|
|
|
The Snappy Refutations Project, Exercise 1 By Ex-PF Refute the following, while maintaining conversational tone and diction and a minimum of verbiage (preferably several sentences length). (related in a dinner table discussion of miscegenation):
Refutations will be evaluated for conciseness and overall “snappiness”, i.e. the ease of wielding them in everyday convos with average people. Maybe, after all entries are submitted, we’ll take a vote as to whose was best. Comments:2
Posted by the Narrator... on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:16 | #
Apparently not so mixed up that they couldn’t be individually categorized and differentiated from one another as Saxons, Jutes, Angles, Normans and Celts. And evidently not so mongrelized that the Anglo-Saxons and Welsh have kept (separate) distinct ethnic/cultural identities all the way up into the 21st century. ... 3
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:14 | # First retort: If multi-array DNA analysis distinguishes between the populations of the cantons of Switzerland, which it does, can’t the progeny of Jutes, Angles, Normans and Celts distinguish themselves from negroes and Pakistanis? Second retort: “Jews and Japanese, Tibetans and Yamomanis don’t seek to preserve themselves because they are pure-bloods, but because they simply are. They are normal people who do not wish to be bred away, to be made extinct.” Third retort: As you would not send your daughter to Rwanda or Somalia to find a “suitable” husband, why are you content to have Rwandans and Somalis looking for her here?” How many of these do you want, PF? 4
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:19 | # Yeah WASPs are just a bunch of inbred mongrels! 5
Posted by Dasein on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:13 | # Define a mongrel. Please use numbers. If Jutes are Chihuahuas and Celts are Great Danes, what are Nigerians? Do you consider your children to be mongrels? 6
Posted by Dasein on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:29 | # Which of these would you not mix with the others? Cabernet, Merlot, Syrah, or milk. 7
Posted by Refuting a self-hating Anglo- Saxon on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:47 | # “The Anglo-Saxon people are actually a mongrel nation anyway. All those Jutes, Angles, Normans and Celts, we’re all such mixed up mongrels.”
“You give self-loathing an entirely new dimension by the way you hate your heritage.” or “Speak for yourself, you hater.” or “Don’t confuse your mental defect with the real world.” or “Are you really comparing yourself to a dog?”
8
Posted by skeptical on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:59 | # There can be no snappy retort to such an absurd belief. I would simply respond by saying that the various saxon, norman, norse, and celtic tribes were clearly drawn from a common source and that the same cannot be said for the bantu. 9
Posted by Michael on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:03 | # Once again, identity is a pretty subjective issue (not a moral issue - in fact there are no sensible moral arguments against the right of any people to identify themselves and take measures to preserve that identity). It really depends on your concept of self. I would probably remind the interlocutor that they usually have no trouble identifying Anglo-Saxons as a distinct people when the bill falls due for slavery reparations, affirmative action programmes, and so on (or indeed when they are looking for an all purpose historical villain to explain away practically any shortcoming among a non-white group). It is easy to define an Anglo-Saxon as a synomym for “filth” -in fact none of your dinner companions would dispute it for a second. So why is it so difficult to figure out who the Anglo-Saxons are when the conversation is no longer about their alleged negative attributes? By the way, you should email them a copy of this speech, and ask them which “hate-filled nationalist” they presume wrote it:
10
Posted by Templar on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:05 | # “The Anglo-Saxon people are actually a mongrel nation anyway. All those Jutes, Angles, Normans and Celts, we’re all such mixed up mongrels.” Hmm, how does this sound? “If you see this as a negative attribute, why do you support making it worse?” 11
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:36 | # They are, per Salter, an ethny.
JS Mill
12
Posted by gorboduc on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:40 | # The Catholic historian Richard Verstegan (aka Richard Rowlands) dealt with this as far back as 1605, in his treatise “A Restitution of Decayed Intelligence” whixh wd. today be called “Lost Knowledge Restored” Chapter VI is headed: OF THE DANES AND THE NORMANES AND THEIR COMING INTO England. And how the English people haue still notwithstanding remained the Corpes and Body of the Realme. After 32 or so pages, he concludes: And wheras some doe call vs a mixed nation by reason of these Danes and Normanes comming in among vs, I answer (as formerly I have noted) that the Danes and the Normanes were once one same people with the Germans, as were also the Saxons; and wee are not to bee accompted mixed by hauing onely some such ioyned vnto vs again, as sometime had on[e] same language and one same originall with us.
