this might be a worthy contender :Dee Snarl said:That's cute...
But not probably the most striking indictment of mainstream Western thought...
The Postmodernism Generator
http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo
White Supremecy
- Thread starter Valerie
- Start date
- Status
The Postmodernism Generator
http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo
Norsemaiden said:
This is hilarious. You really think that the mass of the scholarly literature on this subject concludes that the KKK was an organization founded to protect defenseless white farmers from roaming angry bands of ravenous Negroes? Alternative historical information is everywhere. For that reason I'm not going to waste any more of my time presenting any. But wait, you don't even really know that mainstream academia concurs, you simply assume. I can't even fathom your reasons for making such an assumption, but I'm not going to waste any more of my time on pressing you. Carry on.
- Apr 8, 2005
- 484
- 0
- 16
- 37
Norsemaiden
barbarian
A Dying Breed said:
Is this how you debate? You have your reasons for saying this. We must remember that history is all a matter of opinion and perspective anyway. And mainstream history is written by the victors of wars. Yet even then I can find no contradictory information. I find some sites that fail to go into the subject into sufficient depth and deliberatedly avoid the specifics that we are talking about - but they don't contradict it. It seems that when an in depth documentary is called for, these unwelcome facts tend to emerge however. It is comparable to how the Church doesn't apparantly deny that the scriptures are in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but tries to avoid the subject on account of them having been written before the birth of Christ.
A Dying Breed said:
Two things:
1) You forgot to mention white carpetbaggers and scalawags, who were opportunists brought in by the North to subjugate the south.
2) If alternate evidence is as abundant as you say, please present it. Bonus points for finding something from the historical period.
If you cannot do this, I think you should be banned for trolling. No offense, but people making non-arguments and then copping out with an obvious logical fallacy like "It says so everywhere!!11!" are going to lower this forum to the level of a bickering pit.
infoterror said:
Focus. We're not arguing over the historical reality. For the moment, we're arguing over the general consensus held by mainstream academia. Therefore the production of primary documents is irrelevent.
But when I said I was done with this, I meant it. To prevent banning, here is a link to the Wikipedia article on the KKK, which unequivocally proves the legitimacy of my claim. "The Unequivocal Truth." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kkk Keep your eyes out for my next post which will prove that George W Bush actually ordered the carrying out of 9/11 by Mossad agents in an effort to distract white America's attention from the growing body of anthropological evidence that blacks and Mongoloids are genetically predispositioned to promiscuity, drug use, and poor posture.
Norsemaiden
barbarian
I had already read that information on Wikepedia (which, it must be remembered, is not a proper encyclopaedia, but something anyone can write articles for - not an authority on any subject).
The first page still does not contradict what kkklan.com says about the nature of radical republicans and how they would reasonably have to be countered by some kind of backlash. If you look for the Wikepedia article "Radical Republican" this says "They replaced ex-confederates with a Republican coalition of Freemen, Carpetbaggers and Scalawags". This serves as an explanation for the objections there would have been from the disinfranchised people in the Southern States. obvious grounds for an organised resistance.
There is little doubt that the KKK changed into a different sort of organisation in the years after this situation.
If you click on the Wikepedia link where it says "The First Klan" this article starts off in concurrence with kkklan.com, which says that the group was originally a social club - but then it changed purpose to become a group of outraged vigilantes. There's nothing to contradict that. There is this statement: "Some of their activities may have been modeled on previous Tenesse vigilante groups such as the Yellow Jackets and Redcaps". Although these two vigilante groups have their names highlighted, there is no information available about them on Wikepedia. This is disappointing. I would have expected that as "vigilante" groups, they must have had a pressing need to form to defend their people - as the police/army was not allowed to defend them - and there certainly were large numbers of very poor, starving Blacks who, quite logically, would have to steal to survive.
There is no way that White Southerners could have felt safe contemplating Black equality at such a time - when they were outnumbered by these Blacks who had next to nothing. The Blacks would have decided to take everything from the Whites (we can see the kind of thing in Zimbabwe recently for some example) and go on a massacre into the bargain. (Behaviour we have seen in Africa on many occassions throughout history).
We can make a comparison with post appartheid South Africa. Some say it is as a result of some kind of culture shock (which would equally apply to the Blacks in the Southern States post civil war) that S Africa has record crime and murder, with over a quarter of Sowetan women being raped per year. (As I evidenced in the Promiscuity thread). Southern US states would have been in just such a position, with their Black majority. Why would it not be the case?
Nothing is mentioned of this in the Wikepedia article. While the details are studiously avoided, they are not denied either.
I don't see why saying the KKK was a desperate reaction against the injustices of the Radical Republican control should be any more outrageous than saying that the IRA was a desperate reaction against the English in Ireland, or that the PLO (or Hamas or even Al Qaida) was a desprerate reaction against the injustices caused by the creation of Israel, etc. That is how all these groups started out.
