http://www.amren.com/995issue/995issue.html#article1

The curious beginnings of a useless word.

by Samuel Francis


According to the second edition (1989) of the OED, the earliest known usage of the word “racism” in English occurred in a 1936 book by the American “fascist,” Lawrence Dennis, The Coming American Fascism. The second usage of the term in English that the OED records is in the title of a book originally written in German in 1933 and 1934 but translated into English and first published in 1938–Racism by Magnus Hirschfeld, translated by Eden and Cedar Paul. Since Hirschfeld died in 1935, before the publication of Dennis’ book the following year, and had already used the word extensively in the text and title of his own book, it seems only fair to recognize him rather than Dennis as the originator of the word “racism.” In the case of the word “racist” as an adjective, the OED ascribes the first known usage to Hirschfeld himself. Who was Magnus Hirschfeld and what did he have to tell us about “racism”?

Magnus Hirschfeld (1868-1935) was a German-Jewish medical scientist whose major work was in the field of what came to be known as “sexology”–the scientific study of sex. Like Havelock Ellis in England and Alfred Kinsey in the United States, Hirschfeld was not only among the first to collect systematic information about sexuality but also was an apostle of sexual “liberation.” His major work was a study of homosexuality, but he also published many other books, monographs, and articles dealing with sex. He wrote a five-volume treatise on “sexology” as well as some 150 other works and helped write and produce five films on the subject.

It is clear that Magnus Hirschfeld himself harbored deep ideological, professional, and personal animosities against those to whom he applied the word, and those animosities may have extended to the entire society that throughout his career he associated with sexual repression and which he wanted replaced by a kind of global communism under the label of “Pan-Humanism.” Whatever the flaws or virtues of his polemic against “racism,” his own opposition to racial consciousness was neither entirely rational nor disinterested. It is time that the enemies of racial, national, and cultural consciousness like Hirschfeld and the Frankfurt School cease to be able to claim a monopoly on rationality and sanity and that the obsessions and motivations that seem to shape their own ideologies and political behavior be subjected to the same scrutiny they apply to the societies and peoples whom their thinking could destroy.

Thanks for the information. I had not heard of Lawrence Dennis before.

What the word's useful for is describing your perspective on race relations; i.e. the fact you believe American Rennaisance is a credible authoritative source, for example.

American Renaissance is not the authoritative source.

"Samuel Francis is a syndicated columnist." - perhaps you didn't read as far as that. He is open and available to be contacted through his website at http://www.samfrancis.net/, if you question the veracity of any of his sources. He is quite a distinguished writer and is more often than not assumed as a credible authoritative source, but don't let that stop you.

Do you dispute any of the facts and their interpretations within the article?

Oh and by all means, outline why American Renaissance is not a credible source for us here.

Oh and by all means, outline why American Renaissance is not a credible source for us here.

Why? Because AmRen is a cesspool of bigotry, white supremacy, and neo-fascism: (from the Institute for Study of Academic Racism site)

"White Nationalists Seek Respectability in Meeting of "Uptown Bad Guys"

By JONATHAN TILOVE

April 1 was Census Day, the moment the 2000 census was supposed to capture, marking the first census of a century that promises by its mid-point to record a United States that is less than half white. By coincidence, it was also opening day for a conference of some 200 white men and a handful of white women who are appalled at that prospect and astonished by the apparent willingness of most whites to let it happen. "We've lost the ability to say 'us' or 'we.' Most whites simply cannot bring themselves to say, 'This is our culture, this is our nation and it belongs to us and no one else,''' declared Jared Taylor, the charismatic convener of the fourth biennial American Renaissance Conference, named for the publication that he edits.

Attendees suffered no such lip-lock. The conference brought some of the leading intellectual and political lights of the white far right to the Sheraton Hotel in this planned community a traffic jam from the nation's capital. For two days, they talked to one another in tones by turn defiant and despairing of the demographic changes threatening white dominance in America and the West, and their determination to rally dormant white racial consciousness to turn back that day-or at least to go down in history as those who dared curse the twilight of white primacy...

They talked about an America that they believe once was and ever ought to be a white, European-American nation. Theirs would be a nation bound by blood and sanctified by the genetic scientists who appeared before them as a place where white people might rightly prevail over the black and brown people; a nation where what they consider the natural hierarchy might finally triumph over what they count as the false promise of egalitarianism.

In the words of Samuel Francis, an influential writer and one of its leading ideologists, theirs is "a movement that rejects equality as an ideal and insists on an enduring core of human nature transmitted by heredity.''
This is, of course, many giant steps outside the modern American political mainstream. For the weekend, the Sheraton was a place where racial diversity was denigrated and John Rocker- "the one sane man in sports,'' Taylor said - was celebrated. But, with the exception of a handful of protesters who showed up on the eve of the conference, the broader world barely took notice.

To the faithful in attendance, and to those who warily watch their progress, the American Renaissance Conference represents a notable coming together of previously disparate forces under the banner of white nationalism. Its numbers may be small, but its wingspan stretches from the outskirts of politics and academia to the far reaches of the racist right. And, under Taylor's tutelage, it is a movement endeavoring to subvert stock stereotypes. Like a Nietzschean Henry Higgins, Taylor, who was raised in Japan by liberal Presybterian missionary parents, is trying to create a respectable and presentable white racial nationalism...

Taylor is a graduate of Yale University and the Paris Institute of Political Studies. And he noted that among the featured speakers, only he and Sam Dickson, a fire-breathing Atlanta attorney who closed out the event with an assault on "multiculturalism and race-mixing,'' lacked a Ph.D. The others included academics from the United States, Canada and Great Britain, and the second-in-command of the right-wing French National Front...

At the first conference in Atlanta in 1994, David Duke, who showed up at the hotel, agreed to remain outside the meetings, lest his toxic celebrity poison the infant effort. Duke attended this year, fresh from a bracing appearance at a Richmond shopping mall where he encouraged whites to buy at stores being boycotted by blacks protesting the county's designation of April as Confederate Heritage Month. At the conference, Duke was received politely but accorded no special attention...

"The way I see the American Renaissance is these are the academics, the intellectuals who are trying to lay the foundation for a third system of racism,'' (ISAR director Dr. Barry) Mehler said. But, he added, their day is done: "They are flat earth people.'' Chip Berlet, who tracks right-wing groups with Political Research Associates in Somerville, Mass., uses another word for white racial nationalism: "It's fascism.''

Taylor sees himself as merely espousing racial views that any white American of substance and power would have held before the 1950s. And to him, research by the likes of J. Philippe Rushton, the controversial University of Western Ontario professor who spoke at this and past conferences, proves that those views are in fact correct. Rushton has been pilloried by many academics for his contention that whites on average have larger brains than blacks and Asians have larger brains than whites - simple facts, he said, that have been made to disappear for political reasons. (Taylor concedes Asians the bigger brains, but not a claim to American identity.)

In his remarks, Sam Dickson conceded that some of the Founding Fathers inserted universalist language into the original documents that folks like Abraham Lincoln could later use to distort what Dickson considers America's real mission to truly be a new England.

"All men are not created equal,'' Dickson said. He believes that a nation founded on a common peoplehood can be tolerant of difference, while one founded on ideas like equality cannot be tolerant of those who don't subscribe to those ideas. Dickson said he would be willing to move to New England to permit the creation of a separate black nation in the South .

To Dickson's bad-cop white nationalism, Taylor plays the good cop - presenting his views in as plain-spoken and, considering the content, unthreatening a manner as possible. He noted that ethnic and racial conflict was the rule throughout history and the world. "The Serbs,'' he said, "have not yet learned that diversity is a strength...''

"For much of the next generation race and racial issues are going to be the major issues around which politics revolves,'' said Francis, a syndicated columnist and editor in chief of the Citizens Informer, the paper associated with the Council of Conservative Citizens

"As non-whites increasingly invade the country through immigration and the racial balance runs against whites, we will see an increasing level of interracial violence directed against whites, an increasing level of discrimination and outright persecution of whites for any challenge or resistance to non-white domination, and an increasing level of barbarization of our culture as immigrant and indigenous non-whites challenge and replace white civilization...'' A gene's first mission is to create more genes. How, then, have whites lost ground?

It is a puzzle that Taylor said confounds him. He ran through the various theories, all of which he considers inadequate. Maybe it was the terrible white fratricide of two world wars, or the universalist message of Christianity. Maybe it is the Jews, he said, to a small burst of applause.What is certain, he said, is "a terrible loss of confidence that has afflicted whites all around the world - a loss of confidence so profound that it begins to border on self-loathing. "It makes this, I believe, one of the most dangerous and potentially fatal periods in our history as a people. ... Never, ever, has a people welcomed dispossession. It's against human nature. It's against all history, and to bring something as radically, radically sick as that about .. "Maybe it's something in our genes, for heaven's sake,'' Taylor surmised. "I'd hate to think that.'' "

ISAR link (http://www.ferris.edu/isar/Institut/amren/wnational.htm)




.

Okay... so your arguement against the credibility American Renaissance consists of a political denounciation of their attempts to make their views more presentable. I see.

You're not talking to a council of antiracist activists here, you know; you can't simply label them as bigots, white supremacists, neofascists and be done with it. If this is all you have to say, you've thoroughly embarassed yourself, and by extention the antiracist community.

If you'd like to brush off this article without examining the facts, you must do the following:

1) Address the credibility of Sam Francis
2) Address the credibility of the American Renaissance website, ie that it is likely information presented on it is misrepresented. It is not the authoritative source, remember.
3) Explain how "racism" and bigotry can invalidate a collection of historical facts

Note that "racists" can be highly credible people, like everyone else.

Also, you're not supposed to post documents as long as that in the middle of a thread, you should link them.

Okay... so your arguement against the credibility American Renaissance consists of a political denounciation of their attempts to make their views more presentable. I see.
- Making their views "more presentable," as opposed to reforming their bigotry, doesn't exactly qualify as an olive branch I should be impressed by.

You're not talking to a council of antiracist activists here, you know; you can't simply label them as bigots, white supremacists, neofascists and be done with it. If this is all you have to say, you've thoroughly embarassed yourself, and by extention the antiracist community.
- Bull****: the individuals quoted made their racist, white supremacist views quite clear. The fact that David Duke's hanging around isn't particularly favorable on their part either, although, of course, guilt by association isn't a valid charge.

If you'd like to brush off this article without examining the facts, you must do the following:

1) Address the credibility of Sam Francis
- He did a perfectly good job in the above article himself: he's a white supremacist who personally favors repatriating blacks to a extra-national state within U.S. territorial boundaries that he's willing to move to accomodate.

2) Address the credibility of the American Renaissance website
- Once again, they did so themselves: they're a bunch of bigots who feel that blacks are "mongrelizing" the white gene pool and favor fascist solutions to what they perceive is a "race problem." Taylor himself is more than willing to consider "the Jews" as the cause of this dilemma, on the basis of his statements in the article, which were made to substantial applause, I might add. That's exactly what you would have seen in Berlin 1942.

3) Explain how "racism" and bigotry can invalidate a collection of historical facts
a) It makes the accuracy of their facts questionable and untrustworthy: bigots are the least reliable of people with regard to their targeted outgroups, as that's in fact one of the definitions of bigotry.
b) It undermines the credibility of their interpretations, and facts always have to be interpreted

Note that racists can be highly credible people, like everyone else.
- With regards to some issues, perhaps, but not within the boundaries of their prejudice.

Also, you're not supposed to post documents as long as that in the middle of a thread, you should link them.
- No, you're not supposed to quote documents in their entirety. I edited the article significantly.

- Making their views "more presentable," as opposed to reforming their bigotry, doesn't exactly qualify as an olive branch I should be impressed by.
Why does this matter?

- Bull****: the individuals quoted made their racist, white supremacist views quite clear. The fact that David Duke's hanging around isn't particularly favorable on their part either, although, of course, guilt by association isn't a valid charge.
You're right, guilt by association is not valid, especially without any charge to begin with.

- He did a perfectly good job in the above article himself: he's a white supremacist who personally favors repatriating blacks to a extra-national state within U.S. territorial boundaries that he's willing to move to accomodate.
Translation: his ideas do not mesh with your fragile worldview. You have not addressed his credibility.

- Once again, they did so themselves: they're a bunch of bigots who feel that blacks are "mongrelizing" the white gene pool and favor fascist solutions to what they perceive is a "race problem." Taylor himself is more than willing to consider "the Jews" as the cause of this dilemma, on the basis of his statements in the article, which were made to substantial applause, I might add. That's exactly what you would have seen in Berlin 1942.
Boohoo, some people don't like having blacks reproducing in their country. For those people, it is a race problem. This is not a credibility issue.

Nor is it like something "you would have seen in Berlin 1942". The situation is so entirely different I don't know where to begin addressing such an absurd comparison.

a) It makes the accuracy of their facts questionable and untrustworthy: bigots are the least reliable of people with regard to their targeted outgroups, as that's in fact one of the definitions of bigotry.
On the contrary, bigots are some of the most reliable people as they are steadfast and firm in their beliefs. As well, their target audiences are clear and they know how to effectively address them.

b) It undermines the credibility of their interpretations, and facts always have to be interpreted
... Is this an incomplete thought, or...?