I’m not putting this in for the dinner-table repartee prize as it stands, but it may be of interest to see that the question was raised such a long time ago. 13
Posted by Spirit of 1776 on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 19:18 | # Here’s my confrontationally-honed reply, “Uh huh. They are my cousins and if you’ve got a problem with that, you’ll have to deal with all of us.” 14
Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 19:26 | #
Nordic and Celtic, good blend. (followed by raising glass in a toast) or (bluecollar version1) Who you calling a mongrel? (aggressive expression) or (bluecollar version2) I might be a mongrel but I’m an English mongrel! (swap English for whatever)
15
Posted by Armor on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 19:37 | # Are you saying that a Jute isn’t more like an Angle than like a Paki or a Zulu ? (In fact, even in mixed race Dominica, they don’t want pure African immigrants from Haiti). 16
Posted by Dasein on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:33 | #
This is good. Make them define what a mongrel is. 18
Posted by Tanstaafl on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:00 | # Yes, a veritable “nation of immigrants” - just like israel but a thousand years older. 19
Posted by exPF on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:18 | # Good job all. All that comes to mind for me is a Socratic method type reply: “Do you think people belonging to multiple traditions might feel conflicted about themselves?” Its hard to choose a favorite from amongst all these good replies. 20
Posted by ben tillman on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:39 | # The nature of sexual reproduction dictates that each person is a mixture of many ancestors, yet each person—as he is, regardless of how he came to be so—nonetheless maintains an interest in securing his life and the means for its continuation (i.e., property), and society recognizes laws against murder, theft, and trespass to protect these interests. Likewise with a people or nation: regardless of how it came to be what it is, the people or nation has an interest in preserving its own life and the means for its continuation, most notably its territory. If you’re implying that previous admixture deprives a nation of its rights and interests, it logically follows that no person (since all are products of admixture) has any rights any or interests. 21
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:57 | # Well, how about this one? It’s an argument I’ve fired at CiF commenters who have come out with the “mongrel” line.
That’s quite a risky line. It is tending to get deleted less than it used to, simply because I’m using it more. But I have now been banned forty times from CiF. I probably average a ban a week for pressing home a line of attack that pops their brain cells. It’s no skin off my nose. I just register under another name and set about changing the terms of their discourse again. But it’s really only stubborness that keeps me at it now. My original interest in testing arguments against able interlocutors has rather bitten the dust because there is such a decline in substance on race threads. 22
Posted by Armor on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 22:24 | # Too much mongrelization kills mongrelization. 23
Posted by ben tillman on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 22:58 | #
If it is forced race mixing, it is rape.
You are right; forced race mixing is, in principle, exactly the same as rape. I must say GW has a number of very good lines. No. 3 is hilarious! 24
Posted by Thunder on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 23:09 | # Excellent replies. This is why I love this website. I’m going to put them all in a toolbox and take out whatever wrench the entrée. Usually I just get kicked out of dinner parties. Because my idea of clever is “Ah give me a break, so you feel as close to a Wolof as you do to a Welshman?” Which is a pity because I love deserts. 26
Posted by Thunder on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 23:15 | # Oh man, I meant to say “whatever wrench suits the entree” and I love desserts at the end of a meal not deserts. Look just continue the repartee and I’ll go do the dishes. 27
Posted by Armor on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 23:17 | #
What you need is a partner. He will explain the white-exterminator’s point of view on a forum, and then you will flatten him dead with a snappy refutation that will have been prearranged. We always have the same problem with the leftists. They are unable to explain what they want because they don’t care about practical details and the real world. They just like posturing. For example, when they say they want more immigration, it doesn’t really mean they want more immigration, it only means they like to take that posture in a debate. They think it makes them sound good. Since they cannot make decent arguments, we have to make arguments for them, or we won’t be able to refute them. What’s needed is a special website with a list of flawed or really dumb arguments that leftists will be able to borrow from for intellectual ammunition. Then we will crush them with our superior weaponry. 28
