Evolution doesn't just skip races

[celldog]

GarudA did a good job.

I'd also like to add that just because Darwin may have had some racist issues, doesn't meen that natural selection and survival of the fittest is racist.

Huh???
And just because ice cream has eggs and sugar in it doesn't mean it's fattening. LOL


Are you even listening to yourself?

 

[GarudA]

By today's standards???? Wow....the lengths you people will go to to hold on to this crap. You are actually giving this guy a pass because he lived in a different time. So, just be cause it was socially acceptable back then, it makes this writing okay??

Nobody said it was ok, I just stated that, it was a time in Human history where slavery and racism was very common. Darwin never said he hated blacks or said that jews should die? Did he? Not to my recollection...

None of this relates to to disproving his theory of natural selection.

So, don't be too hard on slave-owners. After all, it was the thing to do in that day.

Again your making infantile comments, nobody said it was ok. But Darwin was not a Slave-Owner and you are going off topic.

Look...there were white people back then who didn't believe in his doctrine. If every white person thought his way, THEN, I'd even give him pass.

Not many people believed in his theory of evolution back then because it was still new and it shocked people, most people refused believe it even most of his fellow scientists did not accept it. You are using flawed logic, Christopher columbus said the world was round, and pre-columbus how many people believed the world was round? Even when he said that was round people laughed at him.

If you are refering to him being against slavery and the rest of the whites were not, that does not make any difference. Darwin was against slavery, which shows you want kind of person he was even if many of the people then did not agree with him.

"Limited information" is just an excuse for you to hold on to Darwin's teachings. This was his own flawed racist thinking. All men are created equal. There are no "higher" races

There is no such thing as "higher" or "lower" in darwinian evolution. Even if he was racist? It makes no difference to his studies. His data and his conclusions are what matter, not his alleged racism.

The whole "Master Race" doctrine is another product of Darwin. Hitler used it to the hilt. Planned Parenthood's founder Margaret Sanger was also a believer in this. She believed that inferior dark people should be stopped from procreating!! That's why 85 percent of their "abortion" clinics are in urban neighborhoods!!

So you blame Darwin for Hitler? If racists want to use evolution in their campaigns against other races, that's not a problem with evolution.

Evolution is just a tool, like a gun. you don't blame the gun or the gun maker for someone commiting a murder with a gun.

Why not also blame Einstein for the E=MC^2 and Nuclear Weapons.

Malthusian Eugenics

Margaret Sanger aligned herself with the eugenicists whose ideology prevailed in the early 20th century. Eugenicists strongly espoused racial supremacy and “purity,” particularly of the “Aryan” race. Eugenicists hoped to purify the bloodlines and improve the race by encouraging the “fit” to reproduce and the “unfit” to restrict their reproduction. They sought to contain the “inferior” races through segregation, sterilization, birth control and abortion.
http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/special_issues/population/the_negro_project.htm


All of this and more are spawned from Darwin's racist doctrine.

But you would rather hold on to this because the thought of a creator means that you are accountable to him. And you just can't have that.

But remember, it has NOTHING to do with his discoveries and conclusions regarding evolution.

Only people that attack evolution through Darwin himself are those who know they don't have any good ideas against evolution itself


SHH is not the place for a Debate, if you believe you can prove your claim, then come to http://www.infidelguy.com/forums.html. I find it futile to even respond to your absurd claims.

 

[deathfromabove]

And you know there is not a God how????????

and you know there is a god how?

and the theory of evolution has gone far beyond darwin. in fact you can completely remove him from the equation at this point. the fossil record has proven it alone.

and for those that attack evolution as a theory:
the word theory itself in scientific terms is basically a fact not an idea as in the more common usage of the word.

unlike "intelligent design" which has no real scientific basis whatsoever.

and btw if there is a "creator" why do you think you are accountable to him?

 

[Danalys]

at only point people just started calling hypothesises theories to make them sound better. they weren't scientists i'll tell you.

a theory is something that explains all the evidence at acertain scale or variance of scales. a good theory explains all the evidence and suggests where to look for new evidence and what might be there. evolution predicted DNA which was then discovered and verified to do what was required in evolutionary theory. it predicts fossil finds. but it is a general case theory. which makes the details hard to know at times.