- With regards to some issues, perhaps, but not within the boundaries of their prejudice.
Not all "racists" are prejudiced. The use of the word in this way is very much a prejudice in itself.

So, I suppose you won't be addressing the contents of the article? Unless you'd like to make another attempt at discrediting the source, I will assume you accept defeat.

Why does this matter?
- Because you implied that I was unfairly criticizing these scumbags for "just trying to make their message more presentable." However, making their despicable, evil message of white supremacy more "presentable"; i.e., more crypto-fascist, instead of forthrightly genocidal, doesn't qualify as something worthy of additional respect.


You're right, guilt by association is not valid, especially without any charge to begin with.
- The charge is that they're a steaming heap of vile, neofascist filth, which, of course, they are. In this particular case, the fact of David Duke's malevolent presence is unfair to hold against them - although the article does mention that this particular hatefest was the first Duke wasn't specifically requested to stay away from.

Translation: his ideas do not mesh with your fragile worldview. You have not addressed his credibility.
- Translation: "Please, please, please ignore my blatant racism, sick-making antisemitism, Holocaust denial, discredited eugenics, and endless bogus rationalizations for outright gutter bigotry - I speak in polysyllables and spell American words like "color" and "flavor" with a U, just like people from Europe, so I can't be a third-rate Archie Bunker with a paper-thin facade of florid pseudo-intellectuality! - please just pretend my vindictive arguments for racial segregation and obvious enthusiasm for infamous hate groups are the refined, worldly sentiments of a cultured sophisticate, and not the simple, ignorant disgust for people with differently colored skin, and rigid, irrational contempt for social outgroups of a guy in a hood lynching a sharecropper outside a trailer park."

Boohoo, some people don't like having blacks reproducing in their country. For those people, it is a race problem. This is not a credibility issue.
- The fact that you believe that is a good indication of your credibility

Nor is it like something "you would have seen in Berlin 1942". The situation is so entirely different I don't know where to begin addressing such an absurd comparison.
- You might want to start with an explanation of how a notorious academic racist pontificating about how the Jews are responsible for the genetic degredation of the white race is "so entirely different" than a Nazi rally "you don't know where to begin."


On the contrary, bigots are some of the most reliable people as they are steadfast and firm in their beliefs.
- No, they're generally so rigid and conterfactual about their beliefs they'll swallow any implausibilty or logical contradiction no matter how obvious just to maintain them despite even the most overwhelming of evidence, as you're living proof.

As well, their target audiences are clear and they know how to effectively address them.
- i.e., know just what psychological buttons to press to evoke malicious resentment.


Not all "racists" are prejudiced. The use of the word in this way is very much a prejudice in itself.
- By definition, all racists are prejudiced, since they believe in the need to separate themselves from literally every individual belonging to another race to prevent some unknown great harm on the basis of no evidence other than the color of their skin.

Luh, thanks for the article.
From the article: "The Oxford English Dictionary is a multivolume reference work that is one of Western scholarship’s most remarkable achievements–the standard dictionary of the English language on what are known as 'historical principles.' Unlike most dictionaries, the OED also provides information on the first historical appearance and usage of words. The range of the erudition in the OED is often astounding, but for AR readers, one of its most interesting entries is for the word 'racism.'"

Sam Francis is 100% correct on this one. Kamandi, what is your argument about other than hatred of people with which you disagree?

Why? Because AmRen is a cesspool of bigotry, white supremacy, and neo-fascism: (from the Institute for Study of Academic Racism site)


ISAR does not seem to me to be in any sense objective. They seem every bit as slanted as AmRen.

In fact, they're unabashed in their attitude:


http://www.ferris.edu/isar/isar_net.htm

The Institute encourages an activist approach to understanding. It challenges students to advance the cause of social justice by countering the intellectual and ideological foundations of prejudice. ISAR's goal is to engage students in projects that result in both a lasting contribution to human knowledge as well as real and immediate social change. One such project organized by students at the University of Hawaii -- a study of Stanley Porteus (1883-1972), a psychologist and academic advocate of segregation and apartheid, resulted in a unanimous vote by the UH Board of Regents in April, 1998 to de-name Porteus Hall. The project involved an educational campaign aimed at the campus community as well as the creation of an on-line archive of permanent historical value. Students learned not only academic and political skills, they learned how to use their academic skills to bring about real social change.


Smells like pseudoscholarship of the worst sort to me. True believers masquerading as academics, pushing "real" social change, to "advance" the cause of social justice, etc. I have nothing against advocacy groups, but I have a big problem with a group pretending to be something other than it actually is. Why should I not think that this group is anything other than a political action committee pursuing an agenda? And in a dishonest fashion? I hope they receive no funding from taxpayers, as they're clearly not interested in objective research.

Moreover, I'm no fan of Jared Taylor, but your characterization of him and his organization as "white supremacist" is downright silly, unless you can twist the definition to fit someone not the slightest bit anti-Semitic. The average poster at a place like Stormfront despises Taylor and his group.

From Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary:

Main Entry: white supremacy
Function: noun
Date: 1867
: a doctrine based on a belief in the inherent superiority of the white race over the black race and the correlative necessity for the subordination of blacks to whites in all relationships

Can you support your allegation that AmRen is a "white supremacist" organization based on this accepted definition or do you just use this term to promote hostility of organizations, facts and opinions that you do not support?

Don't mind Kamandi Levine - he/she/it/ is just trying out he/she/it's latest judeoleftist buzz phrases.

The Coming American Fascism
http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/dennis/dennis_index.html

The average poster at a place like Stormfront despises Taylor and his group.
I've been reading Strormfront for a while and do not get the impression that Taylor is "despised". In fact Stormfront founder Don Black promoted and attended (along with many Stormfront senior members) Jared Taylor's 2004 American Renaissance Conference.

As an aside, Trotsky uses the term "racism" several times in this article. If I am reading the notes at the top correctly, it seems to be claiming publication in English in October 1933, which would beat the other claim by a few years. However, the wording is a bit unclear, and it is also not clear to me that what they're showing here is the version that appeared in 1933. Still, it may predate the other.



http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1930-ger/330610.htm

The theory of race, specially created, it seems, for some pretentious self-educated individual seeking a universal key to all the secrets of life, appears particularly melancholy in the light of the history of ideas. In order to create the religion of pure German blood, Hitler was obliged to borrow at second hand the ideas of racism from a Frenchman, Count Gobineau, [4] a diplomat and a literary dilettante. Hitler found the political methodology ready-made in Italy, where Mussolini had borrowed largely from the Marxist theory of the class struggle. Marxism itself is the fruit of union among German philosophy, French history, and British economics. To investigate retrospectively the genealogy of ideas, even those most reactionary and muddleheaded, is to leave not a trace of racism standing.

I've been reading Strormfront for a while and do not get the impression that Taylor is "despised". In fact Stormfront founder Don Black promoted and attended (along with many Stormfront senior members) Jared Taylor's 2004 American Renaissance Conference.

Don Black happens to own a WN internet forum, he is not representative of all WN or even any WN. He's an individual.

Taylor is broadly disliked by internet WN because of his statement that Jews are 'White' and welcome in AmREN. Real WN like him because he is mainstream and gets the message out.

So there are two schools of thought.

I've been reading Strormfront for a while and do not get the impression that Taylor is "despised". In fact Stormfront founder Don Black promoted and attended (along with many Stormfront senior members) Jared Taylor's 2004 American Renaissance Conference.

Do a search under Muad Dib's (sp?, but I'm sure you know who I mean) name for Jared Taylor. IIRC, I think this is what got his (Muad Dib's) panties in a bunch:



http://www.amren.com/video/transcript2.html

DONAHUE: How are you with the Jews? Are you OK, the Jews?

TAYLOR: The Jews? The Jews are fine by me.

DONAHUE: And so Jews can live in your neighborhood and to go your cocktail party with all those good looking people?

TAYLOR: They look white to me.

How are you with the jews?

DONAHUE: Did you not -- you take money from Pioneer -- from the Pioneer Fund, do you not?

TAYLOR: We have received...

DONAHUE: The Pioneer Fund is famous for denying the Holocaust. You don't do that, do you?

TALYOR: No.

DONAHUE: Do you believe Holocaust existed?

TALYOR: Look, as I said, my racial views have nothing to with European history. They are strictly about America.

DONAHUE: Do you believe the Holocaust existed?

TAYLOR: Of course. Obviously, Hitler was trying to do away with the Jews of Europe.


I cite Muad Dib only because I remember the thread, but I'm confident I could find others. The above certainly seems to me like it would get a Jared Taylor confined to the "opposing views" section, as I remember the place. But perhaps it has changed? I got bored with the place a long time ago. (As a non-racist it is hard to stay interested in 14/88, blah, blah, blah, even to debate against.) But prove me wrong and I'll cheerfully admit my error.

I'm also fairly sure that Taylor has had Jewish scholars speak at his conferences, which would also put a big divide between a Taylor and Stormfronter.

ISAR does not seem to me to be in any sense objective. They seem every bit as slanted as AmRen.
- If you morally equate fascism with anti-fascism, and not if you don't.

Smells like pseudoscholarship of the worst sort to me. True believers masquerading as academics, pushing "real" social change, to "advance" the cause of social justice, etc.
- What evidence do you have that this is "pseudo-scholarship," and exactly what's wrong with pursuing "social justice," unless you believe in social injustice?

I have nothing against advocacy groups, but I have a big problem with a group pretending to be something other than it actually is. Why should I not think that this group is anything other than a political action committee pursuing an agenda? And in a dishonest fashion? I hope they receive no funding from taxpayers, as they're clearly not interested in objective research.
- What evidence do you have for these statements, and how have they done anything "dishonest?" It sounds like nothing other than your prejudice. Even if they did have an agenda, there's certainly nothing wrong in exposing fascism and intolerance, and unless you have some evidence that their presentation is flawed, you're not justified in this criticism.

They aren't "pretending" to be something they're not, as even in the above description they clearly declare both their scholarship and their activism. Nor is there anything inherently dishonest about the combination of scholarship and activism, otherwise Nazi's favorite Jew, Noam Chomsky would also be guilty of such "dishonesty." If you don't have some example of provably inaccurate statements or faulty scholarship on their part, YOU'RE dishonest and pretending to be something you're not.

Moreover, I'm no fan of Jared Taylor, but your characterization of him and his organization as "white supremacist" is downright silly, unless you can twist the definition to fit someone not the slightest bit anti-Semitic. The average poster at a place like Stormfront despises Taylor and his group.

- a) White supremacy doesn't necessarily have to be antisemitic in the first place, since most Jews have white skin. The Nazis were prejudiced against Jews, but there's no a priori reason why all white racists have to be.

b) Apparently you didn't bother to read the thread, because, when trying to explain why white dominance in the United States has "lost ground" at the AmRen conference described in the article posted, Taylor specifically stated his belief that it "might be the Jews," and got huge applause. That doesn't really sound like the thought processes of someone "not the least bit antisemitic," or the proceedings of a group to which the application of the label "white supremacist" would be "silly."

c) The fact that Stormfront posters might despise the group doesn't prove anything, as many such posters also despise the Klu Klux Klan for being disorganized, illiterate hicks that make other white racists "look bad" in their minds. To such radical kids, a group that puts up a facade of scientific objectivity to maintain respectability are wimps and they're unlikely to respect them.

If AmRen was really so generally despised among white supremacists, David Duke certainly wouldn't be making public appearances there, we can assume, let alone do so in spite of their reluctance at being associated with him.

From Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary:

Main Entry: white supremacy
Function: noun
Date: 1867
: a doctrine based on a belief in the inherent superiority of the white race over the black race and the correlative necessity for the subordination of blacks to whites in all relationships

Can you support your allegation that AmRen is a "white supremacist" organization based on this accepted definition or do you just use this term to promote hostility of organizations, facts and opinions that you do not support?
- Not everyone supports that defintion. For example, Funk and Wagner's Online gives the following:

"white supremacist
n.
One who believes that white people are racially superior to others and should therefore dominate society."

Since they clearly believe that whites are genetically intellectually superior to blacks and constantly complain about the "dilution of the white gene pool," and the leaders specifically support repatriation of blacks, it's safe to say AmRen fits that definition.

I cite Muad Dib only because I remember the thread, but I'm confident I could find others. The above certainly seems to me like it would get a Jared Taylor confined to the "opposing views" section, as I remember the place. But perhaps it has changed? I got bored with the place a long time ago. (As a non-racist it is hard to stay interested in 14/88, blah, blah, blah, even to debate against.) But prove me wrong and I'll cheerfully admit my error.
- Taylor is political, and as the article from ISAR points out, he seems to change his mind on this issue depending on the situation. It is clear that his group doesn't focus on antisemitism like other racist groups commonly do.

I'm also fairly sure that Taylor has had Jewish scholars speak at his conferences, which would also put a big divide between a Taylor and Stormfronter.
- Not from the conference listings they've posted on their site, other than the highly racist "useful idiot," Michael Levin, whose nominal Jewishness and academic credentials lend an air of credibility to their proceedings. Even Holocaust deniers like neo-Nazi Mark Weber's IHR will use a Jew like David Cole to support their public image, a typical strategy for sub rosa hate groups that try to build bridges with the general population and avoid alienating them with upfront bigotry.