Posted by Tanstaafl on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 23:28 | # Mongrels? Sounds like race hatred. Mongrels? You son of a bitch! Mongrels? Well, yes, I suppose Europeans are all descended from Cromongrel Man… Mongrels? You mean like Heidi Klum and Seal’s offspring? Mongrels? The mongrels start at Dover. Mongrels? You talkin’ ta me? Mongrels? Better mongrel than monkey. Mongrels? No way, Ghengis Khan never got past Kiev! 29
Posted by exPF on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 23:29 | # Brilliant comment, Armor! I agree, anti-racism is basically a way of signifying to other whites: Its like we learned to rate each other on how well we treat wogs. “Well, she’s got three degrees and her father was a war hero, has a beautiful I also really liked your idea of stooge antis Armor. 30
Posted by Armor on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 23:44 | # The strange thing is that the leftists can be smart (in their job, for example), 31
Posted by gorboduc on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 23:56 | # i) (sweetly) You seem hostile to my race. I do so hope you’re not going to do a Mengele or an Eichmann on me! ii) What’s this, a new Morgenthau plan? iii) Are you related to Kaufmann, of ‘Germany must perish’ fame? The last two might give you an opportunity to explain a little bit of history that may not have come your host’s way.
which you can find at http://racetraitor.org 32
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 00:05 | # I second Ben Tillman: I like GW’s “Third Retort.” (All the retorts the others have proposed are good too!) Minor point: “A Passerby”, commenting first in the thread, seems to say Normans and Franks were the same. They weren’t. The Franks were Dutchmen; the Normans were Norsemen. The Salians (a sub-tribe of Franks) took over France (Roman Gaul) as the Roman Empire tottered and fell, and first gave up their German language for the crude Latin spoken in Gaul in the 400s and 500s, resulting in an early form of French. They didn’t look at it as French but as Latin: as far as they were concerned they were speaking Latin. A few centuries later a Viking named Rollo wrested the province of Normandy for his Norse people to come settle in. These newly-arrived Norsemen likewise gave up their Old Norse language to adopt what we view as a form of early French but what they considered to be Latin. They put their own particular stamp on this “Latin” and it became Norman French. 33
Posted by Sisal on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 00:08 | # Jutes?! How dare you drag vegetables fibers into this! 35
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 00:22 | # “Human beings in general share more than 90% of genes in common with chimps. It is never claimed that chimps and humans are mongrels one of the other. Just how much genetic commonality do you require from a collection of individuals before you will concede they constitute a group? How much genetic relief between individuals do you need before you will feel justified in assigning them to different groups?” 36
Posted by Tanstaafl on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 00:42 | # The Jutes? What are you, one of those anti-saxons who blames the Joooooots for everything that’s wrong with the world? 37
Posted by Thunder on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 00:48 | # This website has become my favourite. I visit regularly and trawl through the comments for gems such as these: GW As you would not send your daughter to Rwanda or Somalia to find a “suitable” husband, why are you content to have Rwandans and Somalis looking for her here?” Or to see like minds in the answers of Refuting a self-hating Anglo Saxon, Spirit of 1776 and Wandrin. Men like that are welcome at my table any time. And that goes for CC, Fred, Michael, Dasein, Armor , Colin, Svigor, the Narrator, Lurker and the many other contributors to this website. It does my heart good to see intelligent people supporting what I have felt to be obvious for years. I have lived life like I was somehow different and dirty inside or defective because I prefer the company of my own kind, because I do not like seeing black men with white women and because I cheer for a white sprinter from Scotland to beat a black Canadian at the Commonwealth Games. I am proud of the accomplishments of European men and think the world would be worse off without us. If people can’t understand that then fuck them. They are enemies and traitors and I follow the advice of the late Birdman Bryant—get their attention emotionally with a harsh insult and drive your point home. I remember when I decided not to back down anymore. In highschool a health class teacher held up a picture of a black man with a white woman. Then he asked us all to write down our honest feelings in a few short sentences. I wrote something like “He probably thinks he is special. Aren’t black women good enough for him?” So I had to listen to about 30 ‘honest’ answers like “So what. Good luck to them. I wish them well. Love conquers all.” Then the teacher read my comment, crumpled it up and eyeballed me for an eternity. I was the only one in the entire class singled out like that. That was just one more in a series of efforts to heal my defect but it’s effect was the opposite. Since then my companions have been weeded to my tastes and when Canada got too pussyfied I emigrated. Try doing a university degree with that mindset. Well I guess some here have. But I have been ostracised, had my letterbox smashed , my windshield wipers twisted off and my car egged and hounded by news media because I refused to back down. And yes, I have also gotten kicked out of dinner parties but not so much lately. Just last night I was having dinner with about eleven family members and friends and immigration came up. My wife and daughter looked at me and I just said, “It’s simple. You find a good hunting ground and defend it. You can’t afford to feed a bunch of strangers forever.” Replies were, “Especially when they start having heaps of kids.” “Unless you are running a restaurant.” All supportive, so, in a sense I have my wish. (Actually the dinner was at my house so I wasn’t about to be shunned.) But I do live among my own kind and this website helps me deal with the pricks I meet who think I shouldn’t. 38
