this into an explicit connection.


I want words to mean what they actually mean, not what you (an unabashed liberal whether you like the term or not) would like to redefine them to mean.

Your reference to me as a "liberal" is amusing, if nothing else. Perhaps you should capitalize on the fact that I'm far to the left of any liberal? I am an anarcho-communist.


A perception that a certain group has specific qualities means nothing without intent to portray oneself as superior.

That is a common sentiment of white nationalists, who depict different ethnic groups as possessing innate gene-based behavioral differences.

[Agnapostate]

On the other hand, regarding the 'study' and use of regression to 'tease' out the findings, that there are biases in all groups seems to be a given. To use it to extrapolate to racism seems a huge leap. Wonder what the results would be of members of ACLU and bias against conservatives?

So what exactly should the inclination to possess negative stereotypes and images about racial/ethnic minorities to a greater degree than the general population be called, then?

[Pagan]

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01433/farra_1433008c.jpg

[Agnapostate]

Who's he supposed to be "racist" against, himself? He's clearly mixed.

[Pagan]

Who's he supposed to be "racist" against, himself? He's clearly mixed.

You are quite the ignorant fuck aren't you?

[Agnapostate]

You are quite the ignorant fuck aren't you?

I didn't think you knew the answer, Chafin', having been dropped on your head repeatedly as a baby as you were.

[Trigg]

Who's he supposed to be "racist" against, himself? He's clearly mixed.

tell him that


“The white man is our mortal enemy, and we cannot accept him. I will fight to see that vicious beast go down into the late of fire prepared for him from the beginning, that he never rise again to give any innocent black man, woman or child the hell that he has delighted in pouring on us for 400 years.”
– Louis Farrakhan, City College audience in New York


Other quotes.

http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2008/03/louis-farrakhan-twenty-controversial-quotes/

[BoogyMan]

I am not a "liberal." That said, this sentiment is one of racial resentment, a facet of "angry white male" syndrome. It's repeated by many white supremacists. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t696224/

That's because they are at their core socially right-wing and share the same underlying moral views as mainline rightists. They regard ethnic minorities as disproportionate violators of their moral codes (high welfare users, etc.), with Tea Partiers more likely to make a subconscious association between their race and their immorality because their ethnicity functions as a convenient mechanism for quick categorizations and generalizations, and white nationalists and other supremacists having transformed this into an explicit connection.

Your reference to me as a "liberal" is amusing, if nothing else. Perhaps you should capitalize on the fact that I'm far to the left of any liberal? I am an anarcho-communist.

That is a common sentiment of white nationalists, who depict different ethnic groups as possessing innate gene-based behavioral differences.

This is some of the funniest stuff you have written to date and it proves my assertions directly. I disgree with you and you try to make a case that I am some kind of racist.

Are you paid to post silly garbage like this to caricature the typical liberal?

[Agnapostate]

tell him that

That he's mixed-blooded? It's quite obvious that he is, given his phenotype. That said, it's simply a historical reality that it's been Europeans, particularly Western Europeans, who have been the greatest imperialists and colonialists of the past few centuries, invading every other inhabitable continent and commencing the invasion of America even as the Moorish occupation was expelled from Iberia.


This is some of the funniest stuff you have written to date and it proves my assertions directly.

While I agree that your posts consist of assertions (rather than arguments), that's about it.


I disgree with you and you try to make a case that I am some kind of racist.

If you are claiming that people who claim that there are behavioral genetic differences between races/ethnic groups and believe negative stereotypes about racial/ethnic minorities far more than the general population are not "racists," I'd question that judgment.


Are you paid to post silly garbage like this to caricature the typical liberal?

Since I am not a liberal, a fact that apparently cannot penetrate your thick skull, I would say not.

[Trigg]

That he's mixed-blooded? It's quite obvious that he is, given his phenotype. That said, it's simply a historical reality that it's been Europeans, particularly Western Europeans, who have been the greatest imperialists and colonialists of the past few centuries, invading every other inhabitable continent and commencing the invasion of America even as the Moorish occupation was expelled from Iberia.

Oh I don't argue that he's got some white in him. That doesn't make him any less of a racist, his quotes prove that.

[BoogyMan]

While I agree that your posts consist of assertions (rather than arguments), that's about it.

I am not the one defending the idea that the TEA party is made up of racists and certainly not the one here who is continuing the redefinition of the term so that it no longer has any meaning or effect.


If you are claiming that people who claim that there are behavioral genetic differences between races/ethnic groups and believe negative stereotypes about racial/ethnic minorities far more than the general population are not "racists," I'd question that judgment.

So now, those who believe stereotypes are racists as well?? You toss out the term racist without any real understanding of what the term means just as does the whole of the modern left and don't understand why people constantly call you out on it?


Since I am not a liberal, a fact that apparently cannot penetrate your thick skull, I would say not.

When one is so far left that Ted Kennedy looks like a radical right winger, one might assume you to be a liberal, don't you think?

[revelarts]

there are racist in the Tea Party
There are racist in the NAACP
There are racist on this board.
guess what, this is America. Sadly we've got to live with that.

The Tea Party however isn't founded on racism, it's political request aren't racist.
The NAACP was founded to help Blacks when they were being treated like crap by whites only a few decades ago. It's was founded to counter heavy and oppressive racism.

the NAACP has a lens of America that is based on a set of FACTS they are intimately acquainted with in the past that color (no pun intended) everything they do. But, of course, its major thrust been co-oped by the left. When racism is really not a left right issue.
There are plenty of racist union democrats. I wish someone would track that.

The Best thing for the Tea Party to do is to stay on message and not get emotionally drawn into battles that don't deal with the problems we ALL face with this out of control gov't. If most of us really aren't racist then a lot of regular people who think for themselves will figure it out. the uniformed and Uber partisans will spout the party line no matter what.

[BoogyMan]

there are racist in the Tea Party
There are racist in the NAACP
There are racist on this board.
guess what, this is America. Sadly we've got to live with that.

The Tea Party however isn't founded on racism, it's political request aren't racist.
The NAACP was founded to help Blacks when they were being treated like crap by whites only a few decades ago. It's was founded counter heavy and oppressive racism.

the NAACP has a lens of America that is based on a set of FACTS they are intimately acquainted with in the past that color (no pun intended) everything they do. But, of course, its major thrust been co-oped by the left. When racism is really not a left right issue.
There are plenty of racist union democrats. I wish someone would track that.

The Best thing for the Tea Party to do is to stay on message and not get emotionally drawn into battles that don't deal with the problems we ALL face with this out of control gov't. If most of us really aren't racist then a lot of regular people who think for themselves will figure it out. the uniformed and Uber partisans will spout the party line no matter what.

The uber partisans in this care are the Soros funded organizations listed as sponsors along with the NAACP. Not only has the NAACP made a mockery of their own claimed ideals in their tie to this organizations and its claims, but they have pretty much abandoned their purpose for existence in the advancement of false claims.

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

I am not a "liberal
I agree your not a Liberal YOU'RE far worse a Commie Socialist

[Agnapostate]

Oh I don't argue that he's got some white in him. That doesn't make him any less of a racist, his quotes prove that.

Have you ever asked yourself why you're so desperate to research information on "black" or "minority racism," when "white" racism is far more prevalent and actually has opportunities for institutional systemic enactment, in contrast to black racism only having such opportunities in Zimbabwe or some other such place, and only in response to a legacy of European colonialism? It's because of your white populism. Now, Farrakhan used generalizing language, but accurately described the nature of Western European harm to the world.


I am not the one defending the idea that the TEA party is made up of racists and certainly not the one here who is continuing the redefinition of the term so that it no longer has any meaning or effect.

Actually, I described the membership base as more prone to racism than the general population because they perceived racial/ethnic minorities as disproportionate offenders of their moral codes, and made subconscious generalizations about them as a result. You did nothing to refute this. I also pointed out that they shared foundations with overt white supremacists, which led their movement to appeal to them:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t696224/#post7969941


Basically, the Tea Partiers just want to be left alone by the government, and I don't think they have much more ideology than that. Less Government, Less Taxes, Less Bureacracy, less government Social Engineering, thats the tea partier goal. Because, this is in direct contradiction of the Multicults program, more government to make more social Engineering, enforced by thugs with guns and billy clubs at any expense, the Tea Partiers are on the firing line. However the Multicult can't just come out and say, "you want too much freedom, you want too much liberty" they instead call them Racists. And Academia, supports this by defining Racist as anyone who doesn't want to be socially engineered.

