The News Thread

[CiG]

Don't forget Mao and Pol Pot.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Honorary Aryans, all of them.

 

[CiG]

Pol Pot potentially, due to direct purging and retarded policies, killed 3 million people in a country that at the time only had like 8 million people in it. Something like that anyway.

Asians and their overachieving nature.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Amazing how China and Cambodia put their dumbest people in power. At least Hitler and Stalin were clever men. Thank goodness for communism giving even uneducated country bumpkins the opportunity to murder millions of people they don't like.

 

[rms]

pretty wild this church shooter was a cookie cutter case for not getting and keeping a gun

 

[The Ozzman]

And yet gun control wouldn't have stopped him from getting the gun apparently because he still got one.

 

[rms]

how so? seen proposals that say those with a violent criminal history, especially in regards to domestic violence, would be barred from owning a firearm. he had a dishonorable discharge from AF and abused his wife from what i've seen

 

[Einherjar86]

To be completely fair, we white people are the greatest murderers in history. Jackson, Hitler, Stalin, Leopold II, Churchill, etcetc, we have a long and storied line of mass murderers. Admittedly Genghis Khan still has us all beat and Koreans do quite well per capita in terms of the largest spree killings, so they may be a formidable threat in the future. Still, we whites have much to be proud of.

The issue I have with this is that so many white people reject the idea that they bear some element of collective responsibility for white crimes (in this country it's primarily lynchings and other white violence toward blacks) yet they're eager to take pride in their race, or some such. It doesn't compute that if you can be a "proud white" then you don't have to take some form of responsibility for the bad things that whites have done (I'm not accusing you of this, I'm saying that it's a discrepancy I notice in a lot of racialized rhetoric).

 

[Dak]

The issue I have with this is that so many white people reject the idea that they bear some element of collective responsibility for white crimes (in this country it's primarily lynchings and other white violence toward blacks) yet they're eager to take pride in their race, or some such. It doesn't compute that if you can be a "proud white" then you don't have to take some form of responsibility for the bad things that whites have done (I'm not accusing you of this, I'm saying that it's a discrepancy I notice in a lot of racialized rhetoric).

Isn't that broadly applicable to humans? We want to claim any fruit of success even remotely ascribable and want no part of responsibility in failure.

 

[Einherjar86]

Yes, I think it is.

 

[CiG]

Being a proud Native American collectivist usually won't include collective shame for owning black slaves.

 

[no country for old wainds]

The issue I have with this is that so many white people reject the idea that they bear some element of collective responsibility for white crimes (in this country it's primarily lynchings and other white violence toward blacks) yet they're eager to take pride in their race, or some such. It doesn't compute that if you can be a "proud white" then you don't have to take some form of responsibility for the bad things that whites have done (I'm not accusing you of this, I'm saying that it's a discrepancy I notice in a lot of racialized rhetoric).

this works the other way too though, it makes no sense to demand white guilt yet all but outlaw white pride. everyone comes at these two-sided coins from one side, on both ends of the political divide.

 

[Einherjar86]

I agree completely--that is, if whites want to demand something like white pride, then they also must acknowledge white responsibility for race crimes. If we reject such responsibility, then things such as racial pride make no sense. This is related to my problems with identity politics.

I don't think that "white guilt" is something that can be logically or structurally enforced; even if it's something I might contemplate personally, I don't think it's something that can be effectively communicated. The socioeconomic plight of African Americans today is just that--socioeconomic. My position on social responsibility doesn't have to do with race, but with what I take to be the ethics of demographic cohabitation, which have more to do (I think) with acknowledging a common humanity. Unemployed whites deserve as much assistance as unemployed blacks, all things considered.

My problem with white nationalist and racist perspectives has primarily to do with how they continue to promote and apologize for the socioeconomic disenfranchisement of blacks. That and I find them morally reprehensible; but again, that's a personal position.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

The issue I have with this is that so many white people reject the idea that they bear some element of collective responsibility for white crimes (in this country it's primarily lynchings and other white violence toward blacks) yet they're eager to take pride in their race, or some such. It doesn't compute that if you can be a "proud white" then you don't have to take some form of responsibility for the bad things that whites have done (I'm not accusing you of this, I'm saying that it's a discrepancy I notice in a lot of racialized rhetoric).

I was being tongue-in-cheek saying that white people should be proud of their most genocidal kin. I can go as far as cultural pride in as much as it's an active part of life that people can control and make contributions too, but being proud for the accomplishments of others just because you have a common ancestor going back 5000 years seems silly. I think white people kinda suck these days and am waiting for SEA and West Africa to inherit the throne tbh.

 

[Funerary_Doom]

Whiteness was already known and not surprising considering the area's demographics. Not that relevant anyways here? By race on a per capita basis, whites and blacks are roughly equivalent in terms of spree killings overall. Further, this was a white guy killing presumably mostly whites (though his wife was Hispanic), also downplaying any particular racial motive. Beyond that, it was apparently an atheist shooting up a church, made particularly relevant with leftist atheists like that Wil Wheaton douche pretty much laughing at the shooting.