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 00:48 | # “I sense the source of your concern, you fear that individuals not included in the group will be treated inhumanely. Let it be stated at the outset that individuals ought to be treated humanely. But you seem to forget that out-of-group individuals are part a group of their own ancestral lineage, just as Anglo-Saxons are. I do not see you attacking the former for group membership, only the latter. Why? Anglo-Saxons are not entitled to the same? The double-standard you display could be construed as motivated by hatred for Anglo-Saxons, which could potentially mushroom into inhumane treatment towards Anglo-Saxons. Besides, part treating individuals humanely is respecting the ties of group membership that matters to them. You do think that Anglo-Saxons ought to be treated humanely, don’t you?” 39
Posted by Thunder on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 00:52 | # Tanstaafl: The Jutes? What are you, one of those anti-saxons who blames the Joooooots for everything that’s wrong with the world? Now that is good. Hilarious. That is one wrench I can’t wait to use. Please God have someone say GuestBlogger’s line to me. 40
Posted by Templar on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 01:36 | #
I’ll echo those sentiments, if no one objects to my doing so. I grew up with some fairly liberal assumptions about race despite being raised in an otherwise rather traditionalist home by contemporary Canadian standards (and in fact, one of my more vivid childhood memories is of myself enthusiastically singing along to “You’ve Got to Be Carefully Taught” from Rodgers and Hammerstein’s South Pacific while congratulating myself on how non-racist I was in between the lines) and I suppose that attitude remained with me, despite a persistent feeling of discomfort at the sight non-white (especially black) male/white (especially blonde) female couples up until about a year or so ago, when arguments I’d been involved in with people who seemed to (unfairly, I thought) blame whites for everything led to a search for information on racial crime data, which led to VDARE, which led, in February of this year, to my discovering the works of Kevin MacDonald, which finally shattered the remnants of the pseudo-liberal attitude I’d had towards numerous issues. It’s a darker, more sordid world that I perceive about me now, and yet, rather like swallowing the proverbial Red Pill, or discovering that Darth Vader is your father, it’s oddly liberating and even exhilerating at the same time, for being a clearer and more honest one. The truth will set you free indeed. 41
Posted by Thunder on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 02:07 | # @ Templar It’s a darker, more sordid world that I perceive about me now, and yet, rather like swallowing the proverbial Red Pill, or discovering that Darth Vader is your father, it’s oddly liberating and even exhilerating at the same time, for being a clearer and more honest one. The truth will set you free indeed. I hear you loud and clear. As I said here once here before you just have to be honest with yourself. As far as seeing the dark side of life goes, without wanting to sound too maudlin, there is still much to feel good about, especially in nature. Or you could just read Tanstaafl’s comments in this thread for a chuckle. 42
Posted by Lurker on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 02:15 | # Ive been running through this with a guy on a thread about the BNP somewhere. He’s been going through the whole ‘nation of immigrants’ and ‘who, really, is indigenous’ etc routine. So we are all the same, no-one has a valid prior claim on any territory it seems. In the end he was coming across as so objective, so lofty about the whole argument that my tack was just to ask why he even cared at all. Whats it to him what immigration policy is, he being so nuanced as to be above such petty concerns? Not a snappy reply, but I hope Im getting the gist across. 43