The people on SF who call themselves WN, for the most part, just want to be left alone by the government, they don't want to be social engineered either. However, because social engineering is painful and oppressive, many people are radicallized and pushed into a rage, and basically provoked into being "mean". And then of course the Multicult points to the result while ignoring the cause.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t696224/#post7970240


No one knows if the 90% number is accurate. As a Tea Party member I can say that Whites are a majority in the Tea Party movement, but then again whites are the majority in this country. Whites are the majority of taxpayers and true conservatives. There are a few black and hispanic members of the Tea Party but I think the reason for this is the fact that most blacks and hispanics are liberals, not true conservatives.

True conservatives believe in a small central government with little taxation and governmental intrusion, self reliance, and the freedom to succeed or fail according to each individuals' abilities. Liberals are just the opposite. They believe in a large government with the power to punish those who succeed through taxation, legislation and the redistribution of wealth in order to achieve "social justice".

The Tea Party is accused of racism simply because they disagree with the policies of President Obama because he is black. The real truth is that President Obama is a socialist and socialism is the direct opposite of conservatism.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t696224/#post7977542


As for race, most do seem to be White. But so what? Maybe its because its mostly the White middle class that pays all the taxes?

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t696224/#post7977899


This is the oldest political tactic in the book. If you can't discredit the argument, discredit the people behind the argument. This is also a worn out adage here, white people in a group must be racist. It's crap.

As far as I can discern, all of these quotes by self-identified white nationalists could have been written by mainline rightists on this forum.


So now, those who believe stereotypes are racists as well?? You toss out the term racist without any real understanding of what the term means just as does the whole of the modern left and don't understand why people constantly call you out on it?

Yes. Astonishingly, I dare to presume that people who believe that ethnic minorities are prone to laziness and stupidity might be "racist."


When one is so far left that Ted Kennedy looks like a radical right winger, one might assume you to be a liberal, don't you think?

No, far to the left of one.


I agree your not a Liberal YOU'RE far worse a Commie Socialist

See that, BoogerCan? That's better.

[revelarts]

"Mankind is divided into rich and poor, into property owners and exploited; and to abstract oneself from this fundamental division; and from the antagonism between poor and rich means abstracting oneself from fundamental facts."
Joseph Stalin

“...Why would we let them have guns?”
Joseph Stalin

"Enable every woman who can work to take her place on the labour front, under the principle of equal pay for equal work."
Mao Tse-Tung

"Genuine equality between the sexes can only be realized in the process of the socialist transformation of society as a whole."
Mao Tse-Tung

"Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend."
Mao Tse-Tung



These's words could have been said by any left winger on this board.It is Obvious that what they really are are MASS MURDERERS ready to kill off millions for the Communist "revolutionary" cause.

Stalin and Mao are Communist.
Stalin and Mao are tyrannical mass murderers.
Conclusion, All Communist are tyrannical mass murders

Agnapostate is a communist
therefore he is a tyrannical mass murderer

[Agnapostate]

Agnapostate is a communist
therefore he is a tyrannical mass murderer

Actually, an anarchist, which renders your pointless exercise even more so on closer inspection.

[Pagan]

Actually, an anarchist, which renders your pointless exercise even more so on closer inspection.

You're far from being an Anarchist, what you spew here is Socialism. I very highly doubt you even know what Anarchism is you ignorant fuck.

[Agnapostate]

You're far from being an Anarchist, what you spew here is Socialism. I very highly doubt you even know what Anarchism is you ignorant fuck.

This stupid idiocy transcends the usual crack baby rants that you piss on the board, since anarchism is an explicitly socialist ideology. http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionA1

[Pagan]

This stupid idiocy transcends the usual crack baby rants that you piss on the board, since anarchism is an explicitly socialist ideology. http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionA1

You verified my comment, you have no idea what Anarchism is you ignorant fuck. :lame2:

Anarchism in a nutshell is ALL forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.

Sure goes in line with Socialism doesn't it .............

Were you born this stupid or did you have to work at it you ignorant fuck ......................

I've seen some real winners on the net before but you seriously take the cake .......

[Agnapostate]

You verified my comment, you have no idea what Anarchism is you ignorant fuck. :lame2:

Anarchism in a nutshell is ALL forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.

Sure goes in line with Socialism doesn't it .............

Were you born this stupid or did you have to work at it you ignorant fuck ......................

I've seen some real winners on the net before but you seriously take the cake .......

Quite right. Anarchism is thus opposed to the authoritarian hierarchies of capitalism, and supportive of workers' ownership and management, as has been the case from Proudhon to Bakunin to Kropotkin to Chomsky. If you're interested in attempting an actual refutation of that fact, please do attempt it, but I think we both know that you're too stupid.

I've come to realize that it was an insult to LOL'ar to ask if you two were the same person. You give off vibes not of a former baby dropped on its head, but of a fetus stabbed in the head with a fork in the third trimester by a mother who downed three bottles of whiskey a day, and a baby and toddler that suffered repeated cranial trauma, for you to have emerged so incomprehensibly moronic.

[Pagan]

Quite right. Anarchism is thus opposed to the authoritarian hierarchies of capitalism, and supportive of workers' ownership and management, as has been the case from Proudhon to Bakunin to Kropotkin to Chomsky. If you're interested in attempting an actual refutation of that fact, please do attempt it, but I think we both know that you're too stupid.

I've come to realize that it was an insult to LOL'ar to ask if you two were the same person. You give off vibes not of a former baby dropped on its head, but of a fetus stabbed in the head with a fork in the third trimester by a mother who downed three bottles of whiskey a day, and a baby and toddler that suffered repeated cranial trauma, for you to have emerged so incomprehensibly moronic.

You've proven yourself quote well that you haven't a clue at what you spew you ignorant fuck. Please tell us again how Anarchy is explicitly socialist ideology ...

Man I'm going to piss on myself I'm laughing so hard, I have NEVER and I mean NEVER ran across anyone so ignorant in my life who spews such blatant ignorant stupidity that even someone with only a 5th grade education could spot ..........

Hey Slick, you a pre school drop out ................ :lol::lol:

[revelarts]

Actually, an anarchist, which renders your pointless exercise even more so on closer inspection.

Not pointless at all, unless you missed the main one that your logic is bad.

you can't just quote stormfront saying "the sky is blue" then say "you conservatives on this board say the same thing therefore your racist too. " That's just a sorry argument. Based on crappy logic.

the only thing I would have to do to "correct" my statement and still match your arguments, format wise, is to change the word communist to leftist.

Stalin and Mao are LEFTIST.
Stalin and Mao are tyrannical mass murderers.
Conclusion, All LEFTIST are tyrannical mass murders

Agnapostate is a LEFTIST
therefore he is a tyrannical mass murderer





"True conservatives believe in a small central government with little taxation and governmental intrusion, self reliance, and the freedom to succeed or fail according to each individuals' abilities. Liberals are just the opposite. They believe in a large government with the power to punish those who succeed through taxation, legislation and the redistribution of wealth in order to achieve "social justice". "

...if you can't discredit the argument, discredit the people behind the argument. ..."

As far as I can discern, all of these quotes by self-identified white nationalists could have been written by mainline rightists on this forum

those ideas are racist ideas Agnapostate?
Really?

You probably share the idea with many stormfront members that it good practice to drink from a glass and eat from a plate. YOU MUST BE A RACIST!
...AND A MASS MURDERER.

[Trigg]

Have you ever asked yourself why you're so desperate to research information on "black" or "minority racism," when "white" racism is far more prevalent and actually has opportunities for institutional systemic enactment, in contrast to black racism only having such opportunities in Zimbabwe or some other such place, and only in response to a legacy of European colonialism? It's because of your white populism. Now, Farrakhan used generalizing language, but accurately described the nature of Western European harm to the world.


simply trying to stay on topic.

I find it interresting that you regard this
“The white man is our mortal enemy, and we cannot accept him. I will fight to see that vicious beast go down into the late of fire prepared for him from the beginning, that he never rise again to give any innocent black man, woman or child the hell that he has delighted in pouring on us for 400 years.”
– Louis Farrakhan, City College audience in New York
as an accurate discription of white people, but not racist. Says a lot about the kind of person you are.

[Pagan]

simply trying to stay on topic.

I find it interresting that you regard this
as an accurate discription of white people, but not racist. Says a lot about the kind of person you are.

Personally IMO ol Aggie here is nothing more than Parroting what he's told and doing a complete botch job of it if I say so myself. Really, it's rather comical ya know.

http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/upload/2007/01/TypingMonkeyLarge.jpg

[Agnapostate]

You've proven yourself quote well that you haven't a clue at what you spew you ignorant fuck. Please tell us again how Anarchy is explicitly socialist ideology ...

Man I'm going to piss on myself I'm laughing so hard, I have NEVER and I mean NEVER ran across anyone so ignorant in my life who spews such blatant ignorant stupidity that even someone with only a 5th grade education could spot ..........