 

[tomahawk53]

Evolution doesn't just skip races

Technically yes they do.

That's why black people are black and white people are white and so forth...we all evolved differently. Due to climate, diet, natural surroundings.

It's also why most black people have dark eyes and the northern white people have lighter colored eyes. We each evolved that way because of hunting. You hunt in the desert and you don't need as much light coming in your eyes...so your eye color will be darker. If you hunt in northern Europe you don't get as much daylight so you need to have as much light as possible to see at night so your eyes are a lighter color to allow more light to come in.

Now I do agree with you that no race has evolved to be superior to any other race.

 

[TheSumOfGod]

say that evolution is dependant on environment and it is only success in a certain environment that qualifies as fittest. since the world has many different environments different races each evolving solutions to those environments are required. evolution of one species doesn't stop because of another going to another environment this is why each of darwins finches on the galopados islands were equally fit but different. they all came from one species of finch originally. it was isolation that lead to specilisation. reintergration is part of survival aswell. you get the best of both world eventualy. that is the fittest. all extra mutations are subject to a new environment. selection begins again.

So, basically: A) We're all different, yet equal, and B) we need more inter-racial sex.

 

[celldog]

Nobody said it was ok, I just stated that, it was a time in Human history where slavery and racism was very common.

That's just a softer way of excusing it. "It was common" is just the same as "everyone was thinking that way so it's fine". No. It's not fine...in any time period."
Darwin never said he hated blacks or said that jews should die? Did he? Not to my recollection...

When you make a blanket statement about "higher" races like he did, you don't need to say anything. I'm sure he wouldn't want one marrying his daughter. You don't have to hate people to have dangerous racist views about them.

None of this relates to to disproving his theory of natural selection.

They've found no basis for his theory. Where's the fossil proof??? It hasn't been found.



Again your making infantile comments, nobody said it was ok. But Darwin was not a Slave-Owner and you are going off topic.

No I'm not. I'm drawing an analogy for you,sir. Sorry you didn't get it. You're saying that Darwin's way of thinking was common in his day. Thus, don't be so hard on him. I can say the same thing about a lot of societies through out time. "Common" doesn't mean its a good thing. People had slaves....that was common. Nazis dogged the Jews. That was common. There is no excuse for Darwin.


Not many people believed in his theory of evolution back then because it was still new and it shocked people, most people refused believe it even most of his fellow scientists did not accept it. You are using flawed logic, Christopher columbus said the world was round, and pre-columbus how many people believed the world was round? Even when he said that was round people laughed at him.


You speak as if his theory has been found to be true! When was that missing link found sir?? Where did they find those transitional forms??? That's why it's still a theory. Yet you're betting your life on it.



If you are refering to him being against slavery and the rest of the whites were not, that does not make any difference. Darwin was against slavery, which shows you want kind of person he was even if many of the people then did not agree with him.

Good for him, if he was! I just said above that you don't have to be a racist for your info to be flawed and dangerous.

There is no such thing as "higher" or "lower" in darwinian evolution.

THOSE WERE HIS OWN WORDS!! FROM HIS OWN LETTER!! My goodness!! It's in his teachings! His words.... Geez...you disagree with Darwin now?

Even if he was racist? It makes no difference to his studies. His data and his conclusions are what matter, not his alleged racism.

[B]Again......he swore that the fossil record would bare witness to his theory. so far....they have not. But you just keep holdin' on! [/B]


So you blame Darwin for Hitler? If racists want to use evolution in their campaigns against other races, that's not a problem with evolution.

I blame Hitler for Hitler. I blame Darwin for giving Hitler he platform to stand on. For giving him his arguments for his racist "superior" race ideology.


Evolution is just a tool, like a gun. you don't blame the gun or the gun maker for someone commiting a murder with a gun.

Why not also blame Einstein for the E=MC^2 and Nuclear Weapons.


If evolution "was" a tool, then you could make that argument.



But remember, it has NOTHING to do with his discoveries and conclusions regarding evolution.