Posted by Lurker on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 02:47 | # Ditto what Templar said. As Ive absorbed the race realist paradigm I feel like Ive only just started to really understand anything, politics etc. Also Im sure Ive said before we should have a thread like this, in fact a permanent section of the site. A list of solid, well thought out comebacks to the standard left/liberal mantras. Of course many of them overlap. A nation of immigrants… Who is indigenous anyway… We are all mongrels…OK, that’s being worked on right here! Diversity is strength… Doing the jobs we wont do… Hardworking Asians/Mexicans (paging JJR)... Muslims are becoming more moderate… And so on practically ad infinitum. In fact having a good robust list of these platitudes, perhaps with clear examples captured in the wild, would be a good start itself. Maybe Im being petty, but in political debates I want to have the last word and score points in the real world and online. I believe the very power of these platitudes is the fact that they are rarely challenged, mostly they are emotional arguments. When Nice Mr Liberal 1 says we are a nation of mongrels, Nice Liberals 2 & 3 dont question to what extent this may or may not be true or what that means in practice, they just agree and pat each other on their metaphorical backs. The sole purpose of stating it is to affirm one’s position as a…Nice Liberal. These platitudes are all the more powerful for never being seriously analyzed, yet under scrutiny many of them evaporate. So, next time Nice Mr Liberal says we are a nation of mongrels, Nasty Mr Realist says well, actually thats not true, or what do you mean by mongrel in this context? There is a chance Nice Mr Liberal will fall at the this first hurdle, never having actually thought about the statement in any factual way at all - only emotionally. 44
Posted by Big Sinkair on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 02:59 | # Put them on the back foot: “So what are you trying to say?” Mostly likely it’ll be “blah blah blah… so what’s the big deal if we mix with (x,y,z)?” You:“Well sure, Green is the product of Blue and Yellow, but it won’t stay Green if you keep mixing Brown and Purple into it. And what’s so bad about Green that everywhere you see it you have to splash some Brown on it? Can’t it just be Green? Is being Green* wrong? Is it evil?” If your interlocutor tries to be smart by extending your analogy to a garden, saying it’s the contrast of colours that gives it is vibrancy, remind him that’s only so because the colours are separated. You can’t pour white and black paint into a tin and expect them not to run together. *If you use this retort, and this line specifically, be sure to use the colour Green. As we all know, “being Green” is good, so psychologically you’re playing on associations that have already been implanted. Might sound like a small detail, but if you’ve ever been in (and excelled at) sales you’ll have first hand proof that what might sound insignificant and silly to you can have a big effect on results. Salespeople prepare and rehearse lines all the time precisely for this reason. You don’t notice it and think he’s just riffing but he’s said that same thing a million times before and if he’s been around he has heard all your objections a dozen times just that day.
It isn’t “strange” at all. They just don’t want to be hateful and, as you can see, there is almost no length they won’t go to to avoid being (what they consider) hateful. That’s why if you clobber them too hard with “hatefacts” they’ll just run away and sulk and call you hateful and ignore and forget everything you said. GW’s “belonging to a group is a gift” retort to me in our mock duel in the “Weakening” thread is outstanding because it has the virtue of being true and non-hateful. 45
Posted by Svigor on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 03:54 | # Dinner table discussion, schminner table discussion. No mercy. B-I-N-G-O. Dinner table discussion just got thrown out the window by the asshole paving the way for genocide. Dinner gets put on hold for duels. I would probably remind the interlocutor that they usually have no trouble identifying Anglo-Saxons as a distinct people when the bill falls due for slavery reparations, affirmative action programmes, and so on We have a winner! (lots of great replies though) There’s no problem identifying us to screw us over. If nothing else, we’re defined by our enemies, even if we deny the categorization as we’re led to the gallows. 46
Posted by Svigor on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 03:56 | # It isn’t “strange” at all. They just don’t want to be hateful and, as you can see, there is almost no length they won’t go to to avoid being (what they consider) hateful. Get them talking about white trash to what bullshit that is. 47
Posted by Svigor on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 04:03 | # Mongrels? You son of a bitch! 48
Posted by Svigor on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 04:11 | # which led, in February of this year, to my discovering the works of Kevin MacDonald, which finally shattered the remnants of the pseudo-liberal attitude I’d had towards numerous issues. Just wait, you’ve got a whole spiritual journey ahead of you, exorcising demons. Wait ‘til it REALLY hits you that you’re on the side of the angels. Then it REALLY hits you again, etc. Took me a few years and I’m still not all the way clean. 49
Posted by Svigor on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 04:16 | # As far as seeing the dark side of life goes, without wanting to sound too maudlin, there is still much to feel good about, especially in nature. Or you could just read Tanstaafl’s comments in this thread for a chuckle. No shit. And I’m not even drinking! 50
Posted by Lurker on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 04:25 | # Svi - not long ago you (at least I think it was you) posted a link about a Talmudic injunction on jewish headcounts. Can we see that again please.