Hey Slick, you a pre school drop out ................ :lol::lol:

Against what was my initial and probably my better judgment, but on the advice of others, I am going to make one last attempt to reasonably engage this poster. Anarchism, as a social ideology, has always been characterized by advocacy of stateless socialism (decentralized networks of workers' ownership and management of the means of production), in contrast to the hierarchical labor markets and firm structures of capitalism, the earlier authoritarianism of feudalism, or the later authoritarianism of Leninism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon


Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (15 January 1809 in Besançon – 19 January 1865 in Passy) was a French politician, mutualist philosopher and socialist. He was a member of the French Parliament, and he was the first person to call himself an "anarchist". He is considered among the most influential theorists and organizers of anarchism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakunin


Mikhail Alexandrovich Bakunin (30 May [O.S. 18 May] 1814 - 1 July 1876) (Russian: Михаи́л Алекса́ндрович Баку́нин; IPA: [mʲɪxɐˈil ˌbaˈkunʲin]) was a well-known Russian revolutionary and theorist of collectivist anarchism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kropotkin


Peter (Pyotr) Alexeyevich Kropotkin (Russian: Пётр Алексеевич Кропоткин) (9 December 1842 – 8 February 1921) was a zoologist, an evolutionary theorist, geographer and one of the world's foremost anarcho-communists. One of the first advocates of anarchist communism, Kropotkin advocated a communist society free from central government and based on voluntary associations between workers

Anarchist Communism: Its Basis and Principles (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/revpamphlets/anarchistcommunism.html), by Kropotkin.


Anarchism, the no-government system of socialism, has a double origin. It is an outgrowth of the two great movements of thought in the economic and the political fields which characterize the nineteenth century, and especially its second part. In common with all socialists, the anarchists hold that the private ownership of land, capital, and machinery has had its time; that it is condemned to disappear; and that all requisites for production must, and will, become the common property of society, and be managed in common by the producers of wealth. And in common with the most advanced representatives of political radicalism, they maintain that the ideal of the political organization of society is a condition of things where the functions of government are reduced to a minimum, and the individual recovers his full liberty of initiative and action for satisfying, by means of free groups and federations--freely constituted--all the infinitely varied needs of the human being.

Now, if you'd be generous enough to elaborate for us on your own personal vision of anarchism and the theory and practice that contributed to that vision, I would be willing to read that exposition. So it's on you now...


Not pointless at all, unless you missed the main one that your logic is bad.

you can't just quote stormfront saying "the sky is blue" then say "you conservatives on this board say the same thing therefore your racist too. " That's just a sorry argument. Based on crappy logic.

the only thing I would have to do to "correct" my statement and still match your arguments, format wise, is to change the word communist to leftist.

Stalin and Mao are LEFTIST.
Stalin and Mao are tyrannical mass murderers.
Conclusion, All LEFTIST are tyrannical mass murders

Agnapostate is a LEFTIST
therefore he is a tyrannical mass murderer

those ideas are racist ideas Agnapostate?
Really?

You probably share the idea with many stormfront members that it good practice to drink from a glass and eat from a plate. YOU MUST BE A RACIST!
...AND A MASS MURDERER.

What you're attempting to refer to is an inductive and informal logical fallacy called an association fallacy, which is a type of hasty generalization and red herring. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html

The problem is that your post is a strawman, which was revealed when you decided to go extremely overboard at the end. In one circumstance, there is the case of irrelevant correlation between social rightists and overt white nationalists. With the bit about the glass and plate, you implied that I had picked up on such an irrelevant correlation. However, I specified foundational moral beliefs that were shared between the two groups, not trivial similarities that could be shared by anyone. Those foundational moral beliefs are voluntarily held by a distinct segment of the population that both groups happen to belong to. And it remains my contention that rightists are more inclined to racist generalizations and stereotypes because they perceive minority groups as more frequent offenders of their moral codes, and have a greater potential for transformation of that into an explicit outlook.

In the words of white supremacist leader Alex Linder:

http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=1141304&postcount=2


It's more like an evolution than a conversion for anyone on the right, as most of us are, especially those of us old enough to have come of age before the Internet, when racialist information was not easily available. Most of us here evolved from a conservative position to a racialist, rather than "converting." Conservatism is, as Burke or Kirk would tell you, NOT an ideology, it's defined by that fact. It's more of a disposition, or a respect for reality. If you begin with a respect for reality, and a couple other things line up, you will end up a "racist."

http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=1141319&postcount=6


I'm sure there are some converts, but I'm also sure that far more people evolved into "racists" than converted. A conversion is a sharp turn, maybe a 180. You do not convert from a conservative to a racialist, you fill in the parts that the professional conservatives (coopted by jews, to a man) leave out. But there's no fundamental disconnect the way there is between "liberalism" and white nationalism. Liberal to WN is a true conversion because your views reverse. Conservative to racialism is not a conversion, it's a filling-in, or an evolution. I think the best way to describe it is coming out of water, the closer you get to the surface, the more clearly you see things, with racialism being the final breaking through into the air and light.

This connection is made clearer by the fact that there are a number of groups (VDARE.com, AmRen, the Council of Conservative Citizens, etc.) and individuals (Pat Buchanan, Peter Brimelow, etc.) who straddle the line between social rightism and white nationalism, which is because there are common themes of white ethnic populism and racial resentment. It's very interesting that there are a number of members here insistent that they can define an ideology better than its self-described adherents.


simply trying to stay on topic.

Actually, you're not, since the topic is white Tea Party racism, not Louis Farrakhan.


I find it interresting that you regard this
as an accurate discription of white people, but not racist. Says a lot about the kind of person you are.

What kind of person is that? Another person who is "racist" against his own white blood, his own European admixture? :laugh:

[BoogyMan]

I thought about responding to this tripe point by point, but the stormfront references were so over the top that your stuck on stupid rhetoric is unworthy of that kind of effort.

I will consider you the forum hemmorhoid from this point forward.


Have you ever asked yourself why you're so desperate to research information on "black" or "minority racism," when "white" racism is far more prevalent and actually has opportunities for institutional systemic enactment, in contrast to black racism only having such opportunities in Zimbabwe or some other such place, and only in response to a legacy of European colonialism? It's because of your white populism. Now, Farrakhan used generalizing language, but accurately described the nature of Western European harm to the world.



Actually, I described the membership base as more prone to racism than the general population because they perceived racial/ethnic minorities as disproportionate offenders of their moral codes, and made subconscious generalizations about them as a result. You did nothing to refute this. I also pointed out that they shared foundations with overt white supremacists, which led their movement to appeal to them:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t696224/#post7969941



http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t696224/#post7970240



http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t696224/#post7977542



http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t696224/#post7977899



As far as I can discern, all of these quotes by self-identified white nationalists could have been written by mainline rightists on this forum.



Yes. Astonishingly, I dare to presume that people who believe that ethnic minorities are prone to laziness and stupidity might be "racist."



No, far to the left of one.



See that, BoogerCan? That's better.

[Pagan]

Against what was my initial and probably my better judgment, but on the advice of others, I am going to make one last attempt to reasonably engage this poster. Anarchism, as a social ideology, has always been characterized by advocacy of stateless socialism (decentralized networks of workers' ownership and management of the means of production), in contrast to the hierarchical labor markets and firm structures of capitalism, the earlier authoritarianism of feudalism, or the later authoritarianism of Leninism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakunin



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kropotkin



Anarchist Communism: Its Basis and Principles (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/revpamphlets/anarchistcommunism.html), by Kropotkin.



Now, if you'd be generous enough to elaborate for us on your own personal vision of anarchism and the theory and practice that contributed to that vision, I would be willing to read that exposition. So it's on you now...



What you're attempting to refer to is an inductive and informal logical fallacy called an association fallacy, which is a type of hasty generalization and red herring. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html

The problem is that your post is a strawman, which was revealed when you decided to go extremely overboard at the end. In one circumstance, there is the case of irrelevant correlation between social rightists and overt white nationalists. With the bit about the glass and plate, you implied that I had picked up on such an irrelevant correlation. However, I specified foundational moral beliefs that were shared between the two groups, not trivial similarities that could be shared by anyone. Those foundational moral beliefs are voluntarily held by a distinct segment of the population that both groups happen to belong to. And it remains my contention that rightists are more inclined to racist generalizations and stereotypes because they perceive minority groups as more frequent offenders of their moral codes, and have a greater potential for transformation of that into an explicit outlook.