The first page still does not contradict what kkklan.com says about the nature of radical republicans and how they would reasonably have to be countered by some kind of backlash. If you look for the Wikepedia article "Radical Republican" this says "They replaced ex-confederates with a Republican coalition of Freemen, Carpetbaggers and Scalawags". This serves as an explanation for the objections there would have been from the disinfranchised people in the Southern States. obvious grounds for an organised resistance.
There is little doubt that the KKK changed into a different sort of organisation in the years after this situation.
If you click on the Wikepedia link where it says "The First Klan" this article starts off in concurrence with kkklan.com, which says that the group was originally a social club - but then it changed purpose to become a group of outraged vigilantes. There's nothing to contradict that. There is this statement: "Some of their activities may have been modeled on previous Tenesse vigilante groups such as the Yellow Jackets and Redcaps". Although these two vigilante groups have their names highlighted, there is no information available about them on Wikepedia. This is disappointing. I would have expected that as "vigilante" groups, they must have had a pressing need to form to defend their people - as the police/army was not allowed to defend them - and there certainly were large numbers of very poor, starving Blacks who, quite logically, would have to steal to survive.
There is no way that White Southerners could have felt safe contemplating Black equality at such a time - when they were outnumbered by these Blacks who had next to nothing. The Blacks would have decided to take everything from the Whites (we can see the kind of thing in Zimbabwe recently for some example) and go on a massacre into the bargain. (Behaviour we have seen in Africa on many occassions throughout history).
We can make a comparison with post appartheid South Africa. Some say it is as a result of some kind of culture shock (which would equally apply to the Blacks in the Southern States post civil war) that S Africa has record crime and murder, with over a quarter of Sowetan women being raped per year. (As I evidenced in the Promiscuity thread). Southern US states would have been in just such a position, with their Black majority. Why would it not be the case?
Nothing is mentioned of this in the Wikepedia article. While the details are studiously avoided, they are not denied either.
I don't see why saying the KKK was a desperate reaction against the injustices of the Radical Republican control should be any more outrageous than saying that the IRA was a desperate reaction against the English in Ireland, or that the PLO (or Hamas or even Al Qaida) was a desprerate reaction against the injustices caused by the creation of Israel, etc. That is how all these groups started out.
Consuming Impulse
New Metal Member
i say fuck them both. neo nazi are dumb asses and the kkk are even dumber. may they both get aids and die. i got a qustion about the kkk, why do they wear dunce caps? wait i can answer that cause they are dunces and they should be gutted and burned.
Norsemaiden
barbarian
Al Bundy said:
There's little point addressing this to you, as you obviously take pleasure from being a fool. Saying extremists should be killed is an EXTREMIST thing to say.
Anyway, don't you think extremists who use violence to promote their cause (which the KKK say they don't - Nazis did, but that was in wartime Germany and since the Nazi party no longer exists, there are no actual Nazis any more, only neo Nazis who don't call themselves that) be it Maoists, Palestinian terrorists/freedom fighters, Zionists, NeoCons, Basque seperatists, Irish Nationalists and all the other many terrorist/freedom fighter groups are equally deserving of being "gutted and burned"?
Aren't you just as bad yourself, for advocating violence towards those you simply don't like or understand? If aggression is not purely for self defence, then it is no more morally justifyable than the aggression perpetrated by the opposition/enemy.
If you have such violent tendencies that you want to gut people, you will probably find yourself in jail some time. I've heard (please correct me if I am wrong) that if you don't pledge yourself to certain white extremist groups in jail in the US, you end up with the black men and (assuming you are white) that has uncomfortable consequences.
With freedom of speech, violence should hopefully be avoided (unless you are in a US jail) and then humanity can make informed conclusions,perhaps even preventing a repeat of the mistakes throughout history.
Consuming Impulse
New Metal Member
Norsemaiden said:There's little point addressing this to you, as you obviously take pleasure from being a fool. Saying extremists should be killed is an EXTREMIST thing to say.
Anyway, don't you think extremists who use violence to promote their cause (which the KKK say they don't - Nazis did, but that was in wartime Germany and since the Nazi party no longer exists, there are no actual Nazis any more, only neo Nazis who don't call themselves that) be it Maoists, Palestinian terrorists/freedom fighters, Zionists, NeoCons, Basque seperatists, Irish Nationalists and all the other many terrorist/freedom fighter groups are equally deserving of being "gutted and burned"?
Aren't you just as bad yourself, for advocating violence towards those you simply don't like or understand? If aggression is not purely for self defence, then it is no more morally justifyable than the aggression perpetrated by the opposition/enemy.
If you have such violent tendencies that you want to gut people, you will probably find yourself in jail some time. I've heard (please correct me if I am wrong) that if you don't pledge yourself to certain white extremist groups in jail in the US, you end up with the black men and (assuming you are white) that has uncomfortable consequences.
With freedom of speech, violence should hopefully be avoided (unless you are in a US jail) and then humanity can make informed conclusions,perhaps even preventing a repeat of the mistakes throughout history.
you obvioulsy dont understand how much i hate racists. its personal.they hung my people on trees and burned them so the kkk deseves a taste of their own shit for that. neo nazi shit for brains skinheads beat my people on the streets when they didnt do nothing. if i ever see a skinhead, i will beat them to a pulp. you wouldnt understand. you never will.