Great stuff! 51
Posted by exPF on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 04:38 | # Welcome Templar and Thunder, I concur with all of what you guys and Svigor said regarding awakening.
Well said. Its a strange and wonderful journey. 52
Posted by Armor on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 04:51 | # ” Wait ‘til it REALLY hits you that you’re on the side of the angels. Then it REALLY hits you again, etc.” I feel the same way. Even though I have always been against immigration, and always somewhat rebellious, I keep on discovering that I have been naive. I’m still brainwashed! ” a Talmudic injunction on jewish headcounts.” It was here. (The Fundamental Flaws of the Holocaust Cult) 54
Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 07:52 | #
I think this is very important. In a lot of ways there is no point in arguing with the enemy if they’re on their own. They’re not interested in an honest debate because they know the truth already - they’re engaged in a stealth tribal war of extermination using “political correctness” as a psychological weapon. The last thing they want is an honest debate. The enemy also has very many liberal and leftist stooges who are actively involved in promoting the multi-cult because they’ve been conned into believing the ideology. There may be some point in trying to change their minds but I think they’ll always go back to the multi-cult after a while. The important people to argue with aren’t the people you’re arguing with - it’s the audience. Therefore I think the “best retort” may sometimes, not always, be different depending on the audience you’re with and your own skill with words. Personally I’m a bit intellectually lazy and I mostly mix wth people who tend to switch off when they hear complicated arguments so I generally go for a battle of statements rather than an actual argument. So for example if you’re working in a blue collar environment and you get into a argument with a leftist stooge about immigration when there’s an audience (if there’s no audience I just snarl at them and make them go away). The sort of line I’d take is: “I don’t want to be an ethnic minority in my own country.” That’s it. Using “I want” doesn’t give them an easy handle to attack. All they can do is come back with “evil xenophobic racist” blah blah. They may define that opinion as being “racist” but to the more reasonable minded audience it’s not explicitly racist so it doesn’t count. Anyway after their “you’re an evil racist” rant I just repeat my statement. “I don’t want to be an ethnic minority in my own country.” Obviously it’s not really a debate. It’s me giving the audience a simple, solid, uncomplicated defence against the multi-cult ideology that they can take home with them and use in their own mind when they’re in the polling booth. The only time I’d actually have an honest debate in that environment is if I’m talking to one of our people (ex leftist usually) who is just coming out of the multi-cult brainwashing. This “argument through attrition using repeated statements” approach wouldn’t cut it for more educated audiences. For that you’d need to go with the sort of thing GuessedWorker does so well. I think we need both. 55
Posted by Bill on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:38 | # The denial of choice? Thou shalt not discriminate. I always thought discrimination was just another word for choice, until I consulted my Chambers 20th century dictionary. 1983 Edition. Choice n. the act or power of choosing: the thing chosen: an alternative: a preference: the preferable or best part: variety from which to choose: worthy of being chosen: adj. worthy of being chosen: select: appropropriate - choice’ful (Spens.) making many choices, fickle, - adj. choice’ly with discrimination or care. Discrimination v.t. to note the difference of or between: to distinguish: to select from others: to treat differently because of prejudice (with against) - v.i. to make or note a difference or distinction: to distinguish. Prejudice n. a judgement or opinion formed beforehand or without due examination: a prejudgement (obs): prognostication: prepossession in favour of or (usu.) against anything: bias: injury or hurt: disadvantage. I’m still not convinced that choice and discrimination isn’t the same thing. To deny/ban discrimination/choice is to take away one of the most fundamental instincts for human survival. To discern, to choose, to discriminate are natural aids to staying alivel. It seems that infinite tolerance, and proportional response, allied to banning of discrimination/choice is a demand for whites to commit suicide. To millions, these central tenets of social engineering will be a laboratory experiment too far. 56
Posted by Spirit of 1776 on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:08 | # “America is a nation of immigants” Reply: Bullshit. America was a nation of Americans. 57
Posted by Templar on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:31 | # @Thunder:
Heh, I guess could do that… @Svigor:
Thanks, I appreciate the support.