In the words of white supremacist leader Alex Linder:

http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=1141304&postcount=2



http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=1141319&postcount=6



This connection is made clearer by the fact that there are a number of groups (VDARE.com, AmRen, the Council of Conservative Citizens, etc.) and individuals (Pat Buchanan, Peter Brimelow, etc.) who straddle the line between social rightism and white nationalism, which is because there are common themes of white ethnic populism and racial resentment. It's very interesting that there are a number of members here insistent that they can define an ideology better than its self-described adherents.



Actually, you're not, since the topic is white Tea Party racism, not Louis Farrakhan.



What kind of person is that? Another person who is "racist" against his own white blood, his own European admixture? :laugh:


One last time -

Socialism - The State owns and controls everything

And you claim Anarchism is an exclusively Socialist ideology?

You are the most ignorant fuck I have EVER had the misfortune of running into.

But then again Socialists and it's bastard step child Communists are complete ignorant fucks for with all the tripe they spew of their Socialist or Communist Utopia's they always ignore the one basic fact that invalidates their delusions.

HUMAN NATURE

You know, greed, lust, desire for power, etc.

Reality, what a concept eh there Slick ...

[revelarts]

What you're attempting to refer to is an inductive and informal logical fallacy called an association fallacy, which is a type of hasty generalization and red herring. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html


I think i made my point pretty clearly. no need for me to go to academic on ya. But since your aware of the fallacy you should no better than to use it.



The problem is that your post is a strawman, which was revealed when you decided to go extremely overboard at the end. In one circumstance, there is the case of irrelevant correlation between social rightists and overt white nationalists. With the bit about the glass and plate, you implied that I had picked up on such an irrelevant correlation. However, I specified foundational moral beliefs that were shared between the two groups, not trivial similarities that could be shared by anyone. Those foundational moral beliefs are voluntarily held by a distinct segment of the population that both groups happen to belong to. And it remains my contention that rightists are more inclined to racist generalizations and stereotypes because they perceive minority groups as more frequent offenders of their moral codes, and have a greater potential for transformation of that into an explicit outlook.

In the words of white supremacist leader Alex Linder:

http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=1141304&postcount=2

http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=1141319&postcount=6

This connection is made clearer by the fact that there are a number of groups (VDARE.com, AmRen, the Council of Conservative Citizens, etc.) and individuals (Pat Buchanan, Peter Brimelow, etc.) who straddle the line between social rightism and white nationalism, which is because there are common themes of white ethnic populism and racial resentment. It's very interesting that there are a number of members here insistent that they can define an ideology better than its self-described adherents.




Well you get closer to making a real point with the quotes you've just used however it still puts you in the same position. you efforts to distants yourself from socialism and totalitarianism sound just as shrill to my ears as my attempts to distant myself from racist may sound to yours. ALL of the Communist leaders have espoused the very same moral position that your Anarchist version promotes. Wealth, Land and means of production Shared by the "workers".
However, somehow, in practice it ends with a bureaucratic or industrial elite in control with "the worker" still ekking out a living but now unable influence or gainsay the benevolent fat cat comrade leaders.

look at what you wrote here:


Anarchism, as a social ideology, has always been characterized by advocacy of stateless socialism (decentralized networks of workers' ownership and management of the means of production), in contrast to the hierarchical labor markets and firm structures of capitalism, the earlier authoritarianism of feudalism, or the later authoritarianism of Leninism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (15 January 1809 in Besançon – 19 January 1865 in Passy) was a French politician, mutualist philosopher and socialist. He was a member of the French Parliament, and he was the first person to call himself an "anarchist". He is considered among the most influential theorists and organizers of anarchism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakunin

Mikhail Alexandrovich Bakunin (30 May [O.S. 18 May] 1814 - 1 July 1876) (Russian: Михаи́л Алекса́ндрович Баку́нин; IPA: [mʲɪxɐˈil ˌbaˈkunʲin]) was a well-known Russian revolutionary and theorist of collectivist anarchism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kropotkin

Peter (Pyotr) Alexeyevich Kropotkin (Russian: Пётр Алексеевич Кропоткин) (9 December 1842 – 8 February 1921) was a zoologist, an evolutionary theorist, geographer and one of the world's foremost anarcho-communists. One of the first advocates of anarchist communism, Kropotkin advocated a communist society free from central government and based on voluntary associations between workers
Anarchist Communism: Its Basis and Principles, by Kropotkin.

Anarchism, the no-government system of socialism, has a double origin. It is an outgrowth of the two great movements of thought in the economic and the political fields which characterize the nineteenth century, and especially its second part. In common with all socialists, the anarchists hold that the private ownership of land, capital, and machinery has had its time; that it is condemned to disappear; and that all requisites for production must, and will, become the common property of society, and be managed in common by the producers of wealth. And in common with the most advanced representatives of political radicalism, they maintain that the ideal of the political organization of society is a condition of things where the functions of government are reduced to a minimum, and the individual recovers his full liberty of initiative and action for satisfying, by means of free groups and federations--freely constituted--all the infinitely varied needs of the human being.
..

are you seriously telling me that i couldn't find scores of quotes from Mao, Stalin, Castro, Ho Chi Minh or Lenin even that don't jib almost exactly with your specific brand of communism. But I'm suppose to believe that it can NEVER turn into the darker murderous and poverty inducing communism we've all come to see in history.

When you want to call some one a racist pick a name and call them one. But don't throw ever conservative into the racist camp. In FACT YOU WILL BE WRONG. Parse the facts as finely for racist ideas and conservative idea as do for you do for the shades of communism you espouse and i think well be fine.

[Agnapostate]

I thought about responding to this tripe point by point, but the stormfront references were so over the top that your stuck on stupid rhetoric is unworthy of that kind of effort.

I will consider you the forum hemmorhoid from this point forward.

LOL, BoogerCan. If I'm the forum hemorrhoid (learn how to fucking spell), you're the fucking **** wart that's just exploded with the drip, motherfucker. :laugh:


One last time -

Socialism - The State owns and controls everything

And you claim Anarchism is an exclusively Socialist ideology?

You are the most ignorant fuck I have EVER had the misfortune of running into.

Jesus fucking christ, this is the most idiotic display of stupidity I have ever seen on this forum, and when you're in a special ed. kindergarten class like this board, that's definitely fucking saying something. The most idiotic part is this incomprehensibly fucking retarded delusion that you're somehow in the right (what the fuck? :laugh:) when you're the dumbest fucking dipstick on this board, in some way.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/ugh-t141310/index.html


I wouldn't bother with this type. If you really want to you can always link him to an old anarchist book like The Conquest of Bread. If he brushes it off you can laugh at how he doesn't know anything and just be a dick right back at him.


He is beyond reasoning. Just call him names until he goes away and cries.

From Proudhon to Tucker to Bakunin to Kropotkin to Goldman to Rocker to Chomsky and Zinn, anarchist theorists have always called themselves socialists. Where the fuck are your anarchists, you dumb fucking troglodyte? Where the fuck are they? Where the fuck is your Bakunin? Who the fuck gave you these incomprehensibly moronic little talking points to vomit at my feet? Where the fuck are the examples of your anarchism in action, you demented little goblin? Where the fuck is your Makhno, your Durruti, your Marcos? I mean, fuck. Go get raped by herpes-infected chimpanzees and die in a fire. :lol:


But then again Socialists and it's bastard step child Communists are complete ignorant fucks for with all the tripe they spew of their Socialist or Communist Utopia's they always ignore the one basic fact that invalidates their delusions.

HUMAN NATURE

You know, greed, lust, desire for power, etc.

Reality, what a concept eh there Slick ...

LOLOLOL. Proponents of laissez-faire capitalism are always imbecilic assclowns with their dumb fucking shit, and they always ignore the one basic fact that invalidates their delusions.

HUMAN NATURE

Oh shiznit! I wrote it in bigger font than you did, Chafin! Well, shit, declare me the fucking winner and give me my fucking trophy, because my argumentative skills are clearly the victor! :lol:


I think i made my point pretty clearly. no need for me to go to academic on ya. But since your aware of the fallacy you should no better than to use it.

I do know better than to use it. That would be why I didn't use it, regardless of whether your non-argumentative repetition of the assertion that I did claims otherwise.


Well you get closer to making a real point with the quotes you've just used however it still puts you in the same position. you efforts to distants yourself from socialism and totalitarianism sound just as shrill to my ears as my attempts to distant myself from racist may sound to yours. ALL of the Communist leaders have espoused the very same moral position that your Anarchist version promotes. Wealth, Land and means of production Shared by the "workers".

Then by the same token, since all these regimes have espoused a rhetorical commitment to republican democracy (the Union of Soviet Sovialist Republics, the People's Republic of China, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, etc.), you must also be a supporter of dictatorship, since you presumably profess to support republican democracy.