Do a search under Muad Dib's (sp?, but I'm sure you know who I mean) name for Jared Taylor. IIRC, I think this is what got his (Muad Dib's) panties in a bunch:

I cite Muad Dib only because I remember the thread, but I'm confident I could find others. The above certainly seems to me like it would get a Jared Taylor confined to the "opposing views" section, as I remember the place. But perhaps it has changed? I got bored with the place a long time ago. (As a non-racist it is hard to stay interested in 14/88, blah, blah, blah, even to debate against.) But prove me wrong and I'll cheerfully admit my error.

I'm also fairly sure that Taylor has had Jewish scholars speak at his conferences, which would also put a big divide between a Taylor and Stormfronter.
I searched back to posts from the beginning of this year when I initially posted my response. I saw very positive posts and a thread dedicated to Stormfront's coverage of Taylor's conference. When I go back a little over 1 year ago, I see some discussions about Taylor so I see where you are coming from although they are far from one-sided.

Here is one of MaudDib's latest post late last year: "Jared Taylor accepts jews as White. He has stated that. Do I think that JT and AmRen are an asset? Yes, I do. Do I agree with his stance on jews? No, I don't."

Stormfront has changed. Bob Whitaker, a former Reagan appointee, is a Stromfront member. David Duke (AKA formerkukluxklanwizardDavidDuke) has fireside internet chats every Sunday night at 10PM. Membership has increased recently (may have doubled since last year but don't quote me on that) so there are more moderate WN's.

BTW - good memory :nice:

- Because you implied that I was unfairly criticizing these scumbags for "just trying to make their message more presentable." However, making their despicable, evil message of white supremacy more "presentable"; i.e., more crypto-fascist, instead of forthrightly genocidal, doesn't qualify as something worthy of additional respect.
"Why does it matter?" - What does your moral interpretation of AmRen's "white supremacy" have to do with its factual credibility?

- The charge is that they're a steaming heap of vile, neofascist filth, which, of course, they are.
In the court of Kamandi, guilty as charged. What next?

- Translation
Wow, you're a very unfriendly person. I will address this piece by piece anyway, just for fun.

---------------------------------------------

"Please, please, please ignore my blatant racism, sick-making antisemitism, Holocaust denial,
I encourage as much scrutiny as possible to be given in these areas.

discredited eugenics,
Are you referring to anything specific?

American words like "color" and "flavor" with a U, just like people from Europe,
I am a person from Europe, and colour/flavour are the correct English spellings of the terms in question.

so I can't be a third-rate Archie Bunker with a paper-thin facade of florid pseudo-intellectuality!
You are so clever. :rolleyes:

please just pretend my vindictive arguments for racial segregation and obvious enthusiasm for infamous hate groups
What do you find vindictive about my arguements regarding segregation? And what is wrong with supporting hate groups?

are the refined, worldly sentiments of a cultured sophisticate,
Have you any evidence to comment on, either way?

and not the simple, ignorant disgust for people with differently colored skin,
Such disgust is simple, but hardly ignorant.

and rigid, irrational contempt for social outgroups of a guy in a hood lynching a sharecropper outside a trailer park."
What guy, who are you talking about?

Sam Francis is an excellent person, by the way.

---------------------------------------------

- The fact that you believe that is a good indication of your credibility
What, the fact that I believe race is an issue for those who don't like having blacks reproduce in their country? What is your point?

- You might want to start with an explanation of how a notorious academic racist pontificating about how the Jews are responsible for the genetic degredation of the white race is "so entirely different" than a Nazi rally "you don't know where to begin."
Because the situation is entirely different. Jewish influence in the USA today is not comparable to Jewish influence in Germany circa 1942. The points of discussion an academic "racist" would be dealing with today are not the same.

- i.e., know just what psychological buttons to press
Correct.

to evoke malicious resentment.
Incorrect.

- By definition, all racists are prejudiced,
By what definition exactly?

since they believe in the need to separate themselves from literally every individual belonging to another race
Okay, now explain why you believe this conclusion to be one necessarily arrived at without sufficient knowledge and rational analysis.

to prevent some unknown great harm on the basis of no evidence other than the color of their skin.
You are very much off base here. The Great Harm certainly is known to these "racists"; that being the eventual destruction of their own kind. The evidence is statistical information regarding reproductive trends and immigration rates researched and released by the government of the United States of America.

"Why does it matter?" - What does your moral interpretation of AmRen's "white supremacy" have to do with its factual credibility?
- We were discussing your claim that I was being unfair to their attempt to make themselves more "presentable," as if that were a good thing, not their intellectual credibility. Try to keep up.


Wow, you're a very unfriendly person. I will address this piece by piece anyway, just for fun.
- Wow, I'll continue to be unimpressed!

I encourage as much scrutiny as possible to be given in these areas.
- And you encourage completely discounting what that scrutiny demonstrates.

Are you referring to anything specific?
- Specifically, everything you've said regarding eugenics, particularly your belief that Rushton's a authoritative source.

You are so clever. :rolleyes:
- And right on the money. Even your ripostes are third rate.


What do you find vindictive about my arguements regarding segregation? And what is wrong with supporting hate groups?
a) The fact you make them.
b) The fact that you do.

Have you any evidence to comment on, either way?
- Every one of your posts.


Such disgust is simple, but hardly ignorant.
- No, ignorant beyond belief.


What guy, who are you talking about?
- The ones that typify the base level of your rank intolerance; i.e., all of them.

Sam Francis is an excellent person, by the way.
- I'm sure he says the same about you.

What, the fact that I believe race is an issue for those who don't like having blacks reproduce in their country? What is your point?
- No, the fact that you continually make arguments supporting their point of view, which you appear to share.


Because the situation is entirely different. Jewish influence in the USA today is not comparable to Jewish influence in Germany circa 1942. The points of discussion an academic "racist" would be dealing with today are not the same.
- i.e., the level of "Jewish influence" in a society determines whether or not exterminating them is an acceptable policy. And the "point" Taylor was making - that the supposedly dwindling level of "white dominance" in the country today may be the fault of the Jews - is exactly one Hitler or Goebbels would have made.

Incorrect.
- Exactly correct: that's what bigots do whenever possible - try to manipulate others into sharing their prejudices, like you're attempting to do right now, for example.


By what definition exactly?
Definition: "Racism" (taken from Webster's Online)

1)The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2)Discrimination or prejudice based on race.


Okay, now explain why you believe this conclusion to be one necessarily arrived at without sufficient knowledge and rational analysis.
- Because it's, by defintion, believed to be held of all members of a race, despite the fact that all members of any race aren't known by any individual, thus making it impossible for the racist to have sufficient knowledge to make the claim.

You are very much off base here. The Great Harm certainly is known to these "racists"; that being the eventual destruction of their own kind.
- Having to share the planet with people that don't have the same color skin doesn't constitute "destruction of their own kind."

The evidence is statistical information regarding reproductive trends and immigration rates researched and released by the government of the United States of America.
- Unless white people stop reproducing or are exterminated, there will never be the "destruction of the race." There will just be fewer white people, and more mixed-race individuals. That's not exactly a fate worse than death.

- We were discussing your claim that I was being unfair to their attempt to make themselves more "presentable," as if that were a good thing, not their intellectual credibility. Try to keep up.
We were discussing how your interpretation of their attempt to make themselves more "presentable" impacts upon their credibility. Have you nothing to say?

Quote:
What do you find vindictive about my arguements regarding segregation? And what is wrong with supporting hate groups?
a) The fact you make them.
b) The fact that you do.
Pathetic.

- i.e., the level of "Jewish influence" in a society determines whether or not exterminating them is an acceptable policy.
Incorrect.

And the "point" Taylor was making - that the supposedly dwindling level of "white dominance" in the country today may be the fault of the Jews - is exactly one Hitler or Goebbels would have made.
Incorrect. Germany was completely dominated by Germans in 1942 and there was no doubt in anyone's mind that this would always be the case. They would not have called themselves "white", either. Admit it, you had no basis for that statement; it was an inane rambling intended to win points to your side with a Hitler reference.

- Because it's, by defintion, believed to be held of all members of a race, despite the fact that all members of any racist are unknown to any individual, thus making it impossible for the racist to have sufficient knowledge to make the claim.
"Racists" as they are termed do not concern themselves with the individual, but the group. Individuals are only considered in the area of probabilities. "That individual black man over there is more likely to commit a crime than that white man over there." It is not prejudice. "That black man over there is a criminal". That's prejudice. The second definition taken from Webster's is based on a fallacy. It's only in there for losers like you who buy into the idea to feel represented.

- Having to share the planet with people that don't have the same color skin doesn't constitute "destruction of their own kind."
It is not an issue of planet, obviously.

- Unless white people stop reproducing or are exterminated, there will never be the "destruction of the race." There will just be fewer white people, and more mixed-race individuals. That's not exactly a fate worse than death.
It is a fate undesirable, and easily avoidable.

Not from the conference listings they've posted on their site, other than the highly racist "useful idiot," Michael Levin, whose nominal Jewishness and academic credentials lend an air of credibility to their proceedings. Even Holocaust deniers like neo-Nazi Mark Weber's IHR will use a Jew like David Cole to support their public image, a typical strategy for sub rosa hate groups that try to build bridges with the general population and avoid alienating them with upfront bigotry.

Hold on... are you saying that groups such as AmRen, who are essentially silent on the jewish question, are putting up a false front? As if they have some secret back room where they plot some more sinister plans?

We were discussing how your interpretation of their attempt to make themselves more "presentable" impacts upon their credibility. Have you nothing to say?
- And, as I'll repeat, the fact that they're modifiying their front to try to slip under the public radar is nothing other than an self-admission of their fascism, and desire to make a false pretense of their actual goals and beliefs, neither of which are reliable indicators of credibility.

Pathetic.
i.e. undeniably true.


Incorrect.
Then what else could your statement imply???


Incorrect. Germany was completely dominated by Germans in 1942 and there was no doubt in anyone's mind that this would always be the case. They would not have called themselves "white", either. Admit it, you had no basis for that statement; it was an inane rambling intended to win points to your side with a Hitler reference.
- a) Jews WERE Germans, as you might recall, so there never was any question of anyone other than Germans "dominating" Germany in the first place.
b) As even an effete, grade Z pseudo-intellectual like you should know, Hitler never once let up on his claims that world Jewry was in fact still "controlling" Europe by some means, which is the reason he felt the Final Solution was necessary. Even in his suicide note, he blamed the loss of the war and the abdication of his rule on "international Jewry."
c) None of your posturing here disclaims the fact that a racist like Taylor claiming at a public conference that the "decline of the White race" that he seems to believe is imminent is perhaps the fault of the Jews is exactly the type of thing one would have heard in a Berlin Nazi rally, which is what I said.


"Racists" as they are termed do not concern themselves with the individual, but the group. Individuals are only considered in the area of probabilities. "That individual black man over there is more likely to commit a crime than that white man over there." It is not prejudice.

- Even here you can't think clearly - statistics about race and crime DO NOT provide evidence that any particular individual is or is not "more likely" to commit a crime than anyone else because of the color of their skin: it means that out of randomly selected sample population of one hundred individuals in a particular group, it's likely that there will be more persons that have committed a crime than a control group.

If your abuse of statistics here was valid, the racist would be more likely to victimize the individual described above than the other way around because 63% of all bias crimes are committed by whites. One of the factors that invalidates Taylor's "research" is his ridiculous argument that all black on white crimes should be considered "bias crimes." Also, much research has shown that people who claim to only "rationally' discriminate against certain groups invariably test higher on inventories of intrinsic and extrinsic indicators of racial prejudice.

"That black man over there is a criminal". That's prejudice. The second definition taken from Webster's is based on a fallacy. It's only in there for losers like you who buy into the idea to feel represented.
- No, that's bull****: if it were really a matter of simply not wanting to be a crime victim, the racist would consort with blacks ONLY, because they're six or seven times more likely to the victim of a crime committed by a fellow white person. So it's not about avoiding crime; it's about prejudice against people with the differently colored skin.

It is not an issue of planet, obviously.
- To the scum you're in a habit of supporting, it's an issue of planet.


It is a fate undesirable, and easily avoidable.
- Not in this country: given the intermarriage rate and the growing social admixture, the world in general and this country in particular are only going to get more diverse. And only a very few people, the majority of which have demonstrable emotional problems, believe it's a fate undesirable either.

Hold on... are you saying that groups such as AmRen, who are essentially silent on the jewish question, are putting up a false front? As if they have some secret back room where they plot some more sinister plans?
- How do you know they don't? Just the plans they're willing to discuss in public alone are damn sinister. And if Taylor's giving credence to the idea that the "dissolution of the White race" is the fault of the Jews, how is he "essentially silent on the 'Jewish Question?""

and desire to make a false pretense
This has not been established.

i.e. undeniably true.
Pathetic, in that you are unable/unwilling to explain what is vindictive about my arguements. "Because you make them" is not a sufficient answer.

Then what else could your statement imply???
I implied nothing, other than that the influence is not comparable. Your comment was completely unwarranted, and serves only to ridicule Jewish stereotypes surrounding "extermination". Congrats.