I believe you. Unfortunately, spiritual wholeness of identity is a rather complicated matter when you’re a very mixed Euro crossbreed born and raised in a former British colony that seems largely uninterested in asserting any sort of national identy beyond “not American” and/or being a model of deracinated political correctness. Still, being ethnically Slovak/French/Italian/Polish/Ukrainian and culturally British (more or less) still adds up to 100% white, I suppose… @exPF:
Thank you kindly. 58
Posted by Thunder on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 21:46 | # Thank you for an excellent thread everyone, amusing, useful and inspirational (thanks for that Svigor and exPF). If it is time to vote mine goes to Tanstaafl for his Joooots comeback. I’m still chuckling over it. 59
Posted by Valerian on Sat, 28 Mar 2009 00:22 | # The Anglo-Saxon people are actually a mongrel nation anyway. All those Jutes, Angles, Normans and Celts, we’re all such mixed up mongrels.
60
Posted by Svigor on Sat, 28 Mar 2009 05:06 | #
Actually, you put your finger on what was bugging me after I’d finished posting; there are actually two pieces missing. The first is one’s own ethnic identity. The other is, as you point out, one’s own ethnic community. That, unfortunately, is a much tougher task. I doubt it’s any easier here in ‘merica than it is where you are. As for being Slovak/French/Italian/Polish/Ukrainian, it might make for difficulty in an ethnic sense, but surely Europe has plenty of people with similar backgrounds, and is none the worse for wear. Being an ethnic nationalist trumps all of that IMHO. 61
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 28 Mar 2009 06:27 | #
Ever consider that one might be connected to the other? 62
Posted by Thunder on Sat, 28 Mar 2009 09:23 | # Templar: I believe you. Unfortunately, spiritual wholeness of identity is a rather complicated matter when you’re a very mixed Euro crossbreed born and raised in a former British colony that seems largely uninterested in asserting any sort of national identy beyond “not American” and/or being a model of deracinated political correctness. I wouldn’t worry too much about the mixture business. As Svigor notes there are plenty more like you. Myself I am English, Irish and French and my paternal grandfather was part Chippewa. I even have native status in Canada and am considered part of a ‘First Nation’. But you wouldn’t pick me as an Amerindian and I feel more comfortable in Minnesota and the Midlands than Quebec and although I have the right to do so living on a reservation will never be for me. I agree with Svigor if you are European and willing to throw your hat in as a white nationalist that should be good enough. It is where I feel I belong. If that puts me on the path to spiritual wholeness of identity well so be it. I am not really spiritually astute but I am happy to feel I have been honest with myself. That business of Canadians not wanting to be identified as Americans is just foolishness. I have met Canadians who push that barrow ad nauseam and they really lack substance because they have put little effort into thinking about who they are. It is all about what they think they aren’t and overseas it is just a faux show. Like I said before I emigrated to a country that I felt had a better national identity and, in fact, was more Anglican and English—Australia. 63
Posted by Watson on Sun, 29 Mar 2009 19:14 | #
“We’re not mongrels, we’re Caucasians, and where we’ve blended, we blended like fine whiskeys. Adding a Paki to the mix is like adding rubbing alcohol. Your presence is poison.” “We’re not mongrels, we’re a breed. The Caucasian breed. Adding blood from Pakis or blacks will make us mongrels.” “We’re no more mongrels than are honeybees. When you allow African bees to mix with indigenous bees, you get Africanized “killer” bees.” “We are the sons of our native soil, all from the same geographic region, molded through thousands of generations into what we are today. Calling us mongrels is nonsensical. It’s the addition of aliens from the other side of the globe that creates mongrels.” 64
Posted by Mentious on Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:19 | #
And yet they have unique looks and qualities as a people, don’t they.