However, somehow, in practice it ends with a bureaucratic or industrial elite in control with "the worker" still ekking out a living but now unable influence or gainsay the benevolent fat cat comrade leaders.

look at what you wrote here:

are you seriously telling me that i couldn't find scores of quotes from Mao, Stalin, Castro, Ho Chi Minh or Lenin even that don't jib almost exactly with your specific brand of communism. But I'm suppose to believe that it can NEVER turn into the darker murderous and poverty inducing communism we've all come to see in history.

While I'm an anti-Leninist, I also recognize that the majority of Leninists could win an argument with you, because you're simply repeating the standard talking points taught in the U.S. public school system and repeated by rightist talk radio. It's what they've heard countless times before: http://www.revleft.com/vb/you-make-me-t139137/index.html

The problem here is that Leninism and anarchism are opposing tendencies, just as Marxism and anarchism are opposing tendencies of socialism. It's not possible to describe oneself as both a Leninist and an anarchist, while the majority of white nationalists profess to be "conservatives." It's not a step away, since the two ideologies are so diametrically opposed. There cannot be an organization that hovers "on the line" between anarchism and Leninism, as there are organizations that hover on the line between strong social rightism and white nationalism. The association between anarchism and Leninism has always been one of opposition. This began with Peter Kropotkin's personal communications to Lenin, such as that of this letter:


Russia has already become a Soviet Republic only in name. The influx and taking over of the people by the 'party,' that is, predominantly the newcomers (the ideological communists are more in the urban centers), has already destroyed the influence and constructive energy of this promising institution - the soviets. At present, it is the party committees, not the soviets, who rule in Russia. And their organization suffers from the defects of bureaucratic organization. To move away from the current disorder, Russia must return to the creative genius of local forces which, as I see it, can be a factor in the creation of a new life.And the sooner that the necessity of this way is understood, the better. People will then be all the more likely to accept [new] social forms of life. If the present situation continues, the very word 'socialism' will turn into a curse. That is what happened to the conception of equality in France for forty years after the rule of the Jacobins.

This insight is utterly prescient and demonstrates substantial abilities of foresight. Kropotkin knew not only that the state capitalism of Lenin and the Bolsheviks was not "socialist"; he knew that it was in fact anti-socialist, and that its ruinous legacy would generate harsh damage to the socialist movement, creating a "guilt by association" of sorts for even those socialists (such as anarchists), who had quickly and vigilantly condemned the authoritarianism of state capitalism. Similarly opposed to this pseudo-socialism was Emma Goldman, deported from the U.S. to Russia for her political convictions and participation in radical activity, and initially optimistic about the Russian Revolution. This optimism turned to dismay after she witnessed the brutal suppression of the democratically motivated Kronstadt Rebellion in 1921 by the Red Army, and led to her 1923 publication of My Disillusionment in Russia, in which she railed against the nature of dictatorship in the USSR:


The STATE IDEA, the authoritarian principle, has been proven bankrupt by the experience of the Russian Revolution. If I were to sum up my whole argument in one sentence I should say: The inherent tendency of the State is to concentrate, to narrow, and monopolize all social activities; the nature of revolution is, on the contrary, to grow, to broaden, and disseminate itself in ever-wider circles. In other words, the State is institutional and static; revolution is fluent, dynamic. These two tendencies are incompatible and mutually destructive. The State idea killed the Russian Revolution and it must have the same result in all other revolutions, unless the libertarian idea prevail.

Goldman had no ability to know that the Soviet Union would eventually be dissolved many decades later and did not declare it anti-socialist only after its imminent destruction was apparent. She, as with other consistent anarchists, declared the Soviet Union and the authoritarian state capitalism that falsely masqueraded as socialism within it to be tyrannically monstrous and unjust even as it gained greater power:


Witness the tragic condition of Russia. The methods of State centralization have paralyzed individual initiative and effort; the tyranny of the dictatorship has cowed the people into slavish submission and all but extinguished the fires of liberty; organized terrorism has depraved and brutalized the masses and stifled every idealistic aspiration; institutionalized murder has cheapened human life, and all sense of the dignity of man and the value of life has been eliminated; coercion at every step has made effort bitter, labor a punishment, has turned the whole of existence into a scheme of mutual deceit, and has revived the lowest and most brutal instincts of man. A sorry heritage to begin a new life of freedom and brotherhood.

In the mid-to-late 1930's, the world saw the most expansive and important socialist revolution throughout history occur during the Spanish Civil War, as anarchists and libertarian workers organized and collectivized vast areas of land and numerous fixtures throughout Spain, establishing several thousand anarchist collectives among several million inhabitants of Spain, their hub being in the industrialized region of Catalonia and its capital of Barcelona, a city populated by 1.2 million residents. Unfortunately, the exigencies of the situation (a fascist military revolt against the republican government), led union leaders to organize an alliance with authoritarian "socialists" backed by the Soviet Union. These phony socialists considered the social revolution a counterproductive engagement, and moved to sabotage and destroy collectivization efforts through violent force, with Soviet "allies" deliberately depriving anarchist and libertarian Marxist military forces of necessary aid, critically undermining the war effort. The anarcho-syndicalist Rudolf Rocker offered this insighftul analysis into the reasons for this treachery:


For two decades the supporters of Bolshevism have been hammering it into the masses that dictatorship is a vital necessity for the defense of the so-called proletarian interests against the assaults of the counter-revolution and for paving the way for Socialism. They have not advanced the cause of Socialism by this propaganda, but have merely smoothed the way for Fascism in Italy, Germany, and Austria by causing millions of people to forget that dictatorship, the most extreme form of tyranny, can never lead to social liberation. In Russia, the so-called dictatorship of the proletariat has not led to Socialism, but to the domination of a new bureaucracy over the proletariat and the whole people…What the Russian autocrats and their supporters fear most is that the success of libertarian Socialism in Spain might prove to their blind followers that the much vaunted “necessity of a dictatorship” is nothing but one vast fraud which in Russia has led to the despotism of Stalin and is to serve today in Spain to help the counter-revolution to a victory over the revolution of the workers and peasants.

This anarchist criticism has continued to the present day, and saw a remarkable recent expression in Noam Chomsky's 1986 publication of his article The Soviet Union Versus Socialism:


The Leninist antagonism to the most essential features of socialism was evident from the very start. In revolutionary Russia, Soviets and factory committees developed as instruments of struggle and liberation, with many flaws, but with a rich potential. Lenin and Trotsky, upon assuming power, immediately devoted themselves to destroying the liberatory potential of these instruments, establishing the rule of the Party, in practice its Central Committee and its Maximal Leaders -- exactly as Trotsky had predicted years earlier, as Rosa Luxembourg and other left Marxists warned at the time, and as the anarchists had always understood. Not only the masses, but even the Party must be subject to "vigilant control from above," so Trotsky held as he made the transition from revolutionary intellectual to State priest. Before seizing State power, the Bolshevik leadership adopted much of the rhetoric of people who were engaged in the revolutionary struggle from below, but their true commitments were quite different. This was evident before and became crystal clear as they assumed State power in October 1917.

If you want to depict me as supportive of Leninism, at least be aware of the remarkably disingenuous nature of this association.


When you want to call some one a racist pick a name and call them one. But don't throw ever conservative into the racist camp. In FACT YOU WILL BE WRONG. Parse the facts as finely for racist ideas and conservative idea as do for you do for the shades of communism you espouse and i think well be fine.

These are more assertions, not arguments. I will continue to maintain that rightists have greater potentials to evolve into an explicitly racist position based on their tendency to subconsciously generalize about ethnic minorities because that is a convenient mechanism for categorizing moral offenders together.

They also believe that the degree of response is appropriate to the degree of risk. Since there is considered to be a very serious threat to air travel posed by terrorism, for example, they're supportive of racial profiling of Middle Easterners, simply because of their tendency to generalize. Since illegal immigration is not seen as such a critically serious and obvious threat to national security, they instead insist that profiling mechanisms aren't actually profiling mechanisms, but if the risk was perceived as elevating, they would become supportive of it, since they would generalize that most immigrants were Mesoamerican Indians (though inaccurate terminology would be used). The same generalization already exists in the mind, though.

[jimnyc]

LOL, BoogerCan. If I'm the forum hemorrhoid (learn how to fucking spell), you're the fucking **** wart that's just exploded with the drip, motherfucker.

As most of you know, the "C" word is the one and only censored word on the board. This is why I immediately took notice with the above post. I figured maybe something with the last upgraded made the filtering stop working. I checked and the word is still censored. I then looked at the advanced options when "editing" Ag's post and saw what he did with the "size" feature in order to bypass the filtering system for that word. I think the word is pure filth, it's against the rules obviously by the censor in place, and most importantly - we have plenty of women on the board, many of whom made their wishes known in the past about the use of this word on the board, hence the one and only censored word.