- a) Jews WERE Germans, as you might recall, so there never was any question of anyone other than Germans "dominating" Germany in the first place.
I clearly made the distinction between Germans and Jews when I made that comment, so don't waste my time.

b) As even an effete, grade Z pseudo-intellectual like you should know, Hitler never once let up on his claims that world Jewry was in fact still "controlling" Europe by some means, which is the reason he felt the Final Solution was necessary.
Document these claims here, before we go on.

c) None of your posturing here disclaims the fact that a racist like Taylor claiming at a public conference that the "decline of the White race" that he seems to believe is imminent is perhaps the fault of the Jews is exactly the type of thing one would have heard in a Berlin Nazi rally, which is what I said.
Yes, my posturing completely disclaims that. The "decline of the White race" would not have been spoken of, as the term "White race" was not in use. The White race was not considered to be in decline anyway, by anyone's analysis. Some areas of Jewish involvement would have surely been discussed, but the issues would be of a completely different nature than that which AmRen may take on today.

- Even here you can't think clearly - statistics about race and crime DO NOT provide evidence that any particular individual is or is not "more likely" to commit a crime than anyone else because of the color of their skin:
It was not claimed that an individual is more likely to commit a crime because of the colour of their skin. It was claimed, that with skin colour as an identifier, it can be determined whether an individual is more or less likely to commit a crime. Statistics prove this.

If your abuse of statistics here was valid, the racist would be more likely to victimize the individual described above than the other way around because 63% of all bias crimes are committed by whites.
Nonsense. The fact that Whites commit 63% of bias crimes does not negate the disproportionate amount of all types of crimes which are committed by blacks.

One of the factors that invalidates Taylor's "research" is his ridiculous argument that all black on white crimes should be considered "bias crimes."
What is your source that states Taylor has made this arguement?

Also, much research has shown that people who claim to only "rationally' discriminate against certain groups invariably test higher on inventories of intrinsic and extrinsic indicators of racial prejudice.
As I have outlined, 'racial prejudice' is most commonly a fallacious term. But I would still like to know what research you are specifically talking about.

- No, that's bull****: if it were really a matter of simply not wanting to be a crime victim, the racist would consort with blacks ONLY, because they're six or seven times more likely to the victim of a crime committed by a fellow white person. So it's not about avoiding crime; it's about prejudice against people with the differently colored skin.
LOL!

- To the scum you're in a habit of supporting, it's an issue of planet.
It is not.

- Not in this country: given the intermarriage rate and the growing social admixture, the world in general and this country in particular are only going to get more diverse.
Given current trends, yes, but because it is so does not make it right. As well, you did not explain how the situation is not easily reversible.

And only a very few people, the majority of which have demonstrable emotional problems, believe it's a fate undesirable either.
Demonstrated by whom, where?

This has not been established.
- The fact that they're modifying their views to make them more "presentable to the public" is a self-admission that their views NEED to be changed to get the non-fascist public to accept them


Pathetic, in that you are unable/unwilling to explain what is vindictive about my arguements. "Because you make them" is not a sufficient answer.
- Because segregation is inherently vindictive; i.e, an admission that the mere presence of the racially different is harmful.


I implied nothing, other than that the influence is not comparable. Your comment was completely unwarranted, and serves only to ridicule Jewish stereotypes surrounding "extermination". Congrats.
- No, it's completely warranted: the idea that Jews should be contemplated as being the cause of an imaginary "decline of the white race" is fascist, and if Hitler's actions were mistaken only because of a delusional belief that Jews were influential, why would they be any less valid now that "Jewish influence" is supposedly stronger?


I clearly made the distinction between Germans and Jews when I made that comment, so don't waste my time.
- The problem is that the distinction itself is unwarranted and inherently derogatory; i.e., that Jews should be considered aliens of states which they were natural citizens of.


Document these claims here, before we go on.
- A quick reading of The Decline and Fall of the Third Reich will supply you with all the information you need. Of course, Hitler's suicide note is part of the common historical record.


Yes, my posturing completely disclaims that. The "decline of the White race" would not have been spoken of, as the term "White race" was not in use. The White race was not considered to be in decline anyway, by anyone's analysis. Some areas of Jewish involvement would have surely been discussed, but the issues would be of a completely different nature than that which AmRen may take on today.
- Hitler would have referred to "aryans" instead of "the white race," and stated many times that he believed that they were in mortal racial peril. Nor were the "issues" that he dealt with of a much different nature: both are claiming that the presence of Jews is a racial danger to the white majority. But that's irrelevant anyhow: what I said was that Taylor's remarks were similar to what Hitler often claimed in his recorded orations and the fact that the theoretical context of that era might have differed somewhat from the ideas of contemporary fascists like Taylor is immaterial, because it does sound like vintage Nazi fascism.


It was not claimed that an individual is more likely to commit a crime because of the colour of their skin. It was claimed, that with skin colour as an identifier, it can be determined whether an individual is more or less likely to commit a crime. Statistics prove this.
- It cannot determine whether any specific black individual is any more likely to commit a crime, because the correlation between race and crime is just that: a correlation, which does not constitute a cause and may well be a false correlation.

In fact, it's been demonstrated many times that economic status is a superior indicator and explains much more of the statistical variance of the phenomenon. The disporportionate amount of crime committed by blacks is a function of the disproportionate poverty in the black community and has nothing to do with the color of their skin. Because it's impossible to know anything certain about someone's economic status by looking at them, it's not possible to determine whether or not someone is more likely or not to commit a crime. It's also very indicative that the same people who complain the most about "racial" crime are the same people who complain the most about programs intended to benefit the socioeconomic conditions of the black community

Nonsense. The fact that Whites commit 63% of bias crimes does not negate the disproportionate amount of all types of crimes which are committed by blacks.
- It wasn't claimed that it did. It was only stated that in fact the black individual under discussion was more likely to be the victim of the racist than the other way around.


What is your source that states Taylor has made this arguement?
- It's plainly stated in The Color of Crime.


As I have outlined, 'racial prejudice' is most commonly a fallacious term. But I would still like to know what research you are specifically talking about.
- No, it's a very apt term: racists frequently prejudge outgroups in terms of stereotypes.


LOL!
- Laugh all you want, but it's simply a fact: more than 80% of all crime in the U.S. is white-on-white. You're seven or eight times more likely to be victimized by another Caucasian than a black person. For example, I've been living in black neighborhoods for over five years, and the only crime I've ever been the victim of was committed by a white person.


It is not.
- Bull****: numerous racists have a stated goal of making the planet white, which is a reason for the popularity of The Turner Diaries. Tom Metzger's White Aryan Nations is openly exterminationist, as are many other hate groups, as unlikely as their objective is.


Given current trends, yes, but because it is so does not make it right. As well, you did not explain how the situation is not easily reversible.
- It's very right, as growing diversity and intergroup communications tend to downsize tensions and misunderstanding among the majority, which is one of the causes of the dropping crime rates in the U.S. And the situation is irreversible under American law, nor is the majority symapathetic to fascism, which is the motivation for Tayor's group's attempts to disguise their separationism.


Demonstrated by whom, where?
- Both The Nature of Prejudice and The Authoritarian Personality have numerous research cites concerning this.

- The fact that they're modifying their views to make them more "presentable to the public" is a self-admission that their views NEED to be changed to get the non-fascist public to accept them
Correct. They make no bones about this at all. Now, on to the issue of their credibility.

- Because segregation is inherently vindictive; i.e, an admission that the mere presence of the racially different is harmful.
vin·dic·tive
adjective
1. vengeful: looking for revenge or done through a desire for revenge


2. spiteful: feeling, showing, or done through a desire to hurt somebody


3. law meant to punish: used to describe damages awarded by a court that are set higher than the amount necessary to compensate the victim, in order to punish the defendant


[Early 17th century. Formed from Latin vindicta “revenge.”]


How is a segregationist view vindictive? I see nothing in it that necessarily indicates a vengeful, let alone spiteful attitude.

- No, it's completely warranted: the idea that Jews should be contemplated as being the cause of an imaginary "decline of the white race" is fascist,
You have not established a link.

and if Hitler's actions were mistaken only because of a delusional belief that Jews were influential, why would they be any less valid now that "Jewish influence" is supposedly stronger?
You have not established that there is a link between fascism and extermination of the Jews, either.

- The problem is that the distinction itself is unwarranted and inherently derogatory; i.e., that Jews should be considered aliens of states which they were natural citizens of.
Jews are not Germans, period.

- A quick reading of The Decline and Fall of the Third Reich will supply you with all the information you need. Of course, Hitler's suicide note is part of the common historical record.
You put quotations around the word 'controlling'. I would like to know where you were quoting from, do you have a page reference within Rise and Fall?

- Hitler would have referred to "aryans" instead of "the white race," and stated many times that he believed that they were in mortal racial peril.
The two terms refer to completely different ideas.

Nor were the "issues" that he dealt with of a much different nature: both are claiming that the presence of Jews is a racial danger to the white majority.
"Racial danger" is extremely broad. That the Germans may have lost their Aryan nobility due to Jews is a much different issue than that the White race may lose its biological predominance within America due to a similar group of people.

But that's irrelevant anyhow: what I said was that Taylor's remarks were similar to what Hitler often claimed in his recorded orations and the fact that the theoretical context of that era might have differed somewhat from the ideas of contemporary fascists like Taylor is immaterial, because it does sound like vintage Nazi fascism.
Simply because both dealt with their country's specific Jewish question? Okay... What is your point? Is this supposed to somehow tie into AmRen's credibility?

- It cannot determine whether any specific black individual is any more likely to commit a crime, because the correlation between race and crime is just that: a correlation,
Indeed. Did you not read where I spoke of the area of probabilities?

which does not constitute a cause
It is not intended to.

and may well be a false correlation.
How do you figure?

In fact, it's been demonstrated many times that economic status is a superior indicator and explains much more of the statistical variance of the phenomenon.
It has been demonstrated many times that race is a good indicator of economic status, as well.

The disporportionate amount of crime committed by blacks is a function of the disproportionate poverty in the black community and has nothing to do with the color of their skin.
The disproportionate poverty in the black community has much to do with race. And for the last time, please do leave the "colour of their skin" bit out of this area of discussion. We are discussing race, of which skin colour is merely a superficial indicator.

Because it's impossible to know anything certain about someone's economic status by looking at them,
It is possible to determine the probability, if you are already informed about the statistics.

it's not possible to determine whether or not someone is more likely or not to commit a crime.
Based on race, with skin colour as an indicator, it is.

It's also very indicative that the same people who complain the most about "racial" crime are the same people who complain the most about programs intended to benefit the socioeconomic conditions of the black community
Indicative of what?

- It wasn't claimed that it did. It was only stated that in fact the black individual under discussion was more likely to be the victim of the racist than the other way around.
In other words, it is an irrelevant point. Well done.

- No, it's a very apt term: racists frequently prejudge outgroups in terms of stereotypes.
Frequently, but so what? Blacks frequently commit crime, but I do not refer to them as criminals. I would still like to know what research you are specifically talking about, else I will not respond to any subsequent comments.

- Laugh all you want, but it's simply a fact: more than 80% of all crime in the U.S. is white-on-white. You're seven or eight times more likely to be victimized by another Caucasian than a black person. For example, I've been living in black neighborhoods for over five years, and the only crime I've ever been the victim of was committed by a white person.
This is a discussion not only of probabilities, but proportions as well. Can you grasp that?

- Bull****: numerous racists have a stated goal of making the planet white, which is a reason for the popularity of The Turner Diaries. Tom Metzger's White Aryan Nations is openly exterminationist, as are many other hate groups, as unlikely as their objective is.
Cute. But is there a point to this story?

- It's very right, as growing diversity and intergroup communications tend to downsize tensions and misunderstanding among the majority, which is one of the causes of the dropping crime rates in the U.S. And the situation is irreversible under American law, nor is the majority symapathetic to fascism, which is the motivation for Tayor's group's attempts to disguise their separationism.
American law is quite reversable, through means not exclusive to fascist style. Also, the crime rate would not have been as high as it was without integration, so this is a lame arguement.

- Both The Nature of Prejudice and The Authoritarian Personality have numerous research cites concerning this.
Those are large books. I have copies of both, but am not willing to reread through the whole of them. If you wish to include such studies in this conversation, please provide page references.

Correct. They make no bones about this at all. Now, on to the issue of their credibility.
- If they "made no bones about it," they wouldn't be disguising it, would they?


vin·dic·tive
adjective
1. vengeful: looking for revenge or done through a desire for revenge


2. spiteful: feeling, showing, or done through a desire to hurt somebody


3. law meant to punish: used to describe damages awarded by a court that are set higher than the amount necessary to compensate the victim, in order to punish the defendant


[Early 17th century. Formed from Latin vindicta “revenge.”]


How is a segregationist view vindictive? I see nothing in it that necessarily indicates a vengeful, let alone spiteful attitude.
- Because segregation IS a punishment, and it is based on spite.


You have not established that there is a link between fascism and extermination of the Jews, either.
- Only if the Nazis weren't fascist, or, alternatively, as you seem to feel, the Holocaust is a hoax. Exterminationism is one of the defining characteristics of fascism.


Jews are not Germans, period.
- In your mind, instead of the law. Jewish Germans and Jewish Americans are Germans and Americans, just like anyone else.


You put quotations around the word 'controlling'. I would like to know where you were quoting from, do you have a page reference within Rise and Fall?
- The quotes indicate that this was the Fuhrer's belief and not reality. Open Hilberg's book to just about any page and you'll most likely find an example.