Only people that attack evolution through Darwin himself are those who know they don't have any good ideas against evolution itself

Depends on your definition of "good". Because I don't believe we came from monkeys.

SHH is not the place for a Debate, if you believe you can prove your claim, then come to http://www.infidelguy.com/forums.html. I find it futile to even respond to your absurd claims.

We debate all the time on the SHH. But I'll pay you a visit over there too.
But you have some proving to do yourself.

 

[celldog]

Technically yes they do.

That's why black people are black and white people are white and so forth...we all evolved differently. Due to climate, diet, natural surroundings.

It's also why most black people have dark eyes and the northern white people have lighter colored eyes. We each evolved that way because of hunting. You hunt in the desert and you don't need as much light coming in your eyes...so your eye color will be darker. If you hunt in northern Europe you don't get as much daylight so you need to have as much light as possible to see at night so your eyes are a lighter color to allow more light to come in.

Now I do agree with you that no race has evolved to be superior to any other race.

But they are still human. Micro-evolution does exist. Darker peoples lived in hotter climates. Their skin was better equipped. The causcians lived in Northern countries ....paler comlpexions over time. But all were still human.

It's like a deck of 52 cards. Shuffle the deck, you get a different combination or order . But the same deck of 52. Now if you add a foreign card to the mix, you got something different!!

There are genetic locks in place. Dogs can mate with other dogs and get different kinds (combinations) but it's still a dog. You can't add a cat gene into the mix. It will not take.

 

[jaguarr]

By the way Jag.....that was a pretty rascist statement about me being "supposedly" black. What?? All black people think one way??? We're all followers of Farrahkan and Sharpton??

I know a lot of black people just like me. You should get out more.

Whatever, "Whitey".

jag

 

[TheSumOfGod]

celldog is proof we came from monkeys.

 

[tomahawk53]

But they are still human. Micro-evolution does exist. Darker peoples lived in hotter climates. Their skin was better equipped. The causcians lived in Northern countries ....paler comlpexions over time. But all were still human.

It's like a deck of 52 cards. Shuffle the deck, you get a different combination or order . But the same deck of 52. Now if you add a foreign card to the mix, you got something different!!

There are genetic locks in place. Dogs can mate with other dogs and get different kinds (combinations) but it's still a dog. You can't add a cat gene into the mix. It will not take.

I don't think any one was arguing that the evolution made them something other than human...?

The fact is that types of evolution does skip races. All races.

Just pointing out to the submitter that technically the statement "Evolution doesn't just skip races" is wrong. It does.

Does it make one race better than another? Hell no!

 

[kainedamo]

I'm trying to find information on the percentages of white murderers in the UK compared to black murderers, having trouble finding that kind of information.

 

[TheSumOfGod]

I'm trying to find information on the percentages of white murderers in the UK compared to black murderers, having trouble finding that kind of information.

The person whose job it was to gather such information was murdered by a mulato.

 

[kainedamo]

This man is entirely too intelligent to be part of the white nationalist movement...

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaineDamo
There are millions upon millions of "typical, garden-variety opponents of WN". You make it sound like WE'RE in the minority of opinion.


Actually, in many ways, when we're talking about hardcore anti-racists and opponents of White Nationalism (such as the ARA and Anti-Fa types), I would think that they are also in the minority (although not as small a minority as White Nationalists).

Fact is, most people out there have never even heard of White Nationalism, and of those who have heard of it, most don't have a very clear idea as to what it is. But for most people, WN is completely under the radar. They have other things on their minds at the moment, such as trying to keep their jobs to be able to support their families.

But just as they won't go out of their way to support WN, I seriously doubt that very many would go out of their way to oppose it either. Only a few people feel the need to go out of their way to oppose WN. Most others don't seem to care one way or the other, which is probably true for most issues nowadays. The majority is sitting on the fence, as they usually do.


Quote:

Something similar to the healthcare Britain provides? Free for everyone... the only price being in peoples taxes.



There's a great deal of misinformation out there, though, mainly because of the very same media we have been discussing. Arguments are made from both sides, but as is generally the case in America, the monied interests usually win.


Quote:

Then why is it in certain European countries, they have legalized prostitution, sex on tv at almost all times, and yet still have low STDs and low teen pregnancies?



