West Coast Connection Forum

Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: Jared Taylor on January 26, 2009, 08:58:20 PM

Title: The new white nationalism - WHAT we stand for
Post by: Jared Taylor on January 26, 2009, 08:58:20 PM
There seems to be a lot of confusion on this board about my positions on racial issues and other stuff like that. I have been called names like "Nazi" even though such comparisons are superficial and demonstrate that many people on this board have very parochial views of what it means to be a racially conscious white man in 2009.

The New Century Foundation (and American Renaissance, our publication) are not Nazis, nor are we white supremacists. Our goal is not to enslave blacks, but to dispel political correctness and the censorship being practiced by the cultural Marxists who now control the media and education. You are entitled not to agree with us, but you should still reject our views ONLY after hearing them out.

So, let me outline our basic positions. I would hope that these would frame the context for any future discussions with me.

(1.) Jews - White nationalism is very often associated with anti-Semitism, and most traditional European nationalist (fascist) movements during the first half of the 20th century were known for these views, particularly Adolf Hitler's German National Socialist (Nazi) Party. NCF/AmRen rejects anti-Semitism completely. We do not believe there is some Jewish conspiracy aimed at taking over the world; such notions are obviously ridiculous to any sane person. We may criticize Jews for various reasons (namely, the fact that many are liberals who buy into the whole egalitarian-Marxist agenda, while others are neo-conservatives who want America to "spread democracy" to places like Iraq), but we do not recognize the entire Jewish world as an enemy of white civilization. Jews are welcome in our movement, particularly since they are currently on the front lines against the TRUE enemy of white civilization...

(2.) Islam - It is the position of NCF/AmRen that the religion of Islam is a very wicked and intolerant faith which aims to become dominant over the entire world. The modern-day jihadist movement represents the most violent and ambitious incarnation of Islam yet, but NCF/AmRen believes that Islam is fundamentally a very dangerous belief system that is antithetical to human progress. Right now, many countries in Europe are, in a slow death wish, inviting hoards of Muslims into their cities, many of whom hate the West and want to replace it with some sort of caliphate. NCF/AmRen rejects the traditional anti-Semitic white nationalists who believe Jews are the enemy and are willing to cooperate with Muslims (as David Duke did in 2006 when he met with Iranian President Ahmoud Ahmadinejad). We believe that right now, the greatest threat to Western white European/American civilization comes from Islamic immigrants. We support a policy of deporting Muslims who espouse jihadist views, and limiting Islamic immigration generally as much as possible.

(3.) Race - We are believers that race is an important aspect of individual and group identity. Of all the fault lines that divide society—language, religion, class, ideology—it is the most prominent and divisive. Race and racial conflict are at the heart of the most serious challenges the Western World faces in the 21st century. Attempts to gloss over the significance of race or even to deny its reality only make problems worse.

(4.) Slavery - We are NOT proponents of slavery, or of America's involvement in the slave trade. However, we are also of the opinion that slavery is not enough to explain the obvious dispositions of blacks towards violent, unproductive, selfish behavior. In particular, we point out the fact that blacks and Arabs were involved in the slave trade, yet blacks' hatred is directed primarily at whites.

(5.) White supremacy - It is the position of NCF/AmRen that there is no scale on which racial differences can all be ranked so as to draw across-the-board conclusions about racial ‘superiority’ or ‘inferiority’. t is certainly true that in some important traits—intelligence, law-abidingness, sexual restraint, academic performance, resistance to disease—whites can be considered ‘superior’ to blacks. At the same time, in exactly these same traits, North Asians appear to be ‘superior’ to whites.

(6.) Religion - Although most of NCF/AmRen's members are white Protestants, our religion does not figure in any way in our arguments. Our views are not based upon a perceived "Christian identity"; they are based upon scientific research and statistics. Our white nationalism is a secular, scientific nationalism. It is not like 1940s European fascism (linked closely with Christianity in many countries) in this sense. Theological explanations do not figure in our views of blacks, Muslims, Latinos, or other minorities.


Any other questions, please feel free to ask.
Title: Re: The new white nationalism - WHAT we stand for
Post by: virtuoso on January 27, 2009, 05:44:09 AM

If the threat of Islam was as clear as that, then surely western governments must also recognise this and so it would lead one to ask why they would be so happy to populate the west with muslims? sounds like they want chaos to me but you said real conspiracy's don't exist?  The intention of that comment is not even to be sarcastic, I am just simply taking the lines within what you have written albeit an excerpt and just trying to demonstrate that in them seems to lie a real contradiction.
Title: Re: The new white nationalism - WHAT we stand for
Post by: Jared Taylor on January 27, 2009, 12:30:17 PM
then surely western governments must also recognise this and so it would lead one to ask why they would be so happy to populate the west with muslims? sounds like they want chaos to me but you said real conspiracy's don't exist?  The intention of that comment is not even to be sarcastic, I am just simply taking the lines within what you have written albeit an excerpt and just trying to demonstrate that in them seems to lie a real contradiction.