The reason black on black crime is notable is because beyond spree killings, they have an incredibly high murder rate. Black men aged 14-30 (or thereabouts), roughly 1% of the population, commit about a third of the murder. Myopia is not seeing that blacks live completely disconnected from reality and/or willfully ignorant to the many failures of their society, which values black in-group favoritism above all else.

You assumed I was speaking only of the Texas shooting, which I was not. I’m also not talking about racial motives here at all. I thought it was a very typical UM thing to do to write off crimes committed by white males as “atheist crimes” yet anytime an attack is made by someone of color that’s the first thing mentioned. The hypocrisy is astounding.

Your myopia is that you see one pattern/trend but not the other as it doesn’t push whatever aryan narrative you so badly want to push.

 

[no country for old wainds]

I was being tongue-in-cheek saying that white people should be proud of their most genocidal kin. I can go as far as cultural pride in as much as it's an active part of life that people can control and make contributions too, but being proud for the accomplishments of others just because you have a common ancestor going back 5000 years seems silly. I think white people kinda suck these days and am waiting for SEA and West Africa to inherit the throne tbh.

speaking of which, i've been tracing my ancestry lately and i got back to alfred the great, charlemagne and duncan king of scots (the one killed by macbeth)--although i think my favourite of my ascendants is 'eystein the noisy glumra'. the charlemagne line actually goes all the way back to adam/zeus lol, i'm not exactly sure when it stops being real and starts being myth though.

the internet makes it reasonably easy to trace back 40 or 50 generations on some lines if you're so inclined, i recommend it 'cause it's a lot of fun.

 

[rms]

Your myopia is that you see one pattern/trend but not the other as it doesn’t push whatever aryan narrative you so badly want to push.

think you're being unfair here, when was the last white mass killer UM ignored as a political killer? CO dude shot up a PP for obvious reasons. Roof wanted a race war. LV dude is still unknown AFAIK. TX church dude sounds like he was angry at his wife kind of scenario

 

[HamburgerBoy]

You assumed I was speaking only of the Texas shooting, which I was not. I’m also not talking about racial motives here at all. I thought it was a very typical UM thing to do to write off crimes committed by white males as “atheist crimes” yet anytime an attack is made by someone of color that’s the first thing mentioned. The hypocrisy is astounding.

Your myopia is that you see one pattern/trend but not the other as it doesn’t push whatever aryan narrative you so badly want to push.

I was replying to Dak's post wondering about the motive/background. I've definitely argued with members here that downplayed the role of white Christianity on abortion clinic bombings, for example, and I never pretended that Roof and others aren't white terrorists, so you're taking your crusade to the wrong person.

What trends are you referring to? Whites make up a proportional amount of the population relative to the number of spree killings they commit. That's not an interesting trend or one that particularly needs to be addressed. Whiteness is not a predictor of violence. Blacks commit signficiantly disproportionate violence relative to their prevalence in the population. That's a trend worth discussing. Blackness is a predictor of violence.

speaking of which, i've been tracing my ancestry lately and i got back to alfred the great, charlemagne and duncan king of scots (the one killed by macbeth)--although i think my favourite of my ascendants is 'eystein the noisy glumra'. the charlemagne line actually goes all the way back to adam/zeus lol, i'm not exactly sure when it stops being real and starts being myth though.

the internet makes it reasonably easy to trace back 40 or 50 generations on some lines if you're so inclined, i recommend it 'cause it's a lot of fun.

What website/source?

 

[no country for old wainds]

i'm using ancestry.co.uk (i think there's an american version) to compile the tree, and that sometimes provides helpful info (especially for the first few gens, it has a lot of birth/death/marriage/baptism/census/military records), but once you get to a certain point it takes some digging around various sites and then checking the sources they've cited. stirnet is a useful site which has compiled a lot of lines from a range of established and less established sources, though it's far from infallible and i don't take their word for anything. we're being pretty stingy about what we accept, there's quite a lot of bullshit to wade through, if sources conflict with no clear resolution then the line is dead and we move onto a different one.

all of the most interesting lines come from my father's mother's father's father's mother so far, without that goldmine i might've never got back nearly as far.

 

[Dak]

I was replying to Dak's post wondering about the motive/background.

I'm less interested in the motive than how it gets covered. Dylan Roofs motive was the main plot in that coverage. The Congressional Shooter without an AR and the guy who busted up Rand Paul? chirpchirp. Some evidence has suggested the LV shooter picked targets based on both ease and politics. But there the focus was on the gun because it was a scary looking mass killer shooty thing and can't talk about the politics. Same trend is occurring with this shooting.

Same thing is occurring with the Hollywood RapeGate. Lotta Democrats getting netted, and not a word about "toxic progressivism". You bet your ass if it was the NRA, CATO and Congressional Repubs the headlines would have the politics front and center.