The two terms refer to completely different ideas.
- The Nazis referred to all non-Jewish white people as "Aryans," although, in fact, the actual Aryans weren't white. The word in Sanskrit means "noble ones."


"Racial danger" is extremely broad. That the Germans may have lost their Aryan nobility due to Jews is a much different issue than that the White race may lose its biological predominance within America due to a similar group of people.
- They're both equally ridiculous and ignroant.


Simply because both dealt with their country's specific Jewish question? Okay... What is your point? Is this supposed to somehow tie into AmRen's credibility?
- Antisemitic hatemongers are less than credible individuals in the minds of most. The historical record does not indicate that such individuals, consumed by bigotry as they generally are, usually accurately relay facts concerning the targets of their hatred, unless you believe that Jews harvest the plasma of unbaptized innocents and leaven down their synagogue's matzah meal with it, or that Jews caused the Lisbon earthquake.

It is not intended to.
- Your argument that racists are only operating rationally because statistics "prove" that blacks are more likely to commit crime are dependent on that idea.


How do you figure?
- Because it's much more likely that crime is a function of poverty, and the correlation of blacks to crime is a statistical artifact caused by disproportionate black poverty.


It has been demonstrated many times that race is a good indicator of economic status, as well.
- Due in large part to the actions of racists like those you're attempting to excuse. And the number of blacks living at or below the poverty line has improved, decreasing from a high of over 50% of the population in and before 1950 to under 20% today.


The disproportionate poverty in the black community has much to do with race. And for the last time, please do leave the "colour of their skin" bit out of this area of discussion. We are discussing race, of which skin colour is merely a superficial indicator.
- The rest of the indicators are just as superficial, which is why most scientists don't believe that race is a scientifically valid category. And there's no evidence that anything other than discrimination and other characteristics reflective of reaction formations are at fault.


It is possible to determine the probability, if you are already informed about the statistics.
- No, it's not: the frequency interpretation of statistics doesn't apply to human individuals with free will. One of the assumptions is that the sample environments haven't changed, and people do.


Based on race, with skin colour as an indicator, it is.
- No, it's not, for reasons already stated, not to mention the fact that crime is no higher among blacks with high SES than it is for white people in the same bracket.


Indicative of what?
- Hypocrisy and bias.


In other words, it is an irrelevant point. Well done.
- It's nor irrelevant: the same people claiming to be "victims" are actually the most likely to be victimizers.


Frequently, but so what? Blacks frequently commit crime
- As do whites and everyone else.

but I do not refer to them as criminals.
- Crime is not a defining characteristic of blacks, but prejudice is one of racism.

I would still like to know what research you are specifically talking about, else I will not respond to any subsequent comments.
- c.f., Perceptions of Rational Discrimination, Lambert and Khan, U. of Washington, 2001.

This is a discussion not only of probabilities, but proportions as well. Can you grasp that?
- I grasp it entirely, but adjusted for proportions and poverty, the race differential disappears. There's no evidence of any kind, as mentioned earlier, that blacks of high SES are any more violent or criminal than whites of similar status. Whites are in much more danger from low SES whites, that they wish to include in society, despite the rational "danger" of such, than high SES blacks that they irrationally wish to exclude, equal to the proportions cited.


Cute. But is there a point to this story?
- That your point about racists not considering this a planetary issue is bull****.


American law is quite reversable
- Only through constitutional amendment, which, as we've recently seen, is unlikely: segregation is antithetical to fundamental American ideals of democracy, which is why it no longer exists.

through means not exclusive to fascist style. Also, the crime rate would not have been as high as it was without integration, so this is a lame arguement.
- The crime rate's been dropping for years, so yours is a lame argument, and, of course, there's no way of knowing what the crime rate would be if integration hadn't occurred. Since only 16% of all crime is interracial, including white-on-black crime and non-black crime, it's ridiculous to think that integration has had any huge impact.


Those are large books. I have copies of both, but am not willing to reread through the whole of them. If you wish to include such studies in this conversation, please provide page references.
- And you claim that blacks are lazy??? Pick up those books and read them, as you obviously have not learned from them.

- If they "made no bones about it," they wouldn't be disguising it, would they?
Modifying does not equal disguising. I don't see that they are disguising anything.

- Because segregation IS a punishment, and it is based on spite.
How so?

- Only if the Nazis weren't fascist,
They were not.

or, alternatively, as you seem to feel, the Holocaust is a hoax.
I do not feel that.

Exterminationism is one of the defining characteristics of fascism.
How so?

- In your mind, instead of the law. Jewish Germans and Jewish Americans are Germans and Americans, just like anyone else.
A citizen of Germany is not necessarily a German. Jews are not Germans, period. This is reality, in everyone's mind.

- The Nazis referred to all non-Jewish white people as "Aryans,"
No, they didn't. What is your source for this?

although, in fact, the actual Aryans weren't white.
They were Caucasians; ie, White.

- They're both equally ridiculous and ignroant.
:rolleyes:

- Antisemitic hatemongers are less than credible individuals in the minds of most.
Your main credibility arguement is based on an ad numerum fallacy? This is not a very strong case.

unless you believe that Jews harvest the plasma of unbaptized innocents and leaven down their synagogue's matzah meal with it, or that Jews caused the Lisbon earthquake.
What the heck?

- Your argument that racists are only operating rationally because statistics "prove" that blacks are more likely to commit crime are dependent on that idea.
The consideration of cause does not go beyond understanding the correlation. Blacks are statistically more likely to commit crimes, therefore it is wise to avoid them. Most people do not feel compelled to analyse the situation any further, nor should they be expected to.

- Because it's much more likely that crime is a function of poverty, and the correlation of blacks to crime is a statistical artifact caused by disproportionate black poverty.
That does not make the correlation between race and crime faulty.

- No, it's not: the frequency interpretation of statistics doesn't apply to human individuals with free will.
Of course it does. What else would it apply to?

- No, it's not, for reasons already stated,
The reasons stated were not sufficient.

not to mention the fact that crime is no higher among blacks with high SES than it is for white people in the same bracket.
There are disproportionately fewer blacks in this bracket. This proves nothing.

- Hypocrisy
How is it hypocritical? They complain about having crimes committed against them, and complain about their funds being wasted trying to give a 'leg up' to the failing Negro community.

- It's nor irrelevant: the same people claiming to be "victims" are actually the most likely to be victimizers.
Proportionally, no.

- As do whites and everyone else.
Do not be cheeky, blacks commit crime more frequently than "whites and everyone else".

- Crime is not a defining characteristic of blacks,Culturally, it very much is.

but prejudice is one of racism.
You claimed that "racists" frequently prejudge. You haven't yet provided any basis for this wild accusation.

- I grasp it entirely, but adjusted for proportions and poverty, the race differential disappears.
Wow :rolleyes:

There's no evidence of any kind, as mentioned earlier, that blacks of high SES are any more violent or criminal than whites of similar status.
I have very plainly stated that I think there to be a correlation between race and poverty, to begin with.

Whites are in much more danger from low SES whites, that they wish to include in society, despite the rational "danger" of such, than high SES blacks
Undeniably correct, and undeniably irrelevant. I have made it clear this is a discussion of proportions.

that they irrationally wish to exclude,
What is necessarily irrational about wishing to exclude high SES blacks?

- That your point about racists not considering this a planetary issue is bull****.
LOL you're the one trying to bring up all shapes and sizes of "racists" in America. This is about AmRen's credibility specifically, a group for whom planetary extermination is not on the agenda.

- Only through constitutional amendment, which, as we've recently seen, is unlikely: segregation is antithetical to fundamental American ideals of democracy, which is why it no longer exists.
The American Constitution will likely not last longer than the next 50-100 years, depending on the size of the anti-democratic demgraphic present in the USA (Islamists, some Chinese, some radical Negroes, anti-English Mexicans). The future is wide open to be considered outside of the constitution box.

- The crime rate's been dropping for years, so yours is a lame argument,
How does that make my arguement lame?

and, of course, there's no way of knowing what the crime rate would be if integration hadn't occurred.
It is reasonable to assume that it would have been different than it is now, given the rises after integration (whilst black poverty continued to decrease).

- And you claim that blacks are lazy???
No.

Pick up those books and read them, as you obviously have not learned from them.
I have read them each through, and am not willing to endure such nonsense in its entirety again. Provide page references, or drop the arguement.

Modifying does not equal disguising. I don't see that they are disguising anything.
- If they're modifying their presentation of their beliefs specifically because they don't believe they'll gain public acceptance with their true beliefs, they're disguising them. There's certainly no evidence that they've altered their core beliefs.


How so?
- Because being forced from your home and property simply because others hate your race is by any definition a punishment.


They were not.
- This is your stupidest argument yet: they're virtually the operational definition of fascism: (Webster's Online)

"Fascism -
1) A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2) A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government."
3) Oppressive, dictatorial control."

I do not feel that.
- It certainly hasn't stopped you from arguing for it as a historical position.


How so?
- Because it's been the logical outcome of most fascist governments, and I'm including Stalin's left-wing fascism in the definition


A citizen of Germany is not necessarily a German. Jews are not Germans, period. This is reality, in everyone's mind.
- Bull****: a country is simply a collection of citizens and laws. American Jews are as much Americans as any other.

No, they didn't. What is your source for this?
- Hitler specifically says so in Mein Kampf no less, among other sources.


They were Caucasians; ie, White.
- No, they were a combination of both European and Asian extractions, and are the predecessors of today's Hindus


:rolleyes:
- Only you would argue otherwise, among other racist bigots.


Your main credibility arguement is based on an ad numerum fallacy? This is not a very strong case.
- It's hardly a fallacy; the reason people believe this is the universal psychological perception that people who are ignorant, raving, and bigoted are rarely careful about factual accuracy.

[/QUOTE]
What the heck?[/QUOTE]
- Arguments typically advanced by antisemites, the former of which is sometimes proposed as a supposedly plausible theory even today.


The consideration of cause does not go beyond understanding the correlation. Blacks are statistically more likely to commit crimes, therefore it is wise to avoid them. Most people do not feel compelled to analyse the situation any further, nor should they be obligated to.
- No one can force anyone from associating with whomever they wish, to a large degree, but your statistical inference is faulty - poor people are statistically likely to commit crimes. Blacks of high SES are no more likely to commit crimes than whites of similar status, and, conversely, whites of low SES are just as likely to commit crimes as blacks of similar status.

Since racists feel non-violent, non-criminal high SES blacks should be avoided, and couldn't care less about avoiding low SES whites, as they usually ARE low SES whites, we can conclude that this has nothing to do with crime. And the idea that the "consideration of cause does not go beyond understanding the correlation" is a preposterous crock of **** which no scientist would ever endorse.



That does not make the correlation between race and crime faulty.
Yes, it does: a false correlation means nothing as correlation implies nothing about cause. You could just as plausibly state that being a criminal causes people to become black.


Of course it does. What else would it apply to?
- Inanimate objects and animal life, which, unlike people, don't have free wil or the capacity for self-motivated change. The fact that people who claim to exercise "rational discrimination" show a statistical correlation to high indices on inventories of prejudice doesn't mean that such a disposition on purely rational grounds is impossible or that fact being revealed couldn't lead to attitudinal change on the part of the prejudiced, both of which could affect a retest.

- No, it's not, for reasons already stated,
The reasons stated were not sufficient.[/QUOTE]
- Yes, they were. Your statistical inferences are invalid.


There are disproportionately fewer blacks in this bracket. This proves nothing.
- It proves a lot, especially considering the fact that 80% of blacks are now above the poverty line, and crime has been dropping steadily for years now.

How is it hypocritical? They complain about having crimes committed against them, and complain about their funds being wasted trying to give a 'leg up' to the failing Negro community.
- They aren't being wasted, as they've produced demonstrable results, and it's hypocritical to claim to be a victim when, in fact, you're the worst victimizer.


Proportionally, no.
- Uh, 63% is awfully high considering the fact that there are far fewer blacks for them to commit those crimes on.


Do not be cheeky, blacks commit crime more frequently than "whites and everyone else".
- That doesn't mean they don't often commit crimes!

Culturally, it very much is.
- That doesn't mean it's rationally justified: no one should be defined a criminal based on the color of their skin.

You claimed that "racists" frequently prejudge. You haven't yet provided any basis for this wild accusation.
- There's nothing wild about it: "racism" IS a prejudice; i.e., belief that another's race is inferior to one's own, and Webster's defines the hateful belief in those specific terms accordingly.


Wow :rolleyes:
- There are many studies that demonstrate exactly that, so I don't know what you're complaining about.


I have very plainly stated that I think there to be a correlation between race and poverty, to begin with.
- On the basis of a stupid genetic inferiority theory.


Undeniably correct, and undeniably irrelevant. I have made it clear this is a discussion of proportions.
- It's exactly that: as the proportions of the black community SES changes, the crime factor will disappear.


What is necessarily irrational about wishing to exclude high SES blacks?
- Because you claim that their wish to do so is to "rationally avoid crime" and high SES blacks are no more likely to commit a crime than high SES whites, and, in fact, because racists are disproportionately low SES themselves, are much less likely to commit crimes than most racists.