So why do you want them to become even more mongrelized?
They had a great deal of similarity physically, and in basic consciousness. 65
Posted by danielj on Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:33 | # “America is a nation of immigrants” ENGLISH COLONISTS! Not immigrants, but colonists. 66
Posted by BGD on Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:35 | # Your use of that term shows you already have a clear ideological bias and any response is wasted on you. For the others in our group it is immediately clear that we have a once proud western European heritage that has no equal anywhere else in the world. The bulk of our population is genetically the same as it has always been with small admixtures centred around certain geographical locations in this country. To say that because we have small groups of closely allied populations that historically found their place in our own nation means that we should not murmur if our relatives want to rear children with Aborigines or the like really shows where people like this are coming from. People that holds these destructive attitudes should be compelled by any right thinking government to go elsewhere and practice them or if they remain be sterilized. <awkward silence> <anyone want anything from the bar> 67
Posted by BGD on Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:21 | # Actually I’d change this line “For the others in our group it is immediately clear that we have a once proud western European heritage that has no equal anywhere else in the world.” To this “For the others in our group it is immediately clear that we come from a western European heritage” To avoid the obvious “SLAVERY, GENOCIDE, CORPORATIONS” ad nauseaum that the person is likely to revert with 68
Posted by guest on Sun, 05 Apr 2009 12:57 | # Posted by Thunder on March 26, 2009, 11:48 PM | # I am proud of the accomplishments of European men and think the world would be worse off without us. If people can’t understand that then fuck them. People do understand that you what people cant understand is why you people dont give yourselves and everyone else a break. Put your money where your mouth is. Start with the survival of your race through the standpoint of yourselves and stop blaming everyone else for its decline. Argue for the survival of your race through action and not words or is it just that when it really boils down to it you just dont have what it takes to make that dream-reality. If you have given up on your race/your people then the only people your fooling is yourselves by hiding it under false notions of wanting to save your race. If your race doesnt survive dont delude yourselves it is the fault of the non-whites/europeans or that non whites/non europeans were used to destroy you (see comment by guessedworker below)- If your race is destroyed it is the fault of your own incompetant selves and nothing you say will change that. Talk is cheap and talk about your race this that and the other is empty talk until its put to the test in the real world and survives only then the truth can come to light. If your love for your race is so great then why are you so worried about its destruction? surely your genuine conviction to your claims will carry you through, so why are you so worried about its destruction? After reading pages and pages and pages of pages of talk I am begining to think that this save the white race is only worth saving from the comforts of your seats but not worth saving if it means dealing with the real world. I see no reason even from the comforts of your seats why you cant win after all when you give up your values, principles, morals and belief in everything there is no reason you cant be successfull in this world and if you are not successfull surely there is somethign wrong with you. I am not against your fighting to save the white race as if your conviction is genuine then there is no reason you cant win just dont make me non-white/non-europeans a piece in it or expect them to play a part in the game called “save the white/european race” “Posted by Guessedworker on March 27, 2009, 04:23 PM | # (The Snappy Refutations Project, Exercise 2) 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.” By pointing out that non whites/non europeans are being used to destroy the white race what a way to open up the gates to in turn use us to Save you but you just underestimated as you always do- Dont expect us to save you 69
Posted by Thunder on Fri, 18 Dec 2009 02:27 | # @guest Whoever you are, not that I really care and you may, thankfully, be long gone. I do not expect you to do anything for whites. I also do not believe in Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy. You are the enemy and I have no problem dealing with your kind as such. But thanks for the affirmation. Post a comment:
Next entry: Snappy Refutations Project, Exercise 2
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by A Passerby on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:48 | #
Jutes, Angles and Normans (Franks) are all very closely related—they are all Germanic tribes. Although Celts are not Germanic, they are also closely related in terms of culture and genetics. Cavalli-Sforza said Celts and Germans are so close that it’s often difficult to distinguish them.