Neith
Little Lady
What if the skinhead you get is just a regular skinhead who has never done anything against 'your people' either. Then you're just as bad as 'his people.' That isn't justice, so what's the point? Why not vent your anger on beating the shit out of someone who actually deserves it?
Norsemaiden
barbarian
Al Bundy said:
Is the following a lie or is it the truth? I'd like to know what you say. "Black men kill whites much more often than whites kill Blacks. When a Black is killed by a white (especially if that white is considered a racist) it is major news, often international news, that is talked about for years". Could it be that your emotions are being manipulated when you hear of these racist attacks on Blacks and you think they are much more common than they really are? Crime statistics back this up, but do you think they falsely exaggerate Black crime because the police and the system is deliberately racist? I value your opinion, whether or not I agree with it.
What about this statement "the kind of person most likely to get murdered is a young Black male. And the murderer is most likely also to be a young Black male". Is this true, and is it because of white racism or is there another explanation? You say I won't understand. Maybe not, but I would try to.
Do you think Blacks and Whites can ever live peacefully together? Do you think it would be fairer on Blacks if they had a seperate part of the US with their own government?
BloodSword
Member
I won't even enter into this, for it all has been said. "NorseMaiden" you are certainly impressive with your historical context and perspective. You articulate well and write very good. Also, your opinions and theories appear to be well researched. Thanks.
Consuming Impulse
New Metal Member
Neith said:
i see your point. id beat the hell out of em if they aproach me and talk shit in my face.
Consuming Impulse
New Metal Member
Norsemaiden said:
if somebody killed all the racists, blacks and whites would peacefully. to the question, no. id believe a whole goverment should have like any kind of race of people. i dont believe in different races living seperately.
Norsemaiden said:
You people need to give up on this stupid shit. I'll make this as simple as I can. There has been for some time and continues to be an international trend towards the development of macro-states, the EU being the prime example. As these institutions stengthen, the economic and military feasibility of the tiny, independent, nationalist states you and infoterror advocate will be next to nothing. Actually, that's already the case. The result for these states is a pathetic standard of living and all kinds of structural problems, including in many cases massive corruption within the leadership (imagine that.) Every example of a small breakaway nationalist state in recent history has been a dismal failure. Nationalism is shit. It just doesn't fucking work in the modern world. You may counter that globalization and democracy are destroying the planet, blah blah blah. That's great, but please come up with a better solution than dividing the earth into ineffectual nationalist dirt patches a quarter of the size of Rhode Island.
Neith
Little Lady
Norsemaiden
barbarian
A Dying Breed said:
Calm down! A lot of what you say makes sense and I agree. What I advocate is that nations have their own people, their own culture and their own identity, but that they should not try to be self-sufficient and that they should join together in blocks such as all of the European nations being in a block, like the European Union, but not federalised, and made into one state, because that takes power away from the people and makes the leaders both unaccountable and also too far removed from local issues. The EU as it is now is an unelected dictatorship and is not run in the interests of the people. There is massive corruption and there is next to no protection of jobs and the marketplace generally, because we are signed up to the WTO (World trade organisation) rules. I know you just want to argue for the sake (or because you subscribe to a rival agenda) of it so I never expect you to be reasonable.
I don't have a problem with a small number of people of other races breeding into our population. That has always happened and can be helpful to prevent over inbreeding. What I object to in full-on mongrelisation/genocide being undemocratically forced onto any population. Is that really so evil to think?
Norsemaiden
barbarian
Norsemaiden said:
Most European countries are ethnic clusterfucks and have been since time immemorial. That being the case, how does enforcing ethnic and cultural homogeneity help anything? The answer is that it doesn't. It results in disintegration and economic stagnation. All this is made even more ridiculous by the fact that you apparently don't differentiate between artificially created state identity (ie. "British") and primordial ethnic identity, which are wholly different things. What primordial culture are you trying to preserve? Just the predominance of caucasian physical features? That seems to me to be about as deep as it gets. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I have no agenda. If you expelled every non-white from the UK right now, and they were all doomed to spend the rest of their lives in squalid refugee camps, I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep. That's the kind of guy I am. My point is simply that the political application of nationalism as you describe it is not a productive solution to problems and in fact creates more.
One last thing. The notion that this aesthetic whiteness you hold so dear is being threatened with genocide is beyond absurd and renders the term utterly meaningless (which you may in fact find convenient.) European governments do not have a quota of mixed couples to fill each year. Nobody is forcing you to have kids with a Pakistani immigrant. The fact that you are a member of a 90% majority means that there is no shortage of white men available with whom you may produce white children, and the reality is that most ethnic groups choose to marry within their own group for a variety of reasons, meaning that there will be no shortage of other white children to maintain your majority despite the often cited higher birthrates among minorities (and in any event, even if you did lose your majority years and years from now, "whiteness" would not cease to exist.) This urgent threat is a figment of your imagination. Please do not link me to some National Vanguard article as an attempt to refute what I've said, for no such articles will be taken seriously.
- Status