LOL you're the one trying to bring up all shapes and sizes of "racists" in America. This is about AmRen's credibility specifically, a group for whom planetary extermination is not on the agenda.
- You don't know that: racists are self-selected for hatred of minorities, and such beliefs are extensive in that community; on this board, for example, you have Toner saying he favors genocide, for example. As you have no clairvoyant intuition of their motives and intentions, and they've been clear that they're "modifying" their expression of their true feelings to make themselves more palatable to the public, there's no way you can be assured of that. It's not hard to believe Dickson would privately wish for it, although he'd, of course, never declare it in public


The American Constitution will likely not last longer than the next 50-100 years, depending on the size of the anti-democratic demgraphic present in the USA (Islamists, some Chinese, some radical Negroes, anti-English Mexicans). The future is wide open to be considered outside of the constitution box.
- Bull****. People like you said that 200 years ago.


How does that make my arguement lame?
- Because you're lame for one.


It is reasonable to assume that it would have been different than it is now, given the rises after integration (whilst black poverty continued to decrease).
- Integration was just one of many factors present since the 50's so it's impossible to say, especially since many crimes committed against blacks were never even prosecuted prior to integration, and the North, where segregation wasn't legal, didn't have any vastly disproportionate crime rate relative to the South, were it was, even adjusted proportionately for the comparative black population size. Crime has fallen steadily all throughout the country for quite a while now.


I have read them each through, and am not willing to endure such nonsense in its entirety again. Provide page references, or drop the arguement.
-i.e., they're composed of actual facts instead of your stupid propaganda.

- If they're modifying their presentation of their beliefs specifically because they don't believe they'll gain public acceptance with their true beliefs, they're disguising them. There's certainly no evidence that they've altered their core beliefs.
They're cleaning up their presentation in order to appeal more successfully to the mainstream. You haven't shown any evidence that they're hiding anything.

- Because being forced from your home and property simply because others hate your race is by any definition a punishment.
No, it's not by definition a punishment. In most situations, a group hasn't done anything wrong in the eyes of the segregationists, they simply do not feel they are compatible with the other group. There is not necessarily any punishment involved in segregation.

- This is your stupidest argument yet: they're virtually the operational definition of fascism: (Webster's Online)

"Fascism -
1) A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2) A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government."
3) Oppressive, dictatorial control."
That is a rubbish, superficial definition of fascism. It is well understood that while Italian fascism and national socialism have much in common politically, their roots and intentions as individual movements differ in many ways. It is not appropriate to refer to a national socialist as a fascist nor is it appropriate to refer to a fascist as a national socialist. Not that it matters to you, since as far as you're concerned these are merely epithets with which to slander your political opponents.

- It certainly hasn't stopped you from arguing for it as a historical position.
Where have I done so?

- Because it's been the logical outcome of most fascist governments, and I'm including Stalin's left-wing fascism in the definition
That makes exterminationism about as much a defining characteristic of fascism as starvation is to communism.

- Only you would argue otherwise, among other racist bigots.
Is there a point to this story?

- Arguments typically advanced by antisemites, the former of which is sometimes proposed as a supposedly plausible theory even today.
Evidence?

- No one can force anyone from associating with whomever they wish, to a large degree, but your statistical inference is faulty -

poor people are statistically likely to commit crimes.
And black people are more likely to be poor.

Blacks of high SES are no more likely to commit crimes than whites of similar status, and, conversely, whites of low SES are just as likely to commit crimes as blacks of similar status.
Once again, correct. But it's not always very easy to tell whether a black person is of low or high SES, due in part to culture. But since blacks are disproportionately of a low SES, it is reasonable to assume this when the case is not obvious, for safety's sake. For the same reason, my black friends at school tell me they feel safer around white people while in public. They simply want to avoid crime.

Since racists feel non-violent, non-criminal high SES blacks should be avoided, and couldn't care less about avoiding low SES whites, as they usually ARE low SES whites, we can conclude that this has nothing to do with crime.
Correct, the desire to not be around high SES blacks is not due to crime. The reason is ethnocultural preference.

Yes, it does: a false correlation means nothing as correlation implies nothing about cause. You could just as plausibly state that being a criminal causes people to become black.
For the person on the street, it does not matter how the blacks became so impoverished, it only matters that they are indeed impoverished, and disproportionately so.

Blacks have, do, and will continue to suffer from higher levels of poverty than whites, thus have, do, and will continue to commit more crime than whites. Blacks and whites can both be found on the streets. These statistics describe their behaviours. That's it.

- Uh, 63% is awfully high considering the fact that there are far fewer blacks for them to commit those crimes on.
Before we take this any further, I'd like to see the source for this stat.

- That doesn't mean they don't often commit crimes!
Is there a point to this story?

That doesn't mean it's rationally justified: no one should be defined a criminal based on the color of their skin.
Why not? If prejudice is can be a characteristic of racists, crime can be a characteristic of blacks.

- There's nothing wild about it: "racism" IS a prejudice; i.e., belief that another's race is inferior to one's own, and Webster's defines the hateful belief in those specific terms accordingly.
You haven't been able to demonstrate that the nebulous set of beliefs termed "racism" is necessarily a result of prejudice.

The best you have done was bring up the issue that a "racist" can not know every individual of another race, to which I stated that those you refer to as "racists" are not concerned with every individual of another race, but the characteristics of the race on the whole in contrast to theirs. A "racist" generally deals with probabilities, and therefore is not prejudiced. If someone is raised to reject a race without having a reason for it, then they are prejudiced.

- On the basis of a stupid genetic inferiority theory.
Who says susceptibility to poverty spells out inferiority, anyway? I don't care if they are more susceptible to it. They certainly are inferior by our social standards, but I don't seek to apply those standards to them in the first place.

- There are many studies that demonstrate exactly that, so I don't know what you're complaining about.
I don't dispute that, but I roll my eyes at your continued attempts to sap this discussion with irrelevant jabber. I have made it painfully clear that "racists" deal with proportions and probabilities, so to suggest that a concluson arrived at after removing proportions and probabilities has any bearing on the matter at hand, is foolish and a waste of time.

- It's exactly that: as the proportions of the black community SES changes, the crime factor will disappear.
Absolutely correct. But do we want to go to the trouble of propping them up to that level, at our expense? I see no benefit.

- Because you claim that their wish to do so is to "rationally avoid crime"
Because blacks are disproportionately low SES!

- You don't know that: racists are self-selected for hatred of minorities, and such beliefs are extensive in that community; on this board, for example, you have Toner saying he favors genocide, for example. As you have no clairvoyant intuition of their motives and intentions, and they've been clear that they're "modifying" their expression of their true feelings to make themselves more palatable to the public, there's no way you can be assured of that. It's not hard to believe Dickson would privately wish for it, although he'd, of course, never declare it in public
Uh, whatever, I'm not going to assume that AmRen supports a policy of planetary exterminationism without evidence. If you have a feeling this may be the case, feel free to conduct your own research in that area and present us with it here.

- Bull****. People like you said that 200 years ago.
"People like me" essentially didn't exist 200 years ago, in that they were not exposed to the same phenomena as I am today, and did not have to react & cope with it. I hope, though, that you are not seriously trying to equate the demographic shifts which took place 200 years ago to those taking place today?

Quote:
- The crime rate's been dropping for years, so yours is a lame argument,
How does that make my arguement lame?
- Because you're lame for one.
D:!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11 Kamandi made a funny@!

-i.e., they're composed of actual facts instead of your stupid propaganda.
What are you talking about, what stupid propaganda?

They're cleaning up their presentation in order to appeal more successfully to the mainstream. You haven't shown any evidence that they're hiding anything.
- "Cleaning up their presentation" means, as they admit, making their fascist beliefs less conspicuous so the public will hopefully find them acceptable - that's "disguising."


No, it's not by definition a punishment. In most situations, a group hasn't done anything wrong in the eyes of the segregationists, they simply do not feel they are compatible with the other group. There is not necessarily any punishment involved in segregation.
- Bull****: It would involve forcing people away from their homes and lives and repatriating them; i.e., a punishment.


That is a rubbish, superficial definition of fascism. It is well understood that while Italian fascism and national socialism have much in common politically, their roots and intentions as individual movements differ in many ways. It is not appropriate to refer to a national socialist as a fascist nor is it appropriate to refer to a fascist as a national socialist. Not that it matters to you, since as far as you're concerned these are merely epithets with which to slander your political opponents.
- No, they're an apt description of the agenda of the group, and, as it's the standard definition of the term as given by an accepted authority on the English language, it's more than appropriate to describe them that way. Also, although Italian fascism did differ from the Nazi's governing, being significantly less racist and antisemitic, historians and political scientists have universally described Nazism as "fascist"; totalitarian, extreme right wing, ultraromantic, racist, exclusionary, etc.


Where have I done so?
- In your exchanges with Sulla the Dictator, for one, in other threads, although you did mention being "open to the idea that the gas chambers were provable."


That makes exterminationism about as much a defining characteristic of fascism as starvation is to communism.
- Communism's goal was to create a planned economy, while Nazism goal was always to eliminate what they considered to be the "racial poison" of Untermenschen from the state. Communism failed its goal by its simple impossiblity, while only defeat by foreign powers detered Germany. Thus your claim is bunk; Communism deviated from it's goal by starvation, while Germany accomplished its goal by extermination.


Is there a point to this story?
- Exactly as stated.

Evidence?
- Sure: Pravda reignited the blood libel several times in the last few years, as well as well-circulated essays by antisemites Stigniev O'Donnell and Mark Glenn on websites like the (thankfully now-defunct) Jewish Tribal Review and other hate sites.



And black people are more likely to be poor.
- Changing.


Once again, correct. But it's not always very easy to tell whether a black person is of low or high SES, due in part to culture.
- Laughable. No more so than whites: a high SES white person could still wear sweatsuits like Adam Sandler or a cowboy hat and chew Skoal like Sam Walton.

But since blacks are disproportionately of a low SES, it is reasonable to assume this when the case is not obvious, for safety's sake. For the same reason, my black friends at school tell me they feel safer around white people while in public. They simply want to avoid crime.
- If you wanted to avoid crime, you'd advocate avoiding all people with low SES. They don't.


Correct, the desire to not be around high SES blacks is not due to crime. The reason is ethnocultural preference.
i.e., irrational racism.

For the person on the street, it does not matter how the blacks became so impoverished, it only matters that they are indeed impoverished, and disproportionately so.
- That's changing: the CEOs of Amex, FedEx, and Time Warner are now black, as well as the National Security Director and the Chief of Staff. Black college enrollment soars and the number of blacks living under the poverty line has dwindled to a small minority (>20%) not much larger than the percentage of blacks in the nation.

Blacks have, do, and will continue to suffer from higher levels of poverty than whites, thus have, do, and will continue to commit more crime than whites. Blacks and whites can both be found on the streets. These statistics describe their behaviours. That's it.
- None of that's certain in the slightest.


Before we take this any further, I'd like to see the source for this stat.
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm)


Is there a point to this story?
- Yes, that your statement was unwarranted.


Why not? If prejudice is can be a characteristic of racists, crime can be a characteristic of blacks.
- Because prejudice is part of the definition of racism, and crime is not part of the definiton of black people, or any other group of people other than self-selected criminals. Prejudice is found in all racists, and crime is found in only a minority of black people.

You haven't been able to demonstrate that the nebulous set of beliefs termed "racism" is necessarily a result of prejudice.
- Yes, I have, for reasons not the least of which is that it's a defining characteristic of the term.

The best you have done was bring up the issue that a "racist" can not know every individual of another race, to which I stated that those you refer to as "racists" are not concerned with every individual of another race, but the characteristics of the race on the whole in contrast to theirs.
- They don't know the race as whole and couldn't possibly, and typically discount counter-examples as non-representative; i.e., their beliefs are based on prejudice.

A "racist" generally deals with probabilities, and therefore is not prejudiced. If someone is raised to reject a race without having a reason for it, then they are prejudiced.
- As we've already seen, the "reasons" are bull****, leaving you to explain the aversion as "ethnocultural preferences," or, in other words, prejudice.


Who says susceptibility to poverty spells out inferiority, anyway? I don't care if they are more susceptible to it. They certainly are inferior by our social standards, but I don't seek to apply those standards to them in the first place.
- Sorry, but in our culture poverty certainly implies inferiority and you know it. You're using it to rationalize your belief in their inferiority.


I don't dispute that, but I roll my eyes at your continued attempts to sap this discussion with irrelevant jabber. I have made it painfully clear that "racists" deal with proportions and probabilities, so to suggest that a concluson arrived at after removing proportions and probabilities has any bearing on the matter at hand, is foolish and a waste of time.
- The "probabilities" are, as you've already admitted, are a pile of crap, and are only used as a weak rationalization for the actual source of aversion, "ethnocultural preference," also known as racial bigotry.


Absolutely correct. But do we want to go to the trouble of propping them up to that level, at our expense? I see no benefit.
- We're not "propping them up." Years of inexcusable treatment and discrimination and their consequences are being corrected, and they spend money, create jobs, and add to the economy like everyone else. All there is is potential and actual benefit.


Because blacks are disproportionately low SES!
- Since we know they don't reject whites with low SES, which is unsurprising, since racists are disproportionately low SES, the entire thing is a bull**** rationalization for hating people simply for being different.


