Leftist White Supremacy: not in my name

Posted by Alex Zeka on December 22, 2006, 04:44 PM | #

Why the surprise? Dogerel posts spawn (j)dogerel comments.

Posted by Interracialist on December 22, 2006, 05:18 PM | #

“ The accusation of racism is itself racist...”

No.  Racism is racist.  Accusations of racism are inflamatory if, and only if, they are unfounded.  Besides, racism exists everywhere--which in itself does not validate your own racist/racialist views.

“I don’t want aliens in my country because I want my country to be for its own people. “

So, Europeans are going to return North Americans to the aboriginal people, or maybe at least respect the land treaties that they supposedly signed in good faith?

“ Likewise, you can’t become a Chinese in China or a Japanese in Japan because these healthy, normal peoples want their countries to be for themselves.”

Really? In this case, I can’t decide whether you’re ill informed or if you’re simply projecting your own views unto others in an attempt to validate them.  In any case, I’ve got pale skinned friends with passports of those countries who would disagree with you.  Heck, the Uygurs are white people that are native to China (there are 8.4 million of them).

“I should add Korea here, too, shouldn’t I? “

Actually, you shouldn’t.  As nationalistic as Koreans can be, I was essentially offered citizenship by the Korean government, which I refused (I don’t want to get into details, but my refusal was purely based on a rather minor financial concern).  Regardless, I have the right to vote here despite refusing the offer.  Can landed immigrants vote in your country?

Posted by Interacialist on December 22, 2006, 05:25 PM | #

Don’t know if my first post came through, but guessedworker,

Racism exists everywhere, but it doesn’t make it right to be so.

China and Japan allows foreigners to become citizens of their countries.  I know plenty of pale skinned poeple, and darker ones, who’d disagree with you statement concerning this.

Korea?  I was offered Korean citizenship, but I refused (minor financial concern).  Despite my refusal, I have the right to vote here.  Can you say as much about the landed immigrants in your country?

Return your country to it’s people?  Only when Europeans go back home or respect the treaties they have signed with the natives.

Posted by Interracialist on December 22, 2006, 05:27 PM | #

I guess it did…

Sorry about the double post.

Posted by Interracialist on December 22, 2006, 05:35 PM | #

In any case, Merry Christmas! (you know, the day that dark-skinned Arab prophet was born).

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 22, 2006, 09:05 PM | #

I wonder how many so-called anti-racists start where the rubber meets the road.  I wonder how many troll pro-Israeli boards and blogs.  After all, that’s where the real Cowboy and Indian action is going on, isn’t it?  I wonder how much griping they do about Zimbabwe?

Oh wait, those aren’t the real point of anti-racism, sorry, never mind.

Posted by Interracialist on December 23, 2006, 12:24 AM | #

Svyatoslav,

Obfuscation, once again.  Okay.  I’ll take a jab at it.

You can wonder all you want, but what’s written on those boards is neither relevant to the question at hand, nor an excuse for your own prejudices and biases.

Presenting the other side of an argument isn’t trolling.  Besides, isn’t this site an open forum for debate or a repository of racist propaganda and a recruiting tool?

Posted by stari_momak on December 23, 2006, 02:10 AM | #

So, Europeans are going to return North Americans to the aboriginal people, or maybe at least respect the land treaties that they supposedly signed in good faith?

My God, how many times does this have to be answered. America didn’t exist until we got here. The state, society, economy, everything is down to us. Even the name of the geographic entity. We conquered it, just as the previous people who were in what is now the United States most likely conquered it from someone else (as anthropological evidence is now revealing). And we did keep the treaties with the injuns—that’s why the institution of the Indian casino exists.

Uighurs certainly don’t consider themselves Chinese, and are not considered by Han to be Chinese, no matter that they carry a passport issued by the Chinese state. As for your personal ‘being offered citizenship’—well, there are always outliers. I ‘googled’ immigration to Korea , and just about the only info available is for foreign women who marry Korean men. The fact is that China, Japan, Korea etc. simply don’t let in masses of foreigners as permanent residents.

Posted by JB on December 23, 2006, 08:34 AM | #

Interracialist:

It’s an historical fact that many the first French settlers married native women.  I doesn’t take much of an effort to find proof of that.

you’re not even capable of pointing to a specific source to back up your claim, you’re just throwing a Google at me. Let’s see, the first 10 results of the google link your posted :

1. Access Restricted. (Do you have access to this article ? are you registered ?)

2. Wikipedia style article that says some French traders and their employees often married Native women. no numbers

3. an article on colonialism in North Africa. completely irrelevant

4. article about the aboriginals in Lousiana.

5. article about french settlers in Illinois. No source listed for the claim that “Many Frenchmen wed Indian women”, no numbers either

6. pertinent but no numbers. “During the 17th century, both the French and the native people encouraged mixed marriages.”, well it wasn’t very successfull if it were true.

7. wikipedia article on indian massacres. irrelevant

8. the word ‘French’ only appears two times on the whole page

9. article says french traders (i.e. hunters, trappers) and indian women started the Métis nations. no numbers

10.history of the Lacrosse game. completely irrelevant

Interracialist:

0.3%?  Couldn’t find it in the links you posted.

this is the link I posted, it’s a french website dealing with genealogy.

http://www.francogene.com/quebec/amerin-f.php

En fait, si nous regardons dans les registres anciens du Québec (1621-1765), nous trouvons environ 78 couples avec un homme autochtone et une femme européenne, 45 avec une femme autochtone et un homme européen et 540 avec 2 autochtones.  La base compte en tout plus de 44 500 couples, dont certains vivant en France.  Le pourcentage de couples métis mariés est très petit, moins de 0.3%.

123 interracial couples on the 44 500 recorded by the church, 0.27 %.

Interracialist:

Besides, what you failed to consider is that unions between natives and French mostly occured in the earlier years of immigration (hence, the misleadingly small number if you group it with the period where whole families began settling in Canada) and that the descendants of the early settlers married and had children with newcomers. It’s only natural that present day French Canadians are product of the unions of early French settlers and native women.

there wasn’t a lot of people in Canada before 1608. The settlers really started coming at the beginning of the 17th century. You don’t know how many people there were nor how many of them got married or produced children with aboriginals - I can’t find the numbers either but you’re just presuming that there were a lot of settlers before the 1600s to avoid the fact that only 0.27 % of all marriages recorded by religious authorities were interaccial.

Interracialist:

I really like the way you are sticking to that one, forgetting about the French outside of Quebec as if they are non-existent.

no you’re the one who’s sticking to this. Why don’t you post numbers about marriages in Acadia between the aboriginals and the french if you’re so sure many of them were into interracial relationships ?

you’re a boring troll. This sub-debate is going nowhere and it’s too late for you anyway since you’re already the product of an interracial union, you’re de facto a confused person who’s going to have politicals opinions compatible with your condition. You don’t want ‘racism’ because it makes you feel bad/uncomfortable, the rest of your arguments are just rhetorical layers of paper wrap.

Posted by JB on December 23, 2006, 08:40 AM | #

Interracialist:

I’d say that those courses are a logical response to the creeping racism in society.

with all the wiggers walking around and all the mexicans and Clinton’s saying he’s proud that whites are going to be a minority, you conclude there’s a creeping racism in american society ? you’re living in an other dimension

Interracialist:

Besides, racism exists everywhere--which in itself does not validate your own racist/racialist views.

au contraire, if whites are the only group not pursuing its group interests and the only group to consider ethnocentrism immoral then the only result of this mindset will be the self-destruction of whites.

Why should we kill ourselves ? You see morality in suicide ? I don’t. We don’t. That’s where the line is drawn: our enemies want us to kill ourselves, we want to live and prosper.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 23, 2006, 04:18 PM | #

A pair of excellent posts by JB there.  Good job, JB!

Posted by JB on December 23, 2006, 07:36 PM | #

Posted by Fred Scrooby

Fred please make paragraphs, it’s easier to read when there are paragraphs

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 23, 2006, 08:46 PM | #

I’ve already been chastised for that, JB.  It’s one of my big defects.  Thanks for the reminder and I’ll try always to keep it in mind.

May I ask what your native language is?  You’re a Quebecker, right?  Are you of English-speaking family there or French-speaking?