There is no contradiction. Western governments are dominated by self-hating white liberals and Marxists who want to believe in the "equality" crap that they were raised on for their entire lives. It's not so much a conspiracy as the inevitable outgrowth of white guilt. I am trying to make whites realize that they do not have to feel guilty, and that doing so puts them in a vulnerable position.

And ultimately, it's quite likely we're going to see the rise of true conservative parties (like the British National Party) in Europe within the next decade, which will lead to mass deportation of jihadists and their sympathizers in the European Muslim communities.

But what would you know? You're the one who wants to believe there's a Jewish/Israeli conspiracy. You're on the same level as the REAL fascists.
Title: Re: The new white nationalism - WHAT we stand for
Post by: Hey Ma on January 27, 2009, 12:46:00 PM
I agree with all those points, for the most part. However I don't know why simply sharing that philosophy makes me a "white nationalist". If I accept those facts as truth, why do I need to be part of a movement, can't I just be my own person with no affiliation to anything? To me independent thought and lack of an established "movement" pertaining to racial attitudes is what has separated whites from others in the first place. People who compartmentalize their thoughts in the name of unity or whatever in effect shoot themselves in the foot and appear more foolish. You see it with organizations like the NOI, FOI, La Raza, etc.. Nobody takes them seriously at a national level because they choose to align themselves with a concrete organization instead of just holding those core beliefs to themselves and building a life independently.  They look weaker, and sometimes just plain crazy.



"Fuck black leaders cuz whites ain't got none leading them"
-Nas "Black Zombies"


He has a point because we don't, nor have ever (with exception for ignorant rednecks involved in KKK and similar groups) had to find strength in a group to make us succeed in life. We have ourselves, and our families, and enough infrastructure in our own minds to build happy lives, without having to subscribe to or worship the ideals of what's known as "white nationalism". We have those beliefs internalized in us already, and don't need those "basic positions" outlined for us and every one else.

Eihtball, I don't know if you are doing your own personal research on Jared Taylor or his group and have any correspondence with them, but it would be nice if you did, and it would be nice if someone let them know that they are cheapening themselves as a strong people by creating in essence a "support group" for a race that is already the strongest (in America/Europe). Jared Taylor is a smart man but his decisions have made the white race, (or at least those involved with him) look weaker.

Title: Re: The new white nationalism - WHAT we stand for
Post by: Teddy Roosevelt on January 27, 2009, 12:57:48 PM
There is no contradiction. Western governments are dominated by self-hating white liberals and Marxists who want to believe in the "equality" crap that they were raised on for their entire lives. It's not so much a conspiracy as the inevitable outgrowth of white guilt. I am trying to make whites realize that they do not have to feel guilty, and that doing so puts them in a vulnerable position.
Truth.
Title: Re: The new white nationalism - WHAT we stand for
Post by: virtuoso on January 27, 2009, 02:50:59 PM
then surely western governments must also recognise this and so it would lead one to ask why they would be so happy to populate the west with muslims? sounds like they want chaos to me but you said real conspiracy's don't exist?  The intention of that comment is not even to be sarcastic, I am just simply taking the lines within what you have written albeit an excerpt and just trying to demonstrate that in them seems to lie a real contradiction.

There is no contradiction. Western governments are dominated by self-hating white liberals and Marxists who want to believe in the "equality" crap that they were raised on for their entire lives. It's not so much a conspiracy as the inevitable outgrowth of white guilt. I am trying to make whites realize that they do not have to feel guilty, and that doing so puts them in a vulnerable position.

And ultimately, it's quite likely we're going to see the rise of true conservative parties (like the British National Party) in Europe within the next decade, which will lead to mass deportation of jihadists and their sympathizers in the European Muslim communities.

But what would you know? You're the one who wants to believe there's a Jewish/Israeli conspiracy. You're on the same level as the REAL fascists.

Where did I say it was an jewish conspiracy? the groups that run the world are the royal families and the bankers who are predominantly are jewish that's true. However to claim I think it's a jewish conspiracy is a falsehood because of the above and b) these international bodies consist of many different races and religions. What you are saying in response to what I asked, does not make sense since it's the think tanks which are financed by big business which create the policies. This is what I don't understand once again, you are trying to tell me that the most powerful people running the show only want to create equality? feel guilt. It seems you are compartmentalizing my question since it is these very same groups who have created this environment in the first place.

The ideology that drives these people has nothing to do with guilt, it seems you still don't get it do you, the global elite have smashed the third world, capturing their resources and sucking any wealth dry. The money is created, simply printed, handed to the governments to build up their economies but in turn come with conditions which lead to total power. Now though as they "it's a small world" real economic output has slowed, and so the attention of these groups has now focused it's attention inwards, hence the bank bail outs which will keep coming, whilst credit will keep drying up. Of course it's a conspiracy. So I find it hard to believe that in knowing that, you can simply address the idea of mass immigration as "guilt" they know what they are doing.

P.S I don't believe that Islam is inherently evil but I used that to illustrate my point
Title: Re: The new white nationalism - WHAT we stand for
Post by: Jared Taylor on January 27, 2009, 07:19:29 PM
Where did I say it was an jewish conspiracy?

You just started a topic about how the Israelis own news agencies.

This is what I don't understand once again, you are trying to tell me that the most powerful people running the show only want to create equality?

The "most powerful people" aren't some monolithic entity which have all the same views. However, most professors and journalists are ultra-liberals who vote Democrat and have strong pro-equality feelings, and who have a need to feel they're championing a cause. So they force multi-cultural propaganda down people's throats, to a point where anyone who does not espouse their views is ostracized and treated as evil.

Unlike you, I don't look for some evil conspiracy plot, which is obviously bullshit. The people who are shoving us down the road to a multi-cultural society are well-intentioned. But the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Title: Re: The new white nationalism - WHAT we stand for
Post by: Jared Taylor on January 27, 2009, 07:24:10 PM
However I don't know why simply sharing that philosophy makes me a "white nationalist". If I accept those facts as truth, why do I need to be part of a movement, can't I just be my own person with no affiliation to anything?

You aren't unless you believe that a white society is preferable to a mixed-race society. That is what white nationalism is. We may draw from many arguments that conservatives of the mainstream variety have championed for years, but we draw different conclusions. There are, for instance, many conservatives who take a stand against affirmative action, and who believe that slavery, segregation, and insufficient social spending do not explain why blacks are prone to poverty and crime. However, almost none of those in the mainstream (i.e. the Republican Party) would ever dare argue that race has anything to do with this. They're more likely to blame problems in the black community upon a lack of proper family values (translation: they'll be better if they go to Church) and the ghetto culture (translation: ban rap music). The thought that blacks are genetically prone to such behavior is something they will always stop short of arguing. Whereas I won't.
Title: Re: The new white nationalism - WHAT we stand for
Post by: Rugged Monk on January 27, 2009, 09:34:23 PM
However I don't know why simply sharing that philosophy makes me a "white nationalist". If I accept those facts as truth, why do I need to be part of a movement, can't I just be my own person with no affiliation to anything?

You aren't unless you believe that a white society is preferable to a mixed-race society. That is what white nationalism is. We may draw from many arguments that conservatives of the mainstream variety have championed for years, but we draw different conclusions. There are, for instance, many conservatives who take a stand against affirmative action, and who believe that slavery, segregation, and insufficient social spending do not explain why blacks are prone to poverty and crime. However, almost none of those in the mainstream (i.e. the Republican Party) would ever dare argue that race has anything to do with this. They're more likely to blame problems in the black community upon a lack of proper family values (translation: they'll be better if they go to Church) and the ghetto culture (translation: ban rap music). The thought that blacks are genetically prone to such behavior is something they will always stop short of arguing. Whereas I won't.


Boom. See thats where we differ: you think its down to one's nature and intelligence is hereditary. Scientist have found certain genes give a disposition towards certain aspects like types of emotions and intelliigence however its nurture/one's upbringing and environment and personal will, etc that determines intelligence/contribution to society. So we know now race and genetics have a little to do with it but also nothing to do with it when compared to extraneous factors and one's postion in the world and environment and one's personal will.

If my hand had free reign and the ability to i'd impose a secular UN dictatorship upon Israel and Palestine and forcefully spoon feed their children a liberal secular enlightenment inter-religious education...I'd encourage inter-faith, bi-racial and bi-cultural relationships and families ......Plus I'd rebuild Solomon's Temple...
Title: Re: The new white nationalism - WHAT we stand for
Post by: Rugged Monk on January 27, 2009, 09:51:20 PM
why do I need to be part of a movement, can't I just be my own person with no affiliation to anything? To me lack of independent thought and an established "movement" pertaining to racial attitudes is what has separated whites from others in the first place.

WORD.

Although you know, Farrakhan isn't really a seperatist or at least since 2002 he isn't a seperatisit. I know alot of brothers suffering from post-traumatic slave syndrome probably lean that way.
But Farrakhan is not a seperatist.

http://www.youtube.com/v/YDbLUw3GkSE&hl=en&fs=1
Title: Re: The new white nationalism - WHAT we stand for
Post by: virtuoso on January 28, 2009, 05:51:47 AM
Where did I say it was an jewish conspiracy?

You just started a topic about how the Israelis own news agencies.

This is what I don't understand once again, you are trying to tell me that the most powerful people running the show only want to create equality?

The "most powerful people" aren't some monolithic entity which have all the same views. However, most professors and journalists are ultra-liberals who vote Democrat and have strong pro-equality feelings, and who have a need to feel they're championing a cause. So they force multi-cultural propaganda down people's throats, to a point where anyone who does not espouse their views is ostracized and treated as evil.

Unlike you, I don't look for some evil conspiracy plot, which is obviously bullshit. The people who are shoving us down the road to a multi-cultural society are well-intentioned. But the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Yes, Israel does wield great power but they aren't the only arm and I never said they were. However with all things Israeli related they more or less control the flow of information. In fact that's not even an opinion, every word from foreign journalists is scrutinised.

Yeah I can understand that about them only trying to better serve humanity, I mean the IMF are such wonderfully loving people, they don't want to financially rape the peasantry, they love everyone. Leo Strauss didn't actually consider the citizens slaves to be controlled by their masters, even though he states that, obviously his words are taken out of context. Ah man fuck it, yes they are just wonderfully fantastic people, so well intentioned.

Notice I am talking about the architects, of course there are good intentioned people to but the further you go up the chain, the uglier things become and when you are dealing with global bodies like the IMF, then you are dealing with an entity whose purpose is to create dependence thus dominating all economic activity. Do you think the architects of the european union usurpsed sovereign powers, created a central dictatorship because they love everyone, yeah I am sure they do. After all, power and dominance and enslavement equals love, it's silly of me to argue to the contrary.
Title: Re: The new white nationalism - WHAT we stand for
Post by: Jared Taylor on January 28, 2009, 01:02:40 PM
Boom. See thats where we differ: you think its down to one's nature and intelligence is hereditary. Scientist have found certain genes give a disposition towards certain aspects like types of emotions and intelliigence however its nurture/one's upbringing and environment and personal will, etc that determines intelligence/contribution to society. So we know now race and genetics have a little to do with it but also nothing to do with it when compared to extraneous factors and one's postion in the world and environment and one's personal will.

Maybe you should check out some of what I have posted on the science of race. Start with this:

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/06/the_new_science_1.php

If my hand had free reign and the ability to i'd impose a secular UN dictatorship upon Israel and Palestine and forcefully spoon feed their children a liberal secular enlightenment inter-religious education...I'd encourage inter-faith, bi-racial and bi-cultural relationships and families ......Plus I'd rebuild Solomon's Temple...

Right, but here's the thing: The Israelis would go along with it, while the Palestinians wouldn't. Chances are, you'd be forced to slap the Palestinians around the same way that the Izzies have had to do.
Title: Re: The new white nationalism - WHAT we stand for
Post by: Jared Taylor on January 28, 2009, 01:04:22 PM
Yeah I can understand that about them only trying to better serve humanity, I mean the IMF are such wonderfully loving people, they don't want to financially rape the peasantry, they love everyone. Leo Strauss didn't actually consider the citizens slaves to be controlled by their masters, even though he states that, obviously his words are taken out of context. Ah man fuck it, yes they are just wonderfully fantastic people, so well intentioned.

Notice I am talking about the architects, of course there are good intentioned people to but the further you go up the chain, the uglier things become and when you are dealing with global bodies like the IMF, then you are dealing with an entity whose purpose is to create dependence thus dominating all economic activity. Do you think the architects of the european union usurpsed sovereign powers, created a central dictatorship because they love everyone, yeah I am sure they do. After all, power and dominance and enslavement equals love, it's silly of me to argue to the contrary.