Uh, whatever, I'm not going to assume that AmRen supports a policy of planetary exterminationism without evidence. If you have a feeling this may be the case, feel free to conduct your own research in that area and present us with it here.
- Of course, I have no evidence whatsoever for claiming that, other than the fact that their beliefs are fascist, and as such have been strongly correlated with such beliefs and behavior. That's not substantial enough evidence - although Dickson's quite a virulent hatemonger - so I wouldn't go on record with that.


"People like me" essentially didn't exist 200 years ago, in that they were not exposed to the same phenomena as I am today, and did not have to react & cope with it. I hope, though, that you are not seriously trying to equate the demographic shifts which took place 200 years ago to those taking place today?
- Sure they did: ridiculous, ignorant bigots have always existed, and thus you represent an unbroken tradition which will most likely continue on to the last day. Considering the extensive research which demonstrates that there's an underlying cognitive basis for racism, it's most likely that you're incapable of anything other than intolerance, so it's not like your raving bigotry is any more than the best you're capable of achieving. For you, it's high functioning. Luckily, you're part of a dying breed and you aren't likely to ever do much more than post racist diatribes on obscure websites.


D:!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11 Kamandi made a funny@!
- And an undeniable verity.


What are you talking about, what stupid propaganda?
- i.e., everything that spouts out every time you hit the Enter key.

- "Cleaning up their presentation" means, as they admit, making their fascist beliefs less conspicuous so the public will hopefully find them acceptable - that's "disguising."
Cleaning up their presentation does not entail any dishonesty, it is purely the method which has been reworked. If you could prove that they are specifically disguising something, you would have done so by now.

- Bull****: It would involve forcing people away from their homes and lives and repatriating them; i.e., a punishment.
How is that a punishment???

Main Entry: pun·ish
Pronunciation: 'p&-nish
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English punisshen, from Middle French puniss-, stem of punir, from Latin punire, from poena penalty -- more at PAIN
transitive senses
1 a : to impose a penalty on for a fault, offense, or violation b : to inflict a penalty for the commission of (an offense) in retribution or retaliation
2 a : to deal with roughly or harshly b : to inflict injury on

Segregating is not intended to inflict a penalty of any kind. Segregation is primarily for their comfort, not the others discomfort. Nor is segregation necessarily a rough or harsh process.

historians and political scientists have universally described Nazism as "fascist"
An obvious falsehood.


- In your exchanges with Sulla the Dictator, for one, in other threads, although you did mention being "open to the idea that the gas chambers were provable."
And those exchanges would indicate I have claimed the holocaust as a "hoax", how...?

- Communism's goal was to create a planned economy, while Nazism goal was always to eliminate what they considered to be the "racial poison" of Untermenschen from the state. Communism failed its goal by its simple impossiblity, while only defeat by foreign powers detered Germany. Thus your claim is bunk; Communism deviated from it's goal by starvation, while Germany accomplished its goal by extermination.
Hate to burst your bubble, but the German "Nazis" were not the first National Socialists nor were they the last. "Exterminationism" is not a logical conclusion of the national socialist ideology. I did not claim that exterminationism is to Germany as starvation is to Communism.


- Exactly as stated.
Another fine dodge by Kamandi:

Quote:
"Racial danger" is extremely broad. That the Germans may have lost their Aryan nobility due to Jews is a much different issue than that the White race may lose its biological predominance within America due to a similar group of people.
- They're both equally ridiculous and ignroant.
:rolleyes:
- Only you would argue otherwise, among other racist bigots.
Is there a point to this story?

- Sure: Pravda reignited the blood libel several times in the last few years, as well as well-circulated essays by antisemites Stigniev O'Donnell and Mark Glenn on websites like the (thankfully now-defunct) Jewish Tribal Review and other hate sites.
I asked for evidence that these are arguements typically advanced by anitsemites.

- Changing.
How do you know it will continue to change to a level of complete equality? Given black birthrates measured against black economic performance, the black SES level is destined for another downswing as the birthrate for the already high SES whites (who's produce currently props up the black SES rate) declines. There is no evidence, anyway, that the black SES rate would reach anything comparable to whites given current trends.

- Laughable. No more so than whites: a high SES white person could still wear sweatsuits like Adam Sandler or a cowboy hat and chew Skoal like Sam Walton.
Laughable, as they are less likely to be low SES in the first place. Common sense.

If you wanted to avoid crime, you'd advocate avoiding all people with low SES. They don't.
This is also common sense. Has AmRen indicated anywhere that they are specifically against this cause?

i.e., irrational racism.
And what is irrational about ethnocultural preference? I do not give Jews a hard time who wish to run Jewish dating services, and become absorbed in Jewish tradition to the point where they prefer it to anything else. I admire this pursuit, amongst any ethnicity.

Black college enrollment soars
With the help of whites in the form of affirmative action, as everyone well understands.

and the number of blacks living under the poverty line has dwindled to a small minority (>20%)
That is not a small minority by stretch of the imagination.

- Yes, that your statement was unwarranted.
But I did not claim that whites do not often commit crimes. It is your statement which was unwarranted.

- Because prejudice is part of the definition of racism,
You are sadly mistaken.

- Yes, I have, for reasons not the least of which is that it's a defining characteristic of the term.
'Fraid not. I've clearly demonstrated in this thread that the collection of nebulous ideologies labelled by the likes of you as "racism" is not necessarily the result of prejudicial thinking. You have failed to demonstrate otherwise, and can only resort to the use of secondary PC dictionary definitions, which are only included due to their frequent (mis)use - a practice which this thread was started to bring attention to in the first place.

- They don't know the race as whole and couldn't possibly, and typically discount counter-examples as non-representative; i.e., their beliefs are based on prejudice.
Nonsense. Individuals can easily be aware of the race as a whole; ie, it's culture, its traditions, and the average tendancies of its people.

- As we've already seen, the "reasons" are bull****, leaving you to explain the aversion as "ethnocultural preferences," or, in other words, prejudice.
Um, no, the reasons observed are the reasons for the ethnocultural preference to begin. And you certainly have not shown the reasons to be "bull****".

- Sorry, but in our culture poverty certainly implies inferiority and you know it. You're using it to rationalize your belief in their inferiority.
It implies inferiority for individuals within this cultural unit. I don't apply those same standards to blacks. What don't you understand?

- The "probabilities" are, as you've already admitted, are a pile of crap
They are not.

and are only used as a weak rationalization for the actual source of aversion, "ethnocultural preference," also known as racial bigotry.
That is a separate, more base reason. Call it "racial bigotry" if you want, I do not care.

- We're not "propping them up."
LOL!

Years of inexcusable treatment and discrimination and their consequences are being corrected,
I would like you to, perhaps in a separate thread, draw links between these types of "inexcuseable treatments" and the current performance of recent generations of blacks, who have not been subjected to such treatments.

- Of course, I have no evidence whatsoever for claiming that, other than the fact that their beliefs are fascist,
Which proves nothing.

and as such have been strongly correlated with such beliefs and behavior.
False.

That's not substantial enough evidence - although Dickson's quite a virulent hatemonger - so I wouldn't go on record with that.
Please, do not waste bandwidth with any such nonsense as this again.

Considering the extensive research which demonstrates that there's an underlying cognitive basis for racism,
I'm still waiting to hear about such research...

- And an undeniable verity.
D:!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

- i.e., everything that spouts out every time you hit the Enter key.
OMGROLFKDKDKD:!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111 11111111111111

Cleaning up their presentation does not entail any dishonesty, it is purely the method which has been reworked. If you could prove that they are specifically disguising something, you would have done so by now.
- When they say they're "cleaning up" up their presentation so the public will find it acceptable, they're making it less immediately obvious that they are fascist and racist. That's disguising, since their core beliefs are fascist and racist.


How is that a punishment???

Main Entry: pun·ish
Pronunciation: 'p&-nish
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English punisshen, from Middle French puniss-, stem of punir, from Latin punire, from poena penalty -- more at PAIN
transitive senses
1 a : to impose a penalty on for a fault, offense, or violation b : to inflict a penalty for the commission of (an offense) in retribution or retaliation
2 a : to deal with roughly or harshly b : to inflict injury on

Segregating is not intended to inflict a penalty of any kind. Segregation is primarily for their comfort, not the others discomfort. Nor is segregation necessarily a rough or harsh process.
- Someone forcing you away from your home and life at gunpoint and compelling you to leave the country of your citizenship against your wishes because they don't like the color of your skin is being treated "roughly and harshly," by anyone's standards. It is certainly not done for their comfort: if they were uncomfortable, they would have left in the first place. It would be done because of racial hatred.


An obvious falsehood.
- An absolute truth: there's no sense in which the Nazis weren't fascist. Simply because the Italian government might reflect a different subspecies of the ideology doesn't meant the Nazis don't meet every criterion to be described as such.

And those exchanges would indicate I have claimed the holocaust as a "hoax", how...?
- Because you wouldn't trying to support the obviously bogus arguments of the deniers if you didn't feel they were true, or that denying the Holocaust didn't serve a purpose; i.e., trying to harm the status of Jews. Since if the Holocaust didn't happen, then all of the eyewitnesses that testified to seeing it firsthand must be lying, and the organizations that have demanded restitution and prosecution of the war criminals were engaged in fraud, then denial of the Holocaust implies fraud on the part of the current historical enterprise.


Hate to burst your bubble, but the German "Nazis" were not the first National Socialists nor were they the last. "Exterminationism" is not a logical conclusion of the national socialist ideology. I did not claim that exterminationism is to Germany as starvation is to Communism.
- Hate to burst your bubble, but, while Germans weren't the first fascists, Alfred Rosenberg first formulated the term, National Socialism, basing his ideology on Chamberlin's philosophy. Exterminationism was certainly the logical outcome of Hitler's stated intention for the "annihilation of the 'Jewish race' in Europe."

I asked for evidence that these are arguements typically advanced by anitsemites.
- They're claims that are typically advanced by antisemites, but whether they're typical beliefs of antisemites is hard to say, because, other than hating and fearing Jews, it's difficult to know what the typical Jew-hater believes. It would only be possible to state categorically if it were practicable to identify and survey antisemites to determine the frequency of blood libel adherents among them. It's certainly a charge that's been advanced by antisemites over centuries.


How do you know it will continue to change to a level of complete equality? Given black birthrates measured against black economic performance, the black SES level is destined for another downswing as the birthrate for the already high SES whites (who's produce currently props up the black SES rate) declines. There is no evidence, anyway, that the black SES rate would reach anything comparable to whites given current trends.
- Given the extraordinary increase in black SES over the last thirty years, with no let up in sight, there's no particular reason to believe that it wouldn't, other than your manifest conviction that they're genetically inferior.


Laughable, as they are less likely to be low SES in the first place. Common sense.
- There's no way to know someone's socioeconomic status simply by looking at them, as people wearing sweat suits or cowboy hats are much less likely to be high SES then someone wearing grey flannels.


This is also common sense. Has AmRen indicated anywhere that they are specifically against this cause?
- They're specifically for racial separatism, and since racial separatists avoid blacks regardless of their economic status, it really doesn't have anything to do with crime; they would still hate blacks if they only commited 12% of the crime and were 4x less likely to attack whites as they were to be attacked by whites.


And what is irrational about ethnocultural preference? I do not give Jews a hard time who wish to run Jewish dating services, and become absorbed in Jewish tradition to the point where they prefer it to anything else. I admire this pursuit, amongst any ethnicity.
- Just to begin with, Jews have intermarriage rate of about 50% now. And "ethnocultural preferences" is your euphemism for "racial prejudice." Even Jews that encourage Jews to marry other Jews certainly don't advocate for Jews to avoid non-Jews; they simply encourage them to marry endogamously, and just as enthusiastically try to convince them to get their non-Jewish partners to convert if they do marry outside the faith.

Racial prejudice is not the outcome of a logical series of inferences; it's just what it's name implies - a prejudice. A bigot will defame an outgroup member regardless of what they do, so it's clear that it's not based on their actions. In fact, a typical racist, if they find out there best friend has an outgroup member grandparent, refuses to have anything to do with them, and wishes for them to be removed from society. That doesn't sound like a rational position. If the supposed negative qualities based on a "rational" assessment of an entire racial group were removed, then the racist still would continue to defame members of the group, based on "preferences." That's not rational.


With the help of whites in the form of affirmative action, as everyone well understands.
- Affirmative Action might get them INTO college, but only their own application and intelligence allows them to graduate.


That is not a small minority by stretch of the imagination.
- Bull****: 2 in 10 is a small minority by any standard. White people have over 10% poverty. If 80% of white people made up American society, you'd say that was a "large majority." Thus, 20% must be a small minority.


But I did not claim that whites do not often commit crimes. It is your statement which was unwarranted.
- I didn't say you did: you said blacks often crimes, so, culturally, it's as much a part of the definition of black people as prejudice is racists. I pointed out that whites often commit crimes, but you didn't seem to feel it should be their defining characteristic.

Fraid not. I've clearly demonstrated in this thread that the collection of nebulous ideologies labelled by the likes of you as "racism" is not necessarily the result of prejudicial thinking.
- No, you haven't: you admitted that it was based on prejudicial thinking, i.e., "ethnocultural tendencies."