I might have just given him a warning until I saw he purposely bypassed the filter (look at the image below for further understanding of what he did)). 7 days off.

[Gaffer]

Pain free prostate for 7 days, that sounds good. :clap:

[Agnapostate]

As most of you know, the "C" word is the one and only censored word on the board. This is why I immediately took notice with the above post. I figured maybe something with the last upgraded made the filtering stop working. I checked and the word is still censored. I then looked at the advanced options when "editing" Ag's post and saw what he did with the "size" feature in order to bypass the filtering system for that word. I think the word is pure filth, it's against the rules obviously by the censor in place, and most importantly - we have plenty of women on the board, many of whom made their wishes known in the past about the use of this word on the board, hence the one and only censored word.

I might have just given him a warning until I saw he purposely bypassed the filter (look at the image below for further understanding of what he did)). 7 days off.

My comment was a reciprocal one; it was in the context of an exchange in which others chose to initiate vulgar and profane insults, and I merely gave them a taste of their own medicine, finishing what they had started. It stands in stark contrast, for example, to your proclivities to make racially/ethnically bigoted remarks about Indians despite no provocative remarks about your ethnicity on my part.


Notice how there are no indians, spics, blacks... All lily white students. Don't be angry because we excluded your kind.


No beaners, wetbacks, spics or any of your other whining friends. We had a few American Indians, but they whined too and we kicked their asses out of school and made them learn down the road in a little tee-pee with some ugly brown lady. Funny, those idiots now pump my gas and mow my lawn! :coffee:

I guess when you have Admin CP access, you make up your own rules and standards for yourself and different ones for others as you go along. :dunno:

[Pagan]

My comment was a reciprocal one; it was in the context of an exchange in which others chose to initiate vulgar and profane insults, and I merely gave them a taste of their own medicine, finishing what they had started. It stands in stark contrast, for example, to your proclivities to make racially/ethnically bigoted remarks about Indians despite no provocative remarks about your ethnicity on my part.

I guess when you have Admin CP access, you make up your own rules and standards for yourself and different ones for others as you go along. :dunno:

So tell us again Agnus how as you say "anarchism is an explicitly socialist ideolog" http://www.rejecttheherd.net/sites/rejecttheherd.net/files/smileys/rofl.gifhttp://www.rejecttheherd.net/sites/rejecttheherd.net/files/smileys/moon.gif

[Agnapostate]

So tell us again Agnus how as you say "anarchism is an explicitly socialist ideolog" http://www.rejecttheherd.net/sites/rejecttheherd.net/files/smileys/rofl.gifhttp://www.rejecttheherd.net/sites/rejecttheherd.net/files/smileys/moon.gif

I've determined that no one can possibly be this stupid, even you. (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29093-NAACP-launches-coalition-watchdog-site-to-‘monitor’-Tea-Party-‘racists’&p=441586#post441586)

You must just be a troll intending to aggravate, because it's simply not possible for anyone to be this mind-numbingly moronic otherwise.

[jimnyc]

My comment was a reciprocal one; it was in the context of an exchange in which others chose to initiate vulgar and profane insults, and I merely gave them a taste of their own medicine, finishing what they had started. It stands in stark contrast, for example, to your proclivities to make racially/ethnically bigoted remarks about Indians despite no provocative remarks about your ethnicity on my part.

I guess when you have Admin CP access, you make up your own rules and standards for yourself and different ones for others as you go along. :dunno:

You broke a rule of the board, you knew you purposely went around the board filter to do so, which was a clear indicator that the word was a "no no". I'm sorry we have rules, but if they aren't enforced they are useless. Furthermore, it wasn't me who even decided to censor that one and only word, I did so out of respect to many who requested so.

Now, you try and state I did the same. Show me where I broke the rules and I honestly, and promise, I will personally ban myself for the same 7 days you were gone.

[revelarts]

Then by the same token, since all these regimes have espoused a rhetorical commitment to republican democracy (the Union of Soviet Sovialist Republics, the People's Republic of China, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, etc.), you must also be a supporter of dictatorship, since you presumably profess to support republican democracy.



Um right that's the point I was making. It doesn't make sense does it? But your doing it again. Do you realize what your saying? You say you understand the point but your making the error... but...
anyway

However I used Lenin "even" and he did espouse ( that is SAY) similar things about Marxism and communism , early on, as those you quote espoused. But he did, very clearly, in word and action turn away from those ideals or mutate them.


And so in capitalist society we have a democracy that is curtailed, wretched, false, a democracy only for the rich, for the minority. The dictatorship of the proletariat, the period of transition to communism, will for the first time create democracy for the people, for the majority, along with the necessary suppression of the exploiters, of the minority.
Lenin, State and Revolution (1917)


But I will accept your assertion that what you say you believe in is a benign anarchist form of communism. That you admit has only manifested itself for extremely brief moments of time and in areas of typically less than 1 million. 1 million being the exception. Where apparently Human nature did overwhelm it's natural and obvious beneficence.

It seems we do need a college education to find the footnotes in history where the form of communism you espouse has actually been practiced.

But here's an interesting bit in what you've said. Most of the more current people you quoted seemed to have lived mainly in countries that where democratic and capitalistic, am I right, I think so. Chomsky no doubt. And, with all it's warts, they've found more freedom here than in so called communist countries. Now I will be the 2nd or 3rd one to admit that what we have now is seems more like an oligarchy than a constitutional republic with a free capitalistic economy.
But the founders of the U.S. pointed us toward a constitutional republic with a free capitalistic economy and I believe that it's probably the best system we can hope and strive for. (given human nature and all) The anarchistic communism you promote is really to Pollyanna. Capitalism is not perfect and not a self regulating. it needs limits legal, moral and spiritual. But allows for creative and individual freedoms that communism inherently discourages. Unless "commun-"
and "collective-" are somehow meaningless parts of the terminology used.




If you want to depict me as supportive of Leninism, at least be aware of the remarkably disingenuous nature of this association.
[B]their tendency to subconsciously generalize[/COLOR] about ethnic minorities because that is a convenient mechanism for categorizing moral offenders together....



So you want me to realize that a fellow communist is not the same kind of communist as you. Fine.
But you will maintain that I and OTHERS that have conservative views are fetal racist because WE are the ones that "GENERALIZE" groups.


"Maintain" away Agnapostate.

As bad as talking to Hog trash.

[BoogyMan]

So what exactly should the inclination to possess negative stereotypes and images about racial/ethnic minorities to a greater degree than the general population be called, then?

Every group holds negative stereotypes of other groups, only recently has a simple view degenerated into "racism."

Let me, once again, remind you of what racism means.


rac·ism   /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ Show Spelled
[rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA

–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Notice the conspicuous lack of stereotypes in the definition?

[Agnapostate]

You broke a rule of the board, you knew you purposely went around the board filter to do so, which was a clear indicator that the word was a "no no". I'm sorry we have rules, but if they aren't enforced they are useless. Furthermore, it wasn't me who even decided to censor that one and only word, I did so out of respect to many who requested so.

Now, you try and state I did the same. Show me where I broke the rules and I honestly, and promise, I will personally ban myself for the same 7 days you were gone.

And if you had a rule that mandated that all posts be written in pig Latin, I would immediately break that too. As with this rule, there would be no consistent logical basis for it. So, I'll just point out that if you're turning into Miss Manners and getting your panties in a knot about "offensive" language, you might want to consider the anti-minority ethnic slurs and epithets and mockery of Indians next time too. ;)


Um right that's the point I was making. It doesn't make sense does it? But your doing it again. Do you realize what your saying? You say you understand the point but your making the error... but... anyway

I don't know what this incoherence is, but unfortunately, you've not understood the central issue. I've identified similarities between white nationalists and mainline social conservatives on the basis of shared moral ideals. You've identified similarities between me and um, Lenin, on the basis of shared language, but that association is so obviously shallow that it ensnares you along with it. Conversely, the average person wouldn't espouse moral views in line with social conservatives and white nationalists.


However I used Lenin "even" and he did espouse ( that is SAY) similar things about Marxism and communism , early on, as those you quote espoused. But he did, very clearly, in word and action turn away from those ideals or mutate them.

Actually, no, he didn't, since I am not an advocate of Marxism, and he was, and as I said, you've not understood the depth of the connections that I've illustrated.


But I will accept your assertion that what you say you believe in is a benign anarchist form of communism. That you admit has only manifested itself for extremely brief moments of time and in areas of typically less than 1 million. 1 million being the exception.