I don't know. Maybe it's all of the above. I'd really need to look at the actual stats and compare it with the laws, social mores, and educational systems in these specific countries to come up with a more definitive answer, but it seems we're drifting off topic in this thread.



Quote:

I agree with that. The teachers can't control the kids. There is also a problem with parenting. Too many parents really don't care what their kids do. It's like a cycle, a young teen girl runs around doing what she likes, skips school, recieves no punishment from home, eventually she gets pregnant. She can't raise a kid, she can't even look after herself. It begins all over again.


Well, it is a vicious cycle, I agree.


Quote:

Being tough on crime, I'm all for that. One thing that bothers me is that there are entirely too many people that whine about the rights of criminals. Give them digital tv, give them video games, etc. The sentences some criminals get for serious crimes is sickening, it's a problem over here too. Too many times I watch the news and hear something like "Man that killed two children in a hit and run gets 6 months", or something completely ridiculous like that.



That's an outrageously low sentence for a crime like that. But that's a big part of the problem, and a lot of this "rights of criminals" garbage comes straight out of the same liberal bunkem that's led to a number of social problems in this country. Liberals may have noble, high-minded principles that are very admirable, but I sincerely believe that they are dangerously naive and pose a serious risk to Western society. It may be fine on a domestic and local level, within our own nation and people, but when those same principles are applied globally, to all peoples, cultures, and societies, then it's a whole new ballgame. The same rules don't always apply to everyone all over the world.


Quote:

But still, our prisons are overflowing. We can't just keep locking up prisoners and building more prisons. In the long run it doesn't work. In the long run, the way to solve crime is to provide more opportunities in the communities where crime is the highest. If a person is more likely to get a job they are far less likely to resort to crime for money.



There are other motivations for crime besides money. The prisons are overflowing because a lot of people are in there who shouldn't really be in there. If they're illegal aliens, they should be deported. If they're convicted murderers, they should be executed.* I've read conflicting studies on this, but I believe that it would probably be cheaper to send non-violent drug offenders to treatment than putting them in prison, and since they represent the majority of the prison population in America, these measures would clear out a LOT of space in the various state and federal correctional systems.

*(As for illegal aliens who are also convicted murderers, they should be executed first, then deported. By "deported," I mean that we should drop the body of the condemned murderer on the steps of Mexico's Presidential Palace.)



Quote:

There should be pressure put on the companies to pay everyone the same wage. The government should hand out heavy punishments to any company caught paying illigal immigrants lower than the minimum wage.



Trouble is, in America, things work just the opposite. The pressure is put on the government by business. The only thing that might reverse that is if the majority of US voters grew a backbone and started rejecting the corporate media's BS, while thinking for themselves for a change. People are too easily taken in by a pretty face - or other such political phonies who pretend by wrapping themselves up in religion or in the flag.

This has been going on for decades now, and the most any of these companies get if they're caught employing illegal aliens is a slap on the wrist and maybe a small fine - the cost of doing business. And then, they're right back at it again. It's a farce.

Yes, the employers should get harsher punishments. Heck, as far as I'm concerned, anyone who knowingly employs illegal aliens is a vile traitor to America and should be given the same punishment as any treasonous rat who sells out his nation for money.


Quote:

If companies have no other choice but to pay minimum wage, there would be NO point in hiring illigals in the first place. So forcing the companies to do this should be the priority.



Yes, it should be. The thing is, these companies are in a position where they can have their cake and eat it too, so they're going to fight tooth and nail to keep the status quo. They're not just looking for "cheap labor," but they're looking for those who don't really know their rights and couldn't very easily exercise them even if they did know, since they're in the country illegally. It's easier to control them and keep them quiet that way. Their families down in Mexico depend on them to send money, so it's not as if very many of them can say "take this job and shove it." In fact, illegal aliens sending money down to Mexico is Mexico's second-largest source of foreign income, behind oil. So, it's become an integral part of the Mexican economy, too.


Quote:

I was agreeing with everything until I got to this last part. You really think you walk down a street and people think "there's a white guy, it's all HIS fault!".



Well, not necessarily in that specific way, but they're not exactly very welcoming either. It's difficult to explain, because it's something you have to experience first-hand. But there are situations where Whites are attacked or ostracized or excluded merely because of their race. Heck, any American (or any Westerner for that matter) walking around in Iraq is a target, merely because of who they are. It happened to a White truck driver who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time when the LA riots broke out. It happened to a White American girl in South Africa, even though she was a liberal who thought she was going to help the blacks of South Africa, but instead, those blacks killed her for it. In fact, that sort of thing happens quite a lot in South Africa and in Zimbabwe. Maybe they're justifiably angry with British colonialists, but they end up taking it out on average White people who just happen to be convenient at the time.

If I was a betting man, I would wager that if you asked any random White person, they would be able to tell you which areas of their city to avoid - areas which they know to be unsafe for White people. Most Whites are conditioned not to say that it's because of non-whites living there, but they'll use words like "gang," "ghetto," "poverty-stricken," "low-lifes," "urban trash," etc. They might say something like, "I wouldn't go into that neighborhood unless I was driving a tank." I'm aware that over in Britain, you have similar "no-go zones" in urban areas as well, as well as horror stories of unfortunate White people who happened to unwittingly venture into those areas.

These people prey on each other all the time as well, so it's not a stretch to say that they'll prey on those whom they really, really hate.


Quote:

Do you know what I think it is? There are so many extreme attitudes in the US. It's part of your culture, it's very weird and bizarre and hard to put my finger on exactly what it is. It's just my opinion that the US has more extreme nutjobs than any other western country. People are very "us vs them". People are very hardcore about their beliefs. Look at how many gay people that have their asses kicked. Look at the school shootings. Look at the bombing of abortion clinics. Look at Fred Phelps, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, and more. There are KKK marches and gay pride marches. I find it ironic that a WN says he's sick of everyone blaming white people, when the typical WN blames black people. I'm not saying that's you, because I can see that you're reasonable. You're probably the most reasonable person I've seen here.



I myself often try to figure out what it is about America, but to understand the answer, one has to really see things from the inside while still maintaining a certain of objectivity. It also requires a great deal of knowledge of our history and how things developed in this country, which (unfortunately) many Americans turn away from. They turn away from their history and culture. Many Americans are seemingly self-conscious and almost ashamed of their country. Many don't even consider it to be a country at all, as much as it is an abstract idea.

When Alexander Solzhenitsyn was deported from his native Russia and took refuge in the United States, he said something to the effect of "Americans have lost their souls," and I find it very, very difficult to disagree with that assessment. I'm agnostic and not particularly religious, so I'm not sure how I view the concept of a "soul," but I would interpret that as meaning one's sense of purpose and reason for being.

One thing that should not be overlooked is that a large part of the American experience has been that of people having to fend for themselves, with very little central government either helping them or telling them what to do. It didn't mean that we were necessarily "lawless" (although to some extent, that may be true), but it meant that people had to rely more on their innate sense of right and wrong, based on their own cultural/religious values, rather than some governmental directive.

Before even the Founding of this Republic, there has been a constant ideological battle in America between centralized control and local autonomy. Nowadays, that might seem passe, since it seems that centralized control is with us and here to stay, but this country got that way on a lot of bodies. A lot of bad blood has lingered, not just between the races, but between political factions as well. It's awfully hard to forgive and impossible to forget.

There is a very bizarre irony in that most people in the country tend to resent and/or outright hate the Federal government. But they also tend to love their local politicians or national Party leaders. In fact, Bush's largest support base comes from those who tend to resent the intrusiveness of the Federal government, and naturally, that's been part and parcel of the conservative platform - getting big government off the people's backs. But it's nothing more than just so much lip service, and the public is easily bought-off with a few well-placed tax breaks.

The public also still continues to have faith that their elected leaders are still calling the shots, believing that they are an effective check against governmental abuses of power. But that largely depends upon the public having clear, accurate, and concise information as to the activities of their government, something that they've come to rely upon from the media. But even then, many still turn away.

It's true that many Americans are hardcore in their beliefs. Let's face it: I and millions of other White Americans come from a long line of religious zealots. So, being hardcore about one's beliefs is not something new to America, but what's different lately is that the old systems of belief are being shattered and new systems of belief are turning out to be...lacking, in some essential way. We have operated by more traditional rules and principles, but in recent decades, the prevailing schools of thought have rejected our past and our traditions as something to be considered "evil" and "unconscionable," at least certain aspects of it.

Still, many view the rejection of the old order as a righteous act, a step in the right direction. America is turning over a new leaf, and becoming the paragon of virtue and beacon of hope that we've always said we were. Or at least, that's what many people might believe. That's why so many antis come here and view White Nationalists as being the last few remnants of the so-called "old order," dying out and soon to be extinct. To them, we represent a symbol of their past that they are ashamed of and wish to forget.

What I'm trying to say with all this meandering is this: If people genuinely believe that the principles upon which their nation, culture, traditions, and way of life were wrong, then they can reject those principles, but they are still multiply-connected to that which they believe to be wrong, whether through blood ties, social ties, political ties, or economic ties. A lot of people out there are still making money from the sweat, toil, and blood of others, and even if they may not admit it, they know it, deep down. I'm not a psychologist, but there might be some effect on the human mind through conflicted feelings of guilt ingrained since childhood. It may exist, to some degree, from the British viewpoint as well.

 

[kainedamo]

There is more...

Unlike most of the rest of the world, along with all the non-white races, we Whites generally do not look upon ourselves as "victims." We have been led to believe that we, as a race, are "victimizers," which makes our perspective completely different than most other nations and races on this earth, the ones who consider themselves to be victims of colonialism, imperialism, "racism," and whatever other '-isms' they can tar us with. Their perspective of Whites is the same; they view us as "victimizers" as well. Among other things, that's why the "victim card" doesn't work with Whites as well as it does with others. For many White people, it's considered undignified and a sign of weakness. This is partly why some White people might tend to express their dissatisfaction with the world in other ways, like those "nutjobs" you referred to earlier. When we're in pain or in despair, we don't whine or cry about it, nor do we ask for help; we lash out. That's the American way, and even that has produced more pronounced internal conflicts within our national psyche and our national "soul," if you will.

We are destroying ourselves in the process. It didn't have to be this way. It doesn't have to be this way any longer. White Nationalism might seem like an extreme solution to you, but as I see it, we've sunk pretty deep, and we're at that point where drastic measures may be required before the whole country falls apart completely.


Quote:

I think your culture, your media, your news, you are raised to hate each other.



Not necessarily "hate each other." There might be some of that, but what has happened is that the once-vaunted principles of individualism and personal freedom have become quite twisted and abused over the past several decades into selfish narcissism, greed, and depraved hedonism. People are raised to be irresponsible, selfish, and foolish by the cultural influences to which you refer above. Everything is about "me" in society nowadays. "Look out for Number One and screw the other guy." I don't think it's necessarily because people intentionally hate others in society, but their intense focus on self to the exclusion of all other obligations and responsibilities makes for a lot of friction in society. There's also a lack of civility, which is something else that tends to rub people the wrong way. Just trying to fight the traffic every day can be enough to push some people over the edge, as manifested by various "road rage" incidents.

But again, there's a paradox and an internal conflict that arises, because even the "individual" in American is not really an "individual," and even less independent and self-sufficient. We may be important to ourselves, but we also know that, in the grand scheme of things, we are just numbers - cogs in a machine. We are far from independent. Watch what happens when the power goes out in a major metropolitan area. We went for millennia without electricity, but now we're at the point where if it's disrupted, it can lead to chaos and anarchy in a very short period of time. Or a few years ago, when the city of Phoenix had its gasoline supplies cut due to a broken pipeline. It took a few days to get the supplies back up to meet the demand, but those were definitely a very harrowing few days. Gas lines, price gouging, fights breaking out. And this doesn't even factor in terrorism or war; these are just normal breakdowns. So, people want to feel big, important, and in charge of their own lives, but they also find moments when they must face the awful truth of how small, powerless, vulnerable and dependent they truly are.

So, that would certainly have an effect on someone's perspective as well.


Quote:

I partly agree. Democracy is a joke. It's a two party system, and the two parties disagree on very little. Bush has been an incredible example of a political system that simply does not work the way it's supposed to. It's the ruling class that decides who should be in power, not the people. Bush behaves in a very "1984" kind of way. Bush lies and lies and lies, as does his entire administration, and not a thing gets done about it. Clinton lied about having sex and gets impeached. Bush lies about WMD's... nothing.



Thing is, the individual men who become President are not really that significant in the grand scheme of things. They're mostly mediocre figures and political hacks who have endeared themselves to machine politics. They know which side their bread is buttered on. Bush is the son of a former President who was also once head of the CIA and a part of the political elite, as was his father.

Those who wanted to impeach Clinton didn't succeed in having him removed from office (and in many ways, it made a martyr out of him in many people's eyes), and it's unlikely that impeachment proceedings against Bush while the USA is still at war would have an even less likely chance of succeeding.

Besides, sometimes I wonder if the people weren't duped into focusing on Clinton's sexual escapades, as opposed to some more serious allegations and scandals surrounding the Clinton Administration, from a mysterious suicide of one of his aides to his military adventurism in the Balkans to his unsavory connections with pro-Chinese lobbyists. I don't care about Clinton's sexual peccadillos, but he's a major sleazeball and a liar all the way around. If they had focused on that, instead of turning into some sort of media-inspired voyeurism into the President's sex life, then it might have been treated far more seriously and not turned into a freakin' circus that was doomed to fail from the start.


Quote:

George Bush effectively declared permanent war -- war without temporal or geographic limits; war without clear goals; war against a vaguely defined and constantly shifting enemy. Today it's Iraq and Saddam Hussain, yesterday it was Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden, tomorrow it might be Iran, and so on and so on. Bush has started a "war", a reckless war that will likely bring about a deadly cycle of retaliation is being sold to us as the means to guarantee our safety.



That's how it was during the Cold War as well, as our crusade against international communism was used to justify a great number of military actions around the world (as well as domestic restrictions on civil liberties and personal privacy), along with the taxpayer-created behemoth known as the military-industrial complex and our federal government's "intelligence" community. With the fall of the Soviet Union and the apparent end of the Cold War, it seems that they had to find something else to feed that behemoth.


Quote:

He keeps using his religion to garner support. Ke keeps using the same phrases in every speech, as though they have a brainwashing effect on the population.



He reads his speeches off a teleprompter. Somebody else writes his speeches for him; they have paid professionals for that very purpose. President Bush is just figurehead, really.


Quote:

Bush's support may be at it's lowest and getting lower, but he has a hardcore group of supporters that will stick with him no matter what. The Christian republicans. People don't vote for who they think is best, people eithe vote democrate or republican.



Yes, that's what it has come to in American politics, as it has been for a very long time. There really hasn't been any genuine plurality in American politics since before the Civil War. But it was because of the Civil War that a lot of people in power decided that they didn't want to have any real political plurality anymore, since they didn't want to have any more civil wars.

The Christian Right may be behind Bush at present, but only because there are no other viable choices for them. It's the "lesser of two evils" mentality which has permeated all factions in society, left, right, and center. But the Christian Right is not exactly an integral part of the ruling class agenda. They're basically being duped, but the real power behind the President comes from economic forces, not religious forces.


Quote:

Tony Blair has been forced to resign just because he's sided with Bush. Blair has done far less, and yet the British public are fed up with him. His own party fed up with him.

But Bush keeps on a truckin'. Does this not speak volumes about America?



Thing is, there's a pall of apathy and complacency which has fallen over the American political consciousness. Even among those who actually vote and are supposedly "politically active," they don't really know who they're voting for or why. They might think they know, and they might be quite well-informed on all of the media-approved issues of the day. But if you scratch the surface, you'll find that these people don't really know what's going on, nor do they even much care. They put their faith in the politicians they vote for, and they believe that they'll take make sure that everything is alright.

Bush "keeps on a truckin'" mainly because the people have not been offered any suitable alternative, at least not from the major political parties, and there is no third party which has shown that it will ever be politically viable at any time in the foreseeable future.


Quote:

The media is partly to blame.

I like you. You're a reasonable man, and I agree with many things you say. You don't seem extreme to me at all. You seem to disagree with most WN's.



Well, you'll have to give me credit for knowing more about what WNs think and where I might disagree with some or most of them. I might express myself in a different way, but I'm also White, and I understand and have personally experienced what that means in today's society.


Quote:

My advice to you, I don't expect you to take it, but I really think you should distance yourself from this movement. You don't disagree with a few of your comrades, or some, you disagree with MOST of them.

The second a reasonable person hears "white nationalist" their eyes role. And not without good reason.

Being a WN is doing you no favours.



Well, my response to this, and I don't expect you to believe it, but I really think that you have the wrong idea about White Nationalism. I think that you're judging WN too harshly, without a fair hearing. That's where I take issue. Now, I realize that when people see this board, they might see a lot of angry, embittered, angst-ridden people here. But there are reasons why, and it's a gross oversimplification to say that they believe as they do for "no good reason."

I'm not going to defend every single "offensive," "hateful," or otherwise outrageous or stupid thing said in this forum, but if you can try to overlook that for a moment, you can see past it and understand what the real issue truly is. For me, I've spent a number of years of study, personal reflection, and deep introspection on the issues we discuss here in this forum, and perhaps it is for that reason that I can express what's going on in a more reasonable fashion.

But I'm telling you that there's more to it than what you seem to think it is. The issues are not so simple and "black-and-white" (no pun intended). I know how people view WN. I'm not that foolish, you know, but knowing what I do, I also know that most people view WN for reasons which are unsound and flawed, in my opinion. A large part of it has to do with the fact that they view WN in the same way they view 19th-century style "racism" in the Antebellum period, which is a completely false perception of WN today.

When I first started studying alternative points of view, I actually started to feel cheated by the official "mainstream" version of events to which I had previously been conditioned to believe. I'm not saying that they were right or wrong, but what really frustrated me was the one-dimensional way America's "enemies" or "enemy ideologies" were often portrayed. In addition, my earliest education took place in the Northeast, so I was initially raised with a decidedly pro-Northern viewpoint when it came to studying the Civil War. When I began to realize that the perspective I was raised with was too ridiculous one-sided, I began to look at the other side of issues, to find out what their perspective was. And I soon realized that they had a point of view which wasn't so one-dimensional and simplistic as the propagandists said they were. I also realized that there are many others who don't view America as the paragon of virtue that many of us were initially raised to think. Even taking into consideration the "White Guilt" version of history, most Americans would say that we're not that way anymore. Now, we are nothing but a fountain of goodness and an overflowing cup of human kindness. (You might laugh at that, but there are millions of Americans who believe exactly that. That's part of the reason why Bush can keep on a truckin'. People might criticize the way he does things, but overall, they seem to think that the War on Terror is a good thing; it's the Iraqi sideshow that's putting everyone off.)

 

[The Question]

But you would rather hold on to this because the thought of a creator means that you are accountable to him. And you just can't have that.

A person can believe in Darwin's theory of evolution and God, you know. Alot of people do.

 

[JLBats]

God, kainedamo, fight your own battles

 

[Assassin]

why was sumofgod banned?

 

[Spade]

Too bad for JLBats. Him and TSOG had quite the monkey-following-the-banana routine going on.

 

[jaguarr]

why was sumofgod banned?

He wanted to be banned, so he posted nun porn to prompt such action from the mods. Yes...nun porn.

jag

 

[Spade]

He wanted to be banned, so he posted nun porn to prompt such action from the mods. Yes...nun porn.

jag

Wow. I thought he just made a comment that wasn't allowed. Even for TSOG, that's in left field.

 

[Sandman138]

He is now my hero.

 

[kainedamo]

Why did he want to be banned?

 

[The Question]

He wanted to be banned, so he posted nun porn to prompt such action from the mods. Yes...nun porn.

jag

Ah. Nun porn.

 

[hippy fascist]

celldog is proof we came from monkeys.

He wanted to be banned, so he posted nun porn to prompt such action from the mods. Yes...nun porn.

jag

TSOG You are my new god!