You have failed to demonstrate otherwise, and can only resort to the use of secondary PC dictionary definitions, which are only included due to their frequent (mis)use - a practice which this thread was started to bring attention to in the first place.[/QUOTE]
- No, you yourself have demonstrated that it is based on prejudice in your admission that the reason racists refuse to consort with high SES blacks is "enthnocultural preference"; i.e., racial prejudice. While it's true that many inane, despicable bigots like you do believe that blacks are a bigger risk for crime, even if they weren't, you'd still refuse to consort with them based on the aforementioned "ethnocultural preferences."


Nonsense. Individuals can easily be aware of the race as a whole; ie, it's culture, its traditions, and the average tendancies of its people.
- It's impossible to know what the "average tendencies" of an entire people are unless you can survey the group as a whole and compile a statistical mean of accurately measured qualities, which, in this case, are subjective to begin with. Since that hasn't been done, the abovementioned "average tendencies" are in fact simply stereotypes.

You, for example, could be seen as the average European pseudointellectual racist dickhead, but in fact that would require that all your fellow European pseudointellectual racist dickheads be surveyed to determine whether you're in fact reflective of the central tendencies towards pseudointellectuality, racism, or being a dickhead of this racist, dickheaded group.

Thus it's difficult to say anything general about your status as a racist dickhead. Compared to other racist dickheads, you might be only average in your racist dickheadedness, or you might be, as is most likely, an extraordinary pseudointellectual racist dickhead. Nothing more can be said qualitatively, so making any further claims would just be stereotyping the pseudointellectual, racist dickhead community.


Um, no, the reasons observed are the reasons for the ethnocultural preference to begin. And you certainly have not shown the reasons to be "bull****".
- No, they're not, because, as you mentioned, even if those don't and didn't exist, then "ethnocultural preferences," that is, racial bigotry, would exist, so such tendencies are logically prior to those "reasons" and don't depend on them in any way, otherwise high SES blacks who don't act any differently than the average high SES white would be perfectly acceptable.


It implies inferiority for individuals within this cultural unit. I don't apply those same standards to blacks. What don't you understand?
- That you would continue to make this argument when you've already attempted to use "disproportionate black poverty" as an indicator of crime, and thus inferiority. Since I doubt you would argue that criminals aren't morally inferior to non-criminals on an average basis, it's clear that your claim is bogus.


They are not.
- Such probablilities don't apply to humans with free will in the first place, and they have little to do with why racists scorn their outgroups, the true underlying dynamic of which is "ethnocultural preference."


That is a separate, more base reason. Call it "racial bigotry" if you want, I do not care.
- No, it's not separate, because it exists prior to the rationalization by crime statistics: racists wouldn't refuse to consort with a black Supreme Court Justice if SES was actually the underlying basis. Even if blacks committed far fewer crimes than whites on average, such bigots would still argue for segregation, based on the aforementioned "preference."


LOL!
- Laugh all you want; years of unfair discrimination should be recompensed.


I would like you to, perhaps in a separate thread, draw links between these types of "inexcuseable treatments" and the current performance of recent generations of blacks, who have not been subjected to such treatments.
- The fact that 80% of the community is now above the poverty line, as opposed to under 40% 50 years ago, and a huge jump in average household income and rate of college graduation would indicate that it's high.


Which proves nothing.
- I never said I could "prove" anything about their propensity for exterminationism, other than the historical association of their fascist beliefs with such desires.


False.
- It's clear that almost anyone who's carried out such programs were motivated by such beliefs, as in the case of Stalin, who, despite his paranoia, was also motivated by an ideological acceptance of hatred of minorities, as in his treatment of Jewish doctors, for example. However, there's others like Pol Pot and Idi Amin, who weren't, but their killings weren't really "extirminationism," because their motivation wasn't genocide, but eliminating internal opposition regardless of race.


Please, do not waste bandwidth with any such nonsense as this again.
- **** you: if I want to say a hatemonger like Dickson is a hatemonger, I will.


I'm still waiting to hear about such research...
- I already gave you references, so get off your lazy ass and check it out.

- When they say they're "cleaning up" up their presentation so the public will find it acceptable, they're making it less immediately obvious that they are fascist and racist. That's disguising, since their core beliefs are fascist and racist.
They are making themselves less aesthetically displeasing as an organisation, which is a necessity due to negative stereotypes within American media surrounding the discussion of race from a non-egalitarian point of view. But they have not disguised any of their core beliefs, whether you term them fascist, "racist" or whatever. And for the last time, if you can't provide evidence for anything specific, drop the arguement at once.

- Someone forcing you away from your home and life at gunpoint and compelling you to leave the country of your citizenship against your wishes because they don't like the color of your skin is being treated "roughly and harshly," by anyone's standards. It is certainly not done for their comfort: if they were uncomfortable, they would have left in the first place. It would be done because of racial hatred.
1)Segregation is not always done at gunpoint

2)It is not rough or harsh treatment by anyone's standards, though the only standards which actually matter in regards to punishment are those doing the segregating. If they do not feel themselves punishers, they are not. But nonetheless, it is perfectly imagineable that a population would voluntarily participate within the segregation process (for example, several American black nationalist groups).

3)It is not necessarily done "because of racial hatred".

- Because you wouldn't trying to support the obviously bogus arguments of the deniers if you didn't feel they were true, or that denying the Holocaust didn't serve a purpose; i.e., trying to harm the status of Jews.
Trying to harm the status of the Jews does not mean I've somehow claimed the holocaust to be a "hoax".

Since if the Holocaust didn't happen, then all of the eyewitnesses that testified to seeing it firsthand must be lying, and the organizations that have demanded restitution and prosecution of the war criminals were engaged in fraud, then denial of the Holocaust implies fraud on the part of the current historical enterprise.
What do you mean by "denial of the Holocaust"? I have never found a concrete definition of this idea, thus I have kept it safely out of my vocabulary.

Many of the aspects of holocaust story are now questionable due to several recently discovered factual inaccuracies (the Auschwitz death toll, for an obvious example), and as a result the whole thing needs to be viewed in a skeptical manner. As well, I do not like the moral leverage the Jewish community attemps to use it for, especially in my country, which had nothing to do with the matter historically. That is my position on the matter in its entirety.

Use of the word "hoax" is completely uncalled for though, and it's not appreciated.

No camp survivor has gone on record with the death toll data or any such thing, so that's quite an irrelevant arguement there.

- Hate to burst your bubble, but, while Germans weren't the first fascists, Alfred Rosenberg first formulated the term, National Socialism, basing his ideology on Chamberlin's philosophy.
As a party-specific ideology, yes, but that does not make them the first national socialists.

Exterminationism was certainly the logical outcome of Hitler's stated intention for the "annihilation of the 'Jewish race' in Europe."
...Which is not a necessary component of national socialism. It is situational, for starters.

- They're claims that are typically advanced by antisemites, but whether they're typical beliefs of antisemites is hard to say, because, other than hating and fearing Jews, it's difficult to know what the typical Jew-hater believes. It would only be possible to state categorically if it were practicable to identify and survey antisemites to determine the frequency of blood libel adherents among them. It's certainly a charge that's been advanced by antisemites over centuries.
Okay, so you've no reason to have said that. Thanks.

From my experience it's a very atypical arguement, mostly held to by those into the idea of antisemitism just for kicks, or as a throwback to protocols-era anti-zionist type material. The only person I have ever met in real life who seriously believes that kind of blood libel stuff was an Arab.

- Given the extraordinary increase in black SES over the last thirty years, with no let up in sight, there's no particular reason to believe that it wouldn't, other than your manifest conviction that they're genetically inferior.
That it has risen over such a short period of time does not lend anything to the notion that it will continue to rise to a level of complete equality.

- They're specifically for racial separatism, and since racial separatists avoid blacks regardless of their economic status, it really doesn't have anything to do with crime; they would still hate blacks if they only commited 12% of the crime and were 4x less likely to attack whites as they were to be attacked by whites.
I do not see how you can make a blanketing statement like that. I'm sure many members of AmRen who are minded more toward economics than culture would welcome the company of Negroes if that were the case. As I am sure that there are those more minded toward culture than economics, who would never accept their company.

- Just to begin with, Jews have intermarriage rate of about 50% now.
I don't care... I said I don't rag on Jews who do behave in such a manner. And this was simply an example, which is why I stated that I admire this tendancy amongst any ethnicity.

And "ethnocultural preferences" is your euphemism for "racial prejudice."
In some cases yes, in some cases no. It is preference, whether prejudicial or postjudicial. I do not think it matters either way, so long as a significant portion of the populace remains so postjudicially, as to not let the society be fooled into thinking there is anything wrong with such a preference.

Racial prejudice is not the outcome of a logical series of inferences; it's just what it's name implies - a prejudice. A bigot will defame an outgroup member regardless of what they do, so it's clear that it's not based on their actions.
Racial prejudice is the outcome of the desire to venerate one's forefathers biologically, a pursuit in which I see no harm. It's certainly not the most enlightened form of racial preference, but it gets the job done, from an evolutionary perspective.

And it's not true that one racially prejudiced will necessarily defame outgroup members. Though it makes one more predisposed to the possibility, due to the purely emotional attachments involved.

I do not deem there to be anything wrong with racial prejudice among commoners (who haven't the time to bother examining all the subject matter), so long as some responsible segment of the population remains postjudicially informed on the race issue.

- Affirmative Action might get them INTO college, but only their own application and intelligence allows them to graduate.
And what is that supposed to prove? That some have the intelligence required to pass a college course? That was never contested.

- I didn't say you did: you said blacks often crimes, so, culturally, it's as much a part of the definition of black people as prejudice is racists. I pointed out that whites often commit crimes, but you didn't seem to feel it should be their defining characteristic.
Indeed not, as they commit it in lower frequencies, and it makes up far less of their popular culture.

- No, you yourself have demonstrated that it is based on prejudice in your admission that the reason racists refuse to consort with high SES blacks is "enthnocultural preference"; i.e., racial prejudice. While it's true that many inane, despicable bigots like you do believe that blacks are a bigger risk for crime, even if they weren't, you'd still refuse to consort with them based on the aforementioned "ethnocultural preferences."
What I have stated specifically, many times, is that ethnocultural preference is not necessarily the result of prejudicial thinking. Simply terming it "racism" and pasting a dictionary definition does not prove otherwise. This is getting tiresome, really.

- It's impossible to know what the "average tendencies" of an entire people are unless you can survey the group as a whole and compile a statistical mean of accurately measured qualities, which, in this case, are subjective to begin with. Since that hasn't been done, the abovementioned "average tendencies" are in fact simply stereotypes.
An analysis of a foreign culture is only in contrast to your own, so of course it's subjective. What do you mean this hasn't been done?

- No, they're not, because, as you mentioned, even if those don't and didn't exist, then "ethnocultural preferences," that is, racial bigotry, would exist, so such tendencies are logically prior to those "reasons" and don't depend on them in any way, otherwise high SES blacks who don't act any differently than the average high SES white would be perfectly acceptable.
Well, in some cases ethnocultural preference can well be termed racial bigotry, but not all. I accept that use in the cases where it applies, however.

A bigot is simply a person who refuses by God to surrender his principles, whether prejudicial or postjudicial. This applies to many people who are conscious of their ethnocultural preference and refuse to surrender it, but not to those conscious of their ethnocultural preference yet willing to force themselves to work against it.

- That you would continue to make this argument when you've already attempted to use "disproportionate black poverty" as an indicator of crime, and thus inferiority. Since I doubt you would argue that criminals aren't morally inferior to non-criminals on an average basis, it's clear that your claim is bogus.
Yes, I have argued that it indicates inferiority by my cultural standards. What's your point? I obviously would rather not apply my standards to them in the first place, as I have made clear several times, and that is why I am a separatist. What do you find so "bogus" about this?

- Such probablilities don't apply to humans with free will in the first place,
That is what they are compiled for, to be applied to segments of society. That these segments of society happen to be composed of individuals who are able to make decisions is not relevant, as these statistics are only attempting to document what decisions are being made by the groups in question.

- The fact that 80% of the community is now above the poverty line, as opposed to under 40% 50 years ago, and a huge jump in average household income and rate of college graduation would indicate that it's high.
Those are still very superficial indicators. I do not see an overall increase in health within the Negro community; they may have become more directed toward economic success, but all around I see cultural decay and an overall detraction from European society, which is becoming amplified as time progresses.

- I never said I could "prove" anything about their propensity for exterminationism, other than the historical association of their fascist beliefs with such desires.
And is there a point to this story?

- It's clear that almost anyone who's carried out such programs were motivated by such beliefs, as in the case of Stalin, who, despite his paranoia, was also motivated by an ideological acceptance of hatred of minorities, as in his treatment of Jewish doctors, for example. However, there's others like Pol Pot and Idi Amin, who weren't, but their killings weren't really "extirminationism," because their motivation wasn't genocide, but eliminating internal opposition regardless of race.
That's right, select a few questionable historical examples, demonise them, and use them to build a case against an abstract ideology. You are excellent.

- **** you: if I want to say a hatemonger like Dickson is a hatemonger, I will.
Congratulations, you have expressed your (at this point) extremely invalid opinion on an obscure political figure which has little if any relevance to this debate.

- I already gave you references, so get off your lazy ass and check it out.
You have done no such thing, Jacob.

race thread ------> click here (http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46412)

:nice: