Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:23 | #

OK, this can refer to slavery too, of course.  Here’s a quickie for negroes who think that the Obamanation makes them The Man:-

We are not being conquered by you. You are being used to kill us.

And here’s the real retort dealing specifically with India:-

We gave you New Delhi, democracy and the railway.  You gave us tea and chicken tikka marsala.  Now we ask you to go, as you once asked us.  We observed your request.  What are you waiting for?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:40 | #

Also of course there was no demographic threat to India under the British Raj.  There is one to Britain with open borders.  Different things.

Posted by John on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:13 | #

The British finally did leave India. Let me know when you’re leaving and I’ll buy you a one-way ticket.

Posted by John on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:35 | #

The descendants of the same elites who were behind colonizing India are behind the mass immigration to England. Their agenda is the same (colonizing the world) but their strategy is different tearing asunder the nations of the world, this time starting with the Western ones. Mass immigration to the West is indispensable to that strategy. If they continue to succeed, India’s turn will come.

Posted by Templar on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 19:04 | #

The British conquered us and ruled over us. They came to our lands. What goes around comes around.

Building on the observations of John above, how about…

“I guess what comes around then is that what Indians can and can’t do is still dictated by the whims of British politicians.”

Posted by Templar on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 19:09 | #

Or:

The British conquered us and ruled over us. They came to our lands.

“And this makes them different than every other ruling class in recorded Indian history how?”

Posted by gorboduc on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:04 | #

Oh friends,  I was so incensed by what someone said on this site that I shook your ungrateful dust from my shoes, etc., and stalked off, then I turned on the BBC News, which angered me even more, so I chose the lesser of two evils, and well, I’d like to stay a bit longer, please.

From GK Chesterton:

CONQUEST OF BARBARIANS LEADS TO CO-OPERATION WITH BARBARIANS, LEADING TO CONQUEST BY BARBARIANS.

A hilarious demonstration of this is afforded, not just by the vista of threatening alien faces (behind many of which lurks another Jake Fahri) and the clangour of alien tongues, all too apparent as soon as one boards a London bus, but also by the UK Government’s statement that the abolition of the vile and infamous Act of Settlement by which Catholics are debarred from the English throne (laugh, ye Orangemen, spawn of TITUS OATES, like his master, WILLIAM a lover of boys) cannot be quickly arranged by the UK Parliament, but must be decided on by the various Heads of the Commonwealth.
Are His Pissiness the Panjandrum of Pakistan, the Ugly Ukelele of Uganda, and His Nasty Negritude of Nigeria then to legislate for us on this matter?
Why the fuck should his Mighty Muckiness of the Maldives - a nasty little pool of islamic ignorance where Christians are actively persecuted - have any say in the matter?

Sorry to disagree on this with you, Templar, but it seems that what we do and say is regulated by the whims of Indian politicians. 

I’ve no idea what I’d say to the Indian student. You can’t plan these things. It’d depend on the sort of expression - arrogant, sly- his face was wearing at the time. Inspiration strikes at need; although it often brings with it increased physical risk.

Posted by Matra on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:32 | #

The British conquered us and ruled over us. They came to our lands. What goes around comes around.

1) I’m glad to know we can now dispense with all the arguments about needing diversity, propping up the NHS, and filling labour shortages.

2) So you admit we are the indigenous people and you are the colonists. Your people responded to colonisation with the INC (Indian National Congress) and rebellion. They were deemed illegitimate, at first. Attacked by their own people as extremists, at first. Prosecuted by the justice system, at first.  But eventually they won.  Sound familiar.

Posted by Blue-eyed Whites responsible for econ-crisis? on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 21:02 | #

President Lula of Brazil blames crisis on ‘white and blue-eyed’ - Gordon Brown’s efforts to smooth a path to international agreement at next week’s G20 summit in London hit a bump in Brazil yesterday when he was told that the financial crisis was the fault of the “white and blue-eyed” ... “This was a crisis that was fostered and boosted by the irrational behaviour of people who were white and blue-eyed…” - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5983430.ece

No mention of the role of (mostly) brown-eyed Semitic Jews and their large role in this economic crisis, though some Jews are blue-eyed as well.

Posted by Dasein on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 21:12 | #

The British conquered us and ruled over us. They came to our lands. What goes around comes around.

1) We came to our senses about you guys in ‘47.  Can’t you take a hint by now?

2) Well if we’re going to be fair about it, the vast majority of you need to go back, and we’ll be expecting you to give us a national language, create our civil service, and give us our form of government.

3) How about I kick you in the balls and we call it even?

Posted by Dasein on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 21:22 | #

I’ve no idea what I’d say to the Indian student. You can’t plan these things. It’d depend on the sort of expression - arrogant, sly- his face was wearing at the time.

Posted by Saving Britain From Indo-English Scoffing on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 21:41 | #

Always twist the knife when possible:

“That’s right. The British with hundreds of soldiers captured millions of Indians.  Then the British left.  Now it is Indians’ turn to leave Britain.”

“But that’s where you are wrong. The British saved you from the vicious oppression of Islamic invaders and colonizers.  Then the British left.  Now it is your turn to leave Britain.”

Posted by Wake Up Call on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 21:44 | #

“The white race is a disease, and the only cure is a bullet. The rule of whites is history. Soon they will be our serfs. It’s now the Age of the Brown Man.”

- Hindu nationalist, Ramesh Sharma

Posted by Thunder on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 22:07 | #

If I was British I suppose I would just say something like:

Yes, we did beat you there and thanks for the home delivery this time.

But I do like the idea of turning departure back on them as per the common theme here.

Posted by gorboduc on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 22:58 | #

Dasein,
talking about the Mountbattens and interesting archive materials, here’s an entry from the catalogue of the British Library’s Special Collections (which sometimes means pornographic items that are locked away in a “special cupboard” - hence the shelfmark.)

MOUNTBATTEN, George, 2nd Marquess of Milford Haven [1892-1938].
Scope: Prospectuses and catalogues of erotic and obscene books, pictures and instruments, dating from 1889 to 1929. 81 parts. Collected by George Mountbatten.
Location: Cup.364.g.48

The BL used to give a bit more explanation in a little leaflet, and I seem to remember that part of the collection consisted of “photographs of sailors in erotic and unusual poses”. Blimey.

This is the old rat’s father of course: but there’s every reason to suppose that Louis inherited the pater’s tastes.  Hence his spouse’s desperate recourse to darker meat. Urrrrkkkk.

Posted by Race versus Supremacy on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 23:03 | #

I think it is high time we changed the language of contemporary discourse.  Instead of rising to “race” and “racism” which mean to almost all concerned the indictment of the diverse white men, we need to focus the snappy put-downs on “supremacy” or “supremacist.”  It is so unusual an attack, it interrupts the negative dialog very well indeed.

The idea is that the claim to name, label, define, or describe the members of demographics of which the speaker is not a member betrays the “mental defect” of supremacy.  Sounds like a small thing, but if you can work in an accusation that the speaker is naming, labeling, defining, or describing the members of another demographic, and that all such statements reflect a claim to supremacy, it really changes the conversation.

The Red Diaper Babies said it best when they outlined the “Marks of Supremacy,” namely, the claim to have the right to name members of another demographic, and the acceptance by the named of the claim to have the right to name them.  See?  All the damn Baby Boomers were not wasted skin.  In those days, it was the diverse white men who were attacked in this way, but nowadays it is considered commonplace to name us.

Consider how long we have been oppressed by claims of supremacy that named us “gentile,” “goy,” and “shiksa.”  We didn’t vote for those names, they were and are pressed on us as a result of supremacism.  [And we all know that a supremacy claim in a small thing reflects supremacy claims in all things.]

And, then, of course everyone else piled on with honky, gringo, round eyes, pale face, and so many other “accepted” labels or descriptions that these people have forgotten about the right to self-identify.

One downside is that a lot of white guys like reverse name-calling, and you cannot do that if you make a fetish out of your right to name and describe yourself.  But the attack of a mental defect of supremacy claims interrupts the discussion really well.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 23:43 | #

there’s every reason to suppose that Louis inherited the pater’s tastes.”  (—Gorbo)

That sounds as if it’s not certain but my impression had been that it was well-established fact and that yes, the natural inference on everyone’s part has been that it had at least something to do with Lady Mountbatten’s ... worldliness .... (but we do know, despite all rumors to the contrary, Paul Robeson was NOT one of her trophies, I forget exactly how we knew but I do remember we knew that much).

Posted by Englander on Sat, 28 Mar 2009 00:23 | #

I love the idea of formulating a book of snappy comebacks, (as well as more substantial go-to arguments) because it’s vital that less experienced and knowledgeable nationalists aren’t left without weapons whenever they have a need to defend themselves. I count myself among those in need of help sometimes.

I don’t want to hijack the thread, but the specific line of argument that is the basis for this thread is not exactly the most common. I don’t know how many of these threads are planned, but there are many more important attacks that need to be countered. For example, I never know what to say when someone mocks the idea that he has any special bond with his ethnic group or race.

Posted by danielj on Sat, 28 Mar 2009 00:51 | #

For example, I never know what to say when someone mocks the idea that he has any special bond with his ethnic group or race.

Why would you have any special bond for the human race then?

Posted by gorboduc on Sat, 28 Mar 2009 01:06 | #

Mr Scrooby - And talking of Paul Robeson, he’s probably the subject of a funny tale that is, I think, in Oliver St-John Gogarty’s As I was going down Sackville Street.
A favourite ethnic singer of the moment (c,1930) had been booked to sing at a posh society dinner party: he went up to the table and began crooning setting of Shakespeare’s songs “Take, O take those lips away”.
“Yes, please do,”  rudely interrupted one of the guests, “They are eight inches thick!”
Tableau.

Posted by gorboduc on Sat, 28 Mar 2009 01:16 | #

Jam-Bhutti is probably a Marxist. so why not just “Reactionary swine!”.
That must get the prize for concision.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 28 Mar 2009 01:39 | #

LOLOL @ Gorbo, comment before last!!!

Posted by exPF on Sat, 28 Mar 2009 02:56 | #

Englander wrote:

For example, I never know what to say when someone mocks the idea that he has any special bond with his ethnic group or race.

That was going to be the next installment, you have read my mind, Englander.

I will submit some more of these over the next weeks, as there appears to be interest.
And if I have to “cut out” and exit the blogosphere for a while, Soren or GW can continue
the idea.

The hope is that all the replies after they are gathered will be indexed in the form of
an FAQ-type thing. Perhaps a bullet point on the left column of the blog, perhaps a PDF file,
whatever. Something easily transmitted.

Boiling things down to the absolute essentials here. I want to create a PDF that can be
universally distributed to all people of any racialist leaning. Sort of encapsulate the
whole message in an easily understandable document.

Posted by exPF on Sat, 28 Mar 2009 04:22 | #

Soren,

what arrogance?

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 28 Mar 2009 04:35 | #

1) Believing that fate is rightfully out to get you tops my list of how to be a loser.

2) The Indians resisted being conquered, they certainly didn’t let whites defeat them with silly words about Karma.  The only reason whites are being conquered is they’re listening to silly words like those.  And whites didn’t displace the natives.

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 28 Mar 2009 04:41 | #

For example, I never know what to say when someone mocks the idea that he has any special bond with his ethnic group or race.

“Then your descendants will die out, and be replaced with those who do.  If you’re lucky enough to forestall the inevitable that long…”

Posted by the Narrator... on Sat, 28 Mar 2009 04:46 | #

The British conquered us and ruled over us. They came to our lands. What goes around comes around.

I think you should introduce this Indian student to the fellow from your first ‘Snappy Refutations’ who seemed to imply that there is no such thing as a British people to begin with.

My reply,

Just think of how drab and monocultural (as well as apparently racist and xenophobic) India was until the British came and brought “diversity”....

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 28 Mar 2009 04:52 | #

For example, I never know what to say when someone mocks the idea that he has any special bond with his ethnic group or race.

*Pulls out wallet, looks through it, checks pockets*

“I could’ve sworn I had a Darwin Award here, too bad, you really deserve it.  Oh well, your grandkids will surely accept one on your behalf.”

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 28 Mar 2009 04:56 | #

“Stick your anti-White genocidalism straight up your fucking ass!  Pardon my French.”

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 28 Mar 2009 04:56 | #

Narrator (inter alia) has me beat:

I think you should introduce this Indian student to the fellow from your first ‘Snappy Refutations’ who seemed to imply that there is no such thing as a British people to begin with.

and,

Just think of how drab and monocultural (as well as apparently racist and xenophobic) India was until the British came and brought “diversity”....

And, behind door number three in this category of “kicking leftists in the nuts with their own arguments”:

Gee, and here I thought collective punishment was wrong!  I guess Hitler really was on to something!

Posted by the Narrator... on Sat, 28 Mar 2009 05:06 | #

“kicking leftists in the nuts with their own arguments”

Posted by Svigor on March 28, 2009, 03:56 AM

Following that tactic the following reply could also be offered up,

“Those British weren’t colonists. They were just migrant workers, looking for a better life.”

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 28 Mar 2009 05:14 | #

Narrator: indeed.  These things write themselves.  Ethnic ninjitsu is fun. 

(said by an Indian student in a western University setting):

  The British conquered us and ruled over us. They came to our lands. What goes around comes around.

(since it’s an Indian saying it)

“I’ll bet the British had all sorts of pretty lies they told themselves, too.  I bet God had even ordained their behavior.”

Or, if you don’t want to be diplomatic, go CaptainChaos style:

“Karma is for wogs.”

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 28 Mar 2009 05:17 | #

Btw, I agree with the chorus, this snappy refutation project is a capital idea.  A big juicy FAQ document of this sort is something I’ve wanted to have handy since about 2003.

‘Night all.

Posted by Templar on Sat, 28 Mar 2009 05:19 | #

Just think of how drab and monocultural (as well as apparently racist and xenophobic) India was until the British came and brought “diversity”....

Ha! That’s an excellent retort.

Posted by exPF on Sat, 28 Mar 2009 07:36 | #

Soren,

I apologize if something I said in the last comment came across as arrogance. Just for the record, I don’t view you or GW as people I can delegate work to or as people who suffer less from the difficulties of time/effort allocation conflicts than I do, or as people who have to follow my lead. Actually GW is the guy whose lead I try to follow and I have no end of respect for you for getting up on stage at the New Right meeting and delivering a speech. You may have read something in my tone that wasn’t there, pardner. Anyway, in lieu of an antwort I’ll view this conflict as being aufgepatched.

Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 28 Mar 2009 08:55 | #

The British conquered us and ruled over us. They came to our lands. What goes around comes around.

“So immigration is punishment for our sins?”

or

“So you see this as a conquest then?”

or

“Cultural marxists want to destroy national identity through mass immigration. You’re their tool.”

Also, this sort of thing is more often said by muslims than hidus/sikhs. If you can tell they’re a muslim then:

“The mughal invaders conquered all of what is now Pakistan, Bangladesh and Kashmir too so it’s about time the Indians had them back.”

Don’t try the last one unless you can handle yourself as Indian / Pakistani muslims can go nuts about that sort of thing.

This attack is one of many generally related to the theme of white guilt and in particular the idea that white people are uniquely guilty. It’s a kind of anti-white psychological warfare as guilt makes people feel they deserve their punishment and shouldn’t even try to fight back.

The enemy tries to particularize white guilt and make it unique by a) defining certain kinds of behaviour as bad and then b) focusing completely on when white people are guilty of those kinds of behaviour and completely ignoring when other groups do the same thing. This means you can either attack the idea that the behaviour is bad or you can attack the idea that the behaviour is unique to white people. The second is easiest imo, you just read a bit of history and then dilute the attack by talking about non-white examples of the same “bad” bahaviour e.g talk about non-white historical empires, talk about historical genocidal type episodes like the Mongols making pyramids of skulls in cities they destroyed,  talk about black-black and black-arab slavery etc.

It’s even better if your counter examples are from the history of the group of the individual who is making the attack.

@exPF
I could be wrong but I think the “arrogance” Soren mentioned was aimed at what the Indian guy said.

Posted by Dasein on Sat, 28 Mar 2009 10:21 | #

For example, I never know what to say when someone mocks the idea that he has any special bond with his ethnic group or race.

You feel more comfortable around those to whom you are more similar [passim Putnam].

Posted by me on Sat, 28 Mar 2009 16:38 | #

1. Do you acknowledge you’re colonizing us. Do you acknowledge our right to resist colonization?

2. You say the British presence in India was bad for Indians…so do you admit your presence here is bad for Englishmen? 

3. So it is revenge, isn’t it?  How will this lead to a new era of racial harmony?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 28 Mar 2009 16:53 | #

Agree with Templar a few above:  whoever came up with throwing “diversity” back in their faces had an excellent idea!  “Think:  the Brits were spicing up the Subcon monoculture with diversity.”  You “reverse the diversity argument” on these people.  Call it the “Reversity” tactic.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 28 Mar 2009 17:44 | #

“whoever came up with throwing ‘diversity’ back in their faces had an excellent idea!”  (—my comment)

It was The Narrator.  Good job.

They’re all good, every single idea posted.

Posted by Tanstaafl on Sat, 28 Mar 2009 17:48 | #

We pay your benefits! (Lame yes, but actually popular in the wild.)

We improved your lot. You’re ruining ours.

You won’t like where this goes round any more than we do.

Go around home.

We go through, not around.

Wogs out.

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 28 Mar 2009 19:00 | #

Great comebacks from “me” above, 1, 2, and 3 are all great.

Posted by Mentious on Sat, 28 Mar 2009 20:19 | #

For example, I never know what to say when someone mocks the idea that he has any special bond with his ethnic group or race.

“Why would you have any special bond for the human race then? “

That one (above) is a great one.

Here’s another:

“But that’s unnatural.”

The shorter, the better. And always try to use lefty/new-agre sort of words against them. Lefties have this whole side to them that cherishes “naturalness,” the “organic,” etc. You can even use “diversity” against them, and make yourself the true champion of diversity with them the enemies of it. If they say, “What” to “unnatural,” you can keep pounding them:

“I mean, not loving your own people is unnatural. It’s not organic.”

“All creatures love their own.”

Hit “love” a lot, and speak of “creatures.” A lefty will pee his pants to see his own lexicon commandeered against him.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 28 Mar 2009 20:42 | #

“I mean, not loving your own people is unnatural. It’s not organic.”

“All creatures love their own.”

Hit “love” a lot, and speak of “creatures.” A lefty will pee his pants to see his own lexicon commandeered against him.

Excellent bit of analysis.

Posted by Thunder on Sat, 28 Mar 2009 21:17 | #

For the next Snappy Refutations Exercise I would like to see reponses to an aboriginal, Canadian, American, Australian etc.  Who pulls the “We were here first line.” Ironic given my staus but I have had it said to me several times.

Posted by Britannia on Sun, 29 Mar 2009 03:29 | #

This thread reminds me of a conversation I overheard my father having with our houseboy (I lived in the middle east when I was younger and we had a live in indian housekeeper).  A little bit of background…the indian chap was also employed with the firm my dad worked for, but due to a slump in the oil price he was forced to lay off some of the menial workers which meant old Ibrahim was left with just the housekeeper job.  It went something like this:

Houseboy:  Sir, please can you get my job back?

Dad:  Sorry Ibrahim, we just don’t have the cash at the moment…it’s not just you, I’ve had to lay off all the boys.  Have you thought about looking for a job in Dubai?

hb:  Oh Sir, Dubai big problem, sponsorship very hard to get at the moment.

Dad:  Well how about going back to India and trying your luck there?

hb:  OH SIR!  India biggest problem, prospects bad, economy bad, everything in India bad!

Dad:  Well you bastards should have thought about that before you kicked us out in ‘47!

hb acknowledges this fact with typical customary indian wobble of the head…lol

I think another point that needs to be worked into this argument is that there was no India as such until the British arrived.

You could say something along the lines of:  So this is the thanks we get for uniting your people, giving you a common language in which to communicate, abolishing obscene practices such as suttee (the burning of female widows alive on funeral pyres) and the killing of female infants, providing you with a first rate education system, law and order, a public transport system, democracy, medicine and the basis and training for a modern army, navy and airforce and some of your finest architecture, not to mention leaving it and you all ethnically in tact! You ungrateful bastards!

Or you could save your words, stick your pith hat on and give the cheeky wog a good colonial style beating to remind him just how a few thousand of us managed to rule over half a million of them for 200+ years!

Great retorts lads.

Posted by the Narrator... on Sun, 29 Mar 2009 08:11 | #

For the next Snappy Refutations Exercise I would like to see reponses to an aboriginal, Canadian, American, Australian etc.  Who pulls the “We were here first line.” Ironic given my staus but I have had it said to me several times.

Posted by Thunder on March 28, 2009, 08:17 PM

Here is not always the same place.

The big giant land mass known as North America and the nation state known as America are two very different things.

The United States is a legal/social construct. No one was in America prior to it being created between 1776 and 1787.

As an example,
None of my own ancestors immigrated to the United States, legally or illegally. 

You see there was no United States prior to its creation in the 1770’s and 1780’s.  And all of my ancestors arrived long before then.  They were British colonists moving from one part of the empire to another, who, along with other such colonists, created the United States from scratch.

So the VERY FIRST Americans were White.

So no, the Indians were not here first.  That would be like saying that Indians were the founders of the Microsoft Corporation since they once roamed the land where its headquarters currently resides.  Or that Geronimo should be listed amongst the historic rosters of the Arizona Cardinals football team since “he was there first.”

.

That ain’t snappy, I know, but my third sentence above sums it up enough to stand on its own and be “snappy”.

.
If you’re an American you may want to have a copy of this around,
http://shopping.discovery.com/product-59637.html

...

Posted by Bric on Sun, 29 Mar 2009 10:15 | #

“The British conquered us and ruled over us. They came to our lands. What goes around comes around.”

Answer: When Turkey allows millions of Bulgarian, Serbian, Greek, Egyptian, Austrian, Hungarian, Romanian etc… colonists inside it’s boundaries, when Arabia allows millions of Hindus, Persians, Spaniards, Portuguese, Armenians etc… inside it’s boundaries (and gives them equal rights as Arabs) in the name of Karma, we will think about it.

Posted by Thunder on Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:03 | #

@Narrator

Thanks for those retorts.  My main line has usually been “How old are you?” (If he/she appears younger than me or just point to the youngest one of them.)  Followed by, “Well I was here first.”  Which isn’t great but gets more useful as I age.

Cheers

Posted by Svigor on Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:33 | #

“We were here first”

Well, if we’re tailoring our arguments to hit “progressives” in the nads…

“Israel is still in the process of displacing the natives, and doing much of what you object to in post-colonial European ethnic nationalist theory; on the ground, not in cyberspace.  Fresh blood.  I think your priorities are misplaced; first deal with the ongoing colonial project in Israel, Tibet, etc.  Then you can deal with ancient history later.  Justice should be global, not local.”

Snappier:

“How can you object to our theorizing about these things on the basis you do, when Israel is currently DOING THESE THINGS?”

Or:

“We want for ourselves what the Israelis have for themselves.  Can’t object to us thinking about it until you’ve stopped them doing it.”

Posted by Watson on Sun, 29 Mar 2009 19:31 | #

The British conquered us and ruled over us. They came to our lands. What goes around comes around.

“It must suck to come from such a fucked-up country, filled with such fucked-up people that you cannot defend yourself from military conquest, create a decent standard of living, or discourage your people from fleeing to Western countries.  England came as conqueror.  You have come to beg.”

Posted by Thunder on Mon, 30 Mar 2009 03:15 | #

@ the Narrator

If you’re an American you may want to have a copy of this around,
http://shopping.discovery.com/product-59637.html

I saw this series and what particularly struck me at the time was that the Ojibway (Chippewa etc.) have dna common to a that particular group from France making the trek to N. America.  As I have French and Ojibwa background (among others) I commented that my ancestors may have caught up with each other some centuries later.

Posted by BGD on Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:10 | #

Well that might be true Mr Chatterjee but to be successful reverse colonisation relies on the fact the colonised will go along with it.

What’s important is my countrymen’s reaction to you not your rationalisations after the fact.

You are a ticking bomb and if my ears don’t deceive me you’re getting louder and louder.

Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:57 | #

It wasn’t the British; it was the rulers of the British.  And since they then ruled over you, you are as responsible for their deeds as we are.

Posted by Svigor on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 03:08 | #

It wasn’t the British; it was the rulers of the British.  And since they then ruled over you, you are as responsible for their deeds as we are.

Damn, go ahead and drop a rhetorical nuke then!

How did this thread go that long without that being pointed out!  And, as suggested above, Ben twists the knife in the wound for maximum effect in the second sentence.

Posted by Svigor on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 03:43 | #

Damn, I looked right at it and forgot I’d written it!

Actually, I didn’t write it, so much as edit it.  It started with the Wikipedia article on WNism.  The Wikipedia Cabal kept hostile-editing it, and me out of it, even facts and ironclad logic, that I wrote my own based on my edits and put it up on my site.  I didn’t post it at WVWN though, this is the first I’ve heard of it.

But thanks for the kind word. 

Posted by Svigor on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 04:10 | #

Oops, wrong thread!

Posted by Boromir on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 10:47 | #

Snappy refutations are an absolute necessity, yes.

But isn’t this particular hypothetical beside the point? Snappy refutations are not meant for hostile ethnics, they are to turn mislead co-ethnics into active allies. Why bother with the explanations or justifications the invader might offer, unless doing so offers some insights.

“I never know what to say when someone mocks the idea that he has any special bond with his ethnic group or race.”

This line, this argument, is the heart of the raceless man. [Deleted Yockey reference to “The Man of Race”.] If some man does not have the feeling, well, there is no snappy retort to inspire it, or him.

In the olden days, a verse or two from the hero’s tale ... nowadays, you might want something from a movie.

Posted by Boromir on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 11:01 | #

Make that, a movie with the Seal of Approval.

Posted by Boromir on Fri, 03 Apr 2009 05:39 | #

Misled not mislead. Only correcting this because the spelling error does change the meaning into something opposed to the point. (Turning co-ethnics into allies is not misleading them!)

But, again, people not caring about their kids being of their race, that is a feeling, not a reasoned position. So a retort must address the feeling. This feeling is one of despair, whose antidote is inspiration. Inspiration usually comes from action; in lieu of that, the retelling of some heroic feat.

Posted by guest on Sun, 05 Apr 2009 12:12 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on March 27, 2009, 04:23 PM | #

OK, this can refer to slavery too, of course.  Here’s a quickie for negroes who think that the Obamanation makes them The Man:-

We are not being conquered by you. You are being used to kill us.

And here’s the real retort dealing specifically with India:-

We gave you New Delhi, democracy and the railway.  You gave us tea and chicken tikka marsala.  Now we ask you to go, as you once asked us.  We observed your request.  What are you waiting for?

Maybe the same thing your waiting for? for you to realise you’v been taken for a ride…

Posted by Spirituality on Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:19 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on March 27, 2009, 04:23 PM | #

“We gave you New Delhi, democracy and the railway.  You gave us tea and chicken tikka marsala.  Now we ask you to go, as you once asked us.  We observed your request.  What are you waiting for?”

We gave you tea and chicken tikka marsala. You gave us New Delhi, democracy and the railway. We gave you Spirituality . You gave us the Internet, PC and the freedom to talk talk talk and have opinions (LOL). Now you can take it all back. Observe the request like you observed it before. What are you waiting for?