No, that's completely wrong. For the most significant example, the lower estimates are typically two to three million directly involved workers, and the higher estimates up to eight to ten million indirectly affected persons.


Where apparently Human nature did overwhelm it's natural and obvious beneficence.

This comment is vapid and ambiguous, and lacks any concrete substance. Detail a specific argument, please.


It seems we do need a college education to find the footnotes in history where the form of communism you espouse has actually been practiced.

Or access to Google.


But here's an interesting bit in what you've said. Most of the more current people you quoted seemed to have lived mainly in countries that where democratic and capitalistic, am I right, I think so.

No. I mentioned Kropotkin, Goldman, Rocker, and Chomsky. Kropotkin was imprisoned in czarist Russia as a result of his political activities, and escaped to Western Europe, returning after the abdication of Nicholas II. Goldman was born in Lithuania, and immigrated to the United States, eventually being deported to the USSR because of her dissident activities. Rocker was born in the German Empire, and eventually also immigrated to the U.S. Chomsky is the exception, as you mention.


Chomsky no doubt. And, with all it's warts, they've found more freedom here than in so called communist countries.

That seems a very poor argument, even aside from the fact that you asserted that these people lived in the U.S. without actually fact-checking that claim. Prisoners would find more freedom in Buchenwald than they would in Auschwitz, wouldn't they?


Now I will be the 2nd or 3rd one to admit that what we have now is seems more like an oligarchy than a constitutional republic with a free capitalistic economy.

Good job.


But the founders of the U.S. pointed us toward a constitutional republic with a free capitalistic economy and I believe that it's probably the best system we can hope and strive for. (given human nature and all)

Actually, colonial New England was characterized by a pre-capitalist market economy, since agrarian equity rather than industrialized disparity was the norm at the time. The founders of the U.S., moreover, ranged from republicans to monarchists, and essentially all favored the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population, even when some nations (such as the Iroquois Confederation) had practiced republican democracy long before they had. Even the more "libertarian" founders, such as the slaveholding Jefferson, were appalled by the occurrence of the Haitian Revolution and isolated and ignored the communications of the black administration of the rebel state.


The anarchistic communism you promote is really to Pollyanna. Capitalism is not perfect and not a self regulating. it needs limits legal, moral and spiritual. But allows for creative and individual freedoms that communism inherently discourages. Unless "commun-" and "collective-" are somehow meaningless parts of the terminology used.

There is nothing sillier or more utopian than the dreamy fantasy of "free market capitalism" so often promoted on this board, so it's quite ironic that the concrete examples of what "I promote" are jeered.


So you want me to realize that a fellow communist is not the same kind of communist as you. Fine.

Oh, you can maintain that if you want. And I will maintain that Lenin is your fellow republican while you do.


But you will maintain that I and OTHERS that have conservative views are fetal racist because WE are the ones that "GENERALIZE" groups.

"Maintain" away Agnapostate.

As bad as talking to Hog trash.

It's quite easy to see that the underlying moral conceptual framework is the same. I've quoted the cognitive scientist George Lakoff before on this matter:


Many of the clauses in the Moral Order correspond to forms of bigotry:

The racist clause: Since the dominant culture has been white, whites rank above nonwhites.

The anti-Semitic clause: Since the dominant culture is Christian, Christians rank above Jews.

The jingoist clause: Since this is an American culture where people born here have more power and status than immigrants, those born Americans rank above immigrants.

The homophobe clause: Since heterosexuality is dominant in our culture and homosexuals are stereotyped as weak, heterosexuals rank above homosexuals.

The superpatriot clause: Since America is the dominant country (the only superpower), America ranks above other countries.

[...]

It is important to bear in minds that these define a "moral order." Those higher in the moral order are "better" and have a moral authority over those lower in the hierarchy. So, for instance, if all these clauses are in your hierarchy and if you happen to be a heterosexual white Christian American man, you are "better" than most people in the world.

According to the Moral Order metaphor, a just situation obtains when the Moral Order hierarchy is met in the world, that is, when men do have moral authority and power over women, when parents do have moral authority and power over their children, when human beings do have moral authority and power over nature, and so on. The bigoted clauses include whites having moral authority and power over nonwhites, and so on. In short, the Moral Order is the conceptual mechanism by which assumptions of superiority - and the moral standing of that superiority - are expressed.

The traditional rightist conceptualizes social welfare programs as subsidization of the unproductive, stealing from Peter to give to Paul, which is morally objectionable because Paul's laziness and lack of personal responsibility landed him in poverty in the first place. Violations of the law are also ethical failings, and ascription of the causes of crime to environmental conditions such as poverty are considered attempts to protect criminals and blame victims, and again, the lack of personal responsibility entailed is morally objectionable. So, for example, since blacks are perceived by rightists as especially prone to usage of various social welfare programs and higher crime rates, the natural consequence of this mindset is that they lack personal responsibility and moral guidelines to a greater extent than whites, with this either being caused explicitly by their genetic predisposition (the Stormfront position), or their perverse and criminal culture of rap and glorification of the illicit (the social rightist position).

These generalizing tendencies occur because rightists are more inclined to rely on their emotional reactions and intuitions than liberals and leftists are, as documented in Inbar et al.'s Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals (http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a794011402), which notes that, "The uniquely human emotion of disgust is intimately connected to morality in many, perhaps all, cultures (Rozin, Lowery, Imada, & Haidt, 1999b). We report two studies suggesting that a predisposition to feel disgust (“disgust sensitivity”) is associated with more conservative political attitudes, especially for issues related to the moral dimension of purity. In the first study, we document a positive correlation between disgust sensitivity and self-reported conservatism in a broad sample of US adults. In Study 2 we show that while disgust sensitivity is associated with more conservative attitudes on a range of political issues, this relationship is strongest for purity-related issues—specifically, abortion and gay marriage." An example of that phenomenon can be seen in an average rightist's belligerent and emotional response to my mention of Lakoff and presentation of his ideas:


Why do you think anyone would give a crap what that shithead wrote?

And you know what? Heterosexuals DO rank above the queers. We were not the ones who chose to live a life of perversion, or born with an abnormality, depending on which liberal yoke you ask.

And you're right, thinking that the queers are in any way equal to us normal people IS distasteful.

Since the study on the tea party directly has been ignored, we can focus on the connection between white racist sentiments and advocacy of rightist policies. Consider Roemer's Racism and redistribution in the United States: A solution to the problem of American exceptionalism (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V76-4H80STF-1&_user=10&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=813063715e970502b1e81cfb3d267727&searchtype=a):


The two main political parties in the United States in the period 1976–1992 put forth policies on redistribution and on issues pertaining directly to race. We argue that redistributive politics in the US can be fully understood only by taking account of the interconnection between these issues in political competition. We identify two mechanisms through which racism among American voters decreases the degree of redistribution that would otherwise obtain. In common with others, we suggest that voter racism decreases the degree of redistribution due to an anti-solidarity effect: that (some) voters oppose government transfer payments to minorities whom they view as undeserving. We suggest a second effect as well: that some voters who desire redistribution nevertheless vote for the anti-redistributive (Republican) party because its position on the race issue is more consonant with their own, and this, too, decreases the degree of redistribution in political equilibrium. This we name the policy bundle effect. We propose a formal model of multi-dimensional political competition that enables us to estimate the magnitude of these two effects, and estimate the model for the period in question. We compute that voter racism reduced the income tax rate by 11–18% points; the total effect decomposes about equally into the two sub-effects. We also find that the Democratic vote share is 5–38% points lower than it would have been, absent racism. The magnitude of this effect would seem to explain the difference between the sizes of the public sector in the US and northern European countries.

Another example is Ayers et al.'s Is Immigration a Racial Issue? Anglo Attitudes on Immigration Policies in a Border County (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00633.x/abstract):


Objective: This study assesses the association between Anglo aversion to Latinos, physical proximity to Latinos, and contact with ethnic minorities, with expressed preferences for immigration policies.

Methods: Data were drawn from a telephone survey of San Diego County, California, residents ( N=549 Anglos) using random-digit-dial procedures during 2005–2006 that was conducted by closely supervised professional interviewers. Descriptive reports, tau-b correlations, and multivariate logistic regressions were used for analysis.

Results: Aversion to Latinos, as indicated by an adaptation of the Bogardus social distance scale, was related to more restrictionist attitudes about legal and Mexican immigration. Associations increased when respondents were primed to consider Mexican immigration, although aversion to Latinos was not related to attitudes about amnesty for undocumented persons. Contrary to some previous findings, proximity to Latino populations increased opposition to legal immigration and amnesty. Reported minority contact had minimal impact but increased support for amnesty.

Conclusions: Attitudes about immigration may be motivated more by racial resentments than other considerations. Future research should identify racial factors that influence Anglo policy positions beyond the classic Anglo/African division that has dominated this research arena.

Immigration is interesting because it's an example of a demographic trend that white populists consider threatening to them, and a sign that they will become a minority group, which many of them fear. They therefore equate their white supremacist ideas with civil rights ideas.


No I have not posted at stormfront, but I did go there and look around, I only looked threw quick but I didn't see lynchings or any other kind of serious hate, my question is why are we attacking a group of whites that are proud of there race and not attacking say the black panthers? I read on one site about hate groups where the blacks are the most dangerous cause the media will actually give them time

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t741541/#post8504776


Only Whites can be racist. That's no joke, it is the accepted academic definition of "racism".

So it is no use protesting that other races are obviously "racist" - that would be true only according to a long-discredited definition of the term. It is in fact racist for Whites to accuse anyone except Whites of racism.

Racism is a moral crime assigned to only one race, the White race, and arises from the belief that races exist in the first place - a belief which can be excused, even encouraged among the downtrodden and oppressed non-White non-existent races, but must be condemned and vilified among Whites.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t741541/#post8504782


It's funny that the government has all these ethnic commitees and entitlement groups to watch over the perpetrating so called racism of whites yet no such commitee exists to watch over the racism commited against whites.

We have all these different ethnic political parties in the government for every race but no such such ethnic political party that exists to promote white interests.

At the core is a fallacious equivalence between white nationalist and black or other non-white nationalist movements, when the former sort are intended to maintain a hierarchical dominance (the role of an artificially constructed "white" ethnic group has typically been the oppression of others), while the latter sort are oppressed people joining together because they've shared common experiences of injustice and seek to collectively resist them. Since "whites" have not undergone collective oppression in the U.S. (while individual "white" ethnic groups have), there is no basis for parallel organization on their part. Regardless, the fallacy of equivalence is still present:


Does the hypocrisy and outright dishonesty of this not entertain?

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t741541/#post8504600


Sort of the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it?

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t741541/#post8505237


The NAACP claiming that only they can spot racism and are the overseer, judge and prosecutors of racism only implies that they are racist as well. They will never admit it, but they are racist and have their own supremacy which, in fact, is more widely noticed than any other forms of racism... Funny, this is not noticed or pointed out in any way.

No no, not "funny", Pathetic might be a better word for that.

What follows is a claim that the application of the "racist" label is merely an attempt to silence political opposition:


Anyone who is against democrats is a racist to them, so they won't have any trouble finding racists in the population. If they do a good job they may be offered a position with the government and can do it on an official basis. Let's get those jack boots shined up pretty.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t741541/#post8507796


This is an attempt to buffalo the Tea Party into toeing the multicults globalist line; and it is good that this has happened, as it will make pointing out ethnic favoritism so much easier. It will also grease the skids for a ethnic revival among Whites in the lower and middle income brackets.

Basically any portion of the Tea Party that is not willing to keep things exactly as they are, or that do not want 'progressive' --which in PC means minority favored change--changes in the 'dialog' -- which means lecture to Whites -- will be extremist and racist.

An insistence that the definition of the term "racist" has been deliberately modified to serve a "liberal" agenda of inhibiting "racial" dialogue is usually present:


That would be because liberals (you included) have so misused the term "racist" that it actually has no meaning any longer.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t696224/#post7969136


Of course, from the liberal side, the only thing they can throw out is the "race card," so therefore they will keep using the label of "racist" against the tea partiers. "Racist" is really the only rhetorical weapon the liberals have in their arsenal, and since they disingenuously overuse that label as much as they do, even that is starting to lose its power.

Instead of mindlessly throwing around labels like "racist," liberals might actually have to make real, genuine arguments in the future - something they've proven incapable of doing. They've come to rely so much on calling people "racist" to get their way, they use it mostly as a crutch these days.

Specific "racist" non-white organizations are usually named as guilty parties, in this case the NAACP:


If someone started a website to monitor NAACP racists, it would grow bigger than fucking Facebook.

By it's very nature, the NAACP is racist.

Tell me every liberal on the planet wouldn't shit their pants if, say Hog started an organization called the National Association for the Advancement of White People.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t741541/#post8516956


If a National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP) were to put out a statement saying that they intended to monitor the Black Panther party for racism, a couple of things would happen.

First, they would not be taken seriously. Secondly, to neutralize their possible effect on ordinary Americans who might, on their own, take them seriously, there would be a massive campaign by groups such as the ADL, the SPLC, and the NAACP to denounce them as a lunatic fringe of racist, bigoted, nutjobs.

The fact is, only White people and White groups are ever seriously pursued and persecuted for being racist. Anti-racist is just a codeword for anti-White. If you are anti-racist, you are anti-White. And if you are anti-White, you are pro-White-genocide; there is no middle ground.

Continuing with the fallacy of equivalence, there are usually suggestions that the accused racists should themselves monitor the "real" racists in the non-white movements:


I think the tea party should do the same back. "Watch" these jackasses for incidents of racism....that would be hilarious to give em a taste of their own medicine.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t741541/#post8507796


I think we should just encourage the Tea Party Movement to "monitor" the NAACP for racism...umm, I mean "racial prejudice and hostility". These Minutemen, Tea Party,etc, types need to hit the marxists back with some of their own medicine.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t741541/#post8505130


So who's going to monitor the NAACP for racism and other forms of extremism in the its movement?

(Notice the lack of quotation marks around racism.)

In more specific terms than mere reference to organizations, non-white individuals are named as "racists" that are not identified except by brave white crusaders:


WELL that wouldn't be too hard.every time Grease Ball Al or Jesse Jackass open their mouths it's RACIST

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t64788/#post429747


Louis Farrakhan, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc. Farrakhan has made it a point on several occasions to call Whites the 'devil'. No! That's not racist.....geez

Farrakhan seems to be a particularly popular target:


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01433/farra_1433008c.jpg


Oh I don't argue that he's got some white in him. That doesn't make him any less of a racist, his quotes prove that.


simply trying to stay on topic.

I find it interresting that you regard this
as an accurate discription of white people, but not racist. Says a lot about the kind of person you are.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t741541/#post8504600


What is disgusting is that this is the same organization that had the notorious Louis Farrakhan as the headliner at the NAACP Unity Summit in 1997 as well as the equally well known Jeremiah Wright address a NAACP Freedom Fund in 2008 where he received a standing ovation.

It's an example of parallel patterns of speech and opinion based on commonly held moral views. I'm not really sure how much evidence shoved in your face you are willing to reject. If you're determined to adhere to your preconceived dogma regardless of facts to the contrary, not much can be done. :dunno:


Every group holds negative stereotypes of other groups, only recently has a simple view degenerated into "racism."

Let me, once again, remind you of what racism means.

Notice the conspicuous lack of stereotypes in the definition?

It's a sad sign when you refer to the dictionary to try to convince me that the hick complaining about the cheap stingy Jews and the lazy blacks is not really any kind of "racist" at all. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that this might be because you might tell a gutbusting "ethnic" joke or two at the dinner table and want reassurances that there's nothing "racist" about it.

[revelarts]

Anapostate
Like Hogtrash, you make a 1/2 a point or now and then, but your not quite rational buddy.

[BoogyMan]

It's a sad sign when you refer to the dictionary to try to convince me that the hick complaining about the cheap stingy Jews and the lazy blacks is not really any kind of "racist" at all. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that this might be because you might tell a gutbusting "ethnic" joke or two at the dinner table and want reassurances that there's nothing "racist" about it.

I am pointing out the people of your stripe have destroyed the meaning of racism by claiming nearly any and all opposition to be racism. The funny part is that you try to tie the nutjobs at StormFront to the TEA party in doing so while whinging about stereotypes. Words mean things and if you don't get that, maybe you should spend some time with the dictionary yourself.

[Agnapostate]

Anapostate
Like Hogtrash, you make a 1/2 a point or now and then, but your not quite rational buddy.

I disagree, considering that I ended the exchange with extensive citation of arguments and evidence, and you just clung to your preconceived notions regardless.


I am pointing out the people of your stripe have destroyed the meaning of racism by claiming nearly any and all opposition to be racism.

I'd say that the majority of my online dialogue is conducted with avowed "racialists," because there's obviously little opportunity for a non-white person like me to converse with them IRL. If my general approach was to call opponents "racists," the general response would be, "Yeah...so?"


The funny part is that you try to tie the nutjobs at StormFront to the TEA party in doing so while whinging about stereotypes. Words mean things and if you don't get that, maybe you should spend some time with the dictionary yourself.

These are not arguments. They're just vague contradictions of my comments.