You obviously missed the point of what I've been saying entirely.
Title: Re: The new white nationalism - WHAT we stand for
Post by: Jared Taylor on February 01, 2009, 05:58:37 PM
Let me clarify a bit more...political correctness as it exists today is not really a "movement" or a "conspiracy" so much as a set of false values mutually shared. Remember it used to be common sense to people that the world was flat, or that people should be tried and executed for witchcraft? Political correctness and multi-cultural ideas are basically the same sort of thing - a lot of dumb ideas that can eventually be disproven as false and rejected once enough people come to their senses. And fortunately, the good news is that right now, many whites are coming to their senses. This is why so many nationalist parties in Europe like the BNP are seeing increased electoral success. I have complete faith that this will happen in America, too.
Title: Re: The new white nationalism - WHAT we stand for
Post by: I TO DA GEEZY on February 01, 2009, 11:32:45 PM
I have a question that I think hasn't been asked yet. Do you think that Muslim hatred toward the west is a strictly religious phenomenon? If so, how do years of western infiltration and exploitation of Arab and Muslim countries figure in their antagonism toward the west?. You also don't mention that violent forms of resistance practiced by Muslims are far surpassed by Western violence. Would you also attribute Western violence to the inherent evil of various western religions or cultures?
Title: Re: The new white nationalism - WHAT we stand for
Post by: Jared Taylor on February 02, 2009, 11:18:53 AM
Do you think that Muslim hatred toward the west is a strictly religious phenomenon?

Religion is an important part of it, in large part because Islam has always been relatively intolerant of non-believers, and anyone who is critical of Islam. To be fair, there was a time when Christianity was worse, but modern Islam is still a highly intolerant religion as it exists today. Religious hatred is a very big part of it.

But no, religion is not the only factor. A lot of it has to do with the decline of the Muslim world from the heights that it reached from the 8th to 13th centuries. They're bitter that they've been surpassed by non-Muslims. Then there's the fact that most of the Muslim world got very lucky (they happened to be sitting on oil), which means that they have never had to do much work to make money. Anyone will tell you that people in that sort of position tend to become childish and out of touch with reality.

If so, how do years of western infiltration and exploitation of Arab and Muslim countries figure in their antagonism toward the west?.

Western demand for oil is, relatively speaking, relatively recent in history. The Muslim world has been antagonistic towards the West since long before our economies became dependent upon oil. Anyway, I am also curious to know how you define exploitation.

You also don't mention that violent forms of resistance practiced by Muslims are far surpassed by Western violence. Would you also attribute Western violence to the inherent evil of various western religions or cultures?

In what way? Because of the fact that whenever we bomb enemy targets, lots of civilians tend to get killed?

Also, here's the thing - Muslim violence goes back a very, VERY long time. If we were to tally up total kills for Islam, the Muslims have surpassed us by quite a bit.
Title: Re: The new white nationalism - WHAT we stand for
Post by: I TO DA GEEZY on February 02, 2009, 12:30:24 PM
So Muslim hatred toward the west has nothing to do with what the west has been doing in the middle east for the last couple of decades?A US sponsored coup in Iran to install a brutal dictator? The support for dictatorships like Saudi Arabia that make sure the money from oil goes to the west-not to the people of the region-has nothing to do with it? British occupation? U.S support for Israeli occupation and aggression ? US support for monsters like Sadam?.  None of this matters? you wanna tell me Muslims don't mind the robbery and destruction and all they care about is religion? It takes a leap of faith. Even if we grant that there is intolerance in the Muslim religion (as there is in virtually any religion), the west did nothing to contribute to Muslim intolerance with its destructive actions?. I guess Bush was right then, they DO hate you for your freedom.Come on man.

Secondly,western violence is far superior in its "achievements" if only for the tremendous imbalance of power the west enjoys. I don't think anyone would dispute it. As for tallying up total kills throughout history, do you also include inter-European warfare for hundreds of years and the genocide of millions of native Americans?

But you haven't answered my question. Why don't you attribute western violence to western cultures and religions like you do with Islam?
Title: Re: The new white nationalism - WHAT we stand for
Post by: Kill on February 02, 2009, 02:50:14 PM
Ok, you're not a Nazi Jared but you get a lot of stuff wrong.

(2.) Islam - It is the position of NCF/AmRen that the religion of Islam is a very wicked and intolerant faith which aims to become dominant over the entire world. The modern-day jihadist movement represents the most violent and ambitious incarnation of Islam yet, but NCF/AmRen believes that Islam is fundamentally a very dangerous belief system that is antithetical to human progress. Right now, many countries in Europe are, in a slow death wish, inviting hoards of Muslims into their cities, many of whom hate the West and want to replace it with some sort of caliphate. NCF/AmRen rejects the traditional anti-Semitic white nationalists who believe Jews are the enemy and are willing to cooperate with Muslims (as David Duke did in 2006 when he met with Iranian President Ahmoud Ahmadinejad). We believe that right now, the greatest threat to Western white European/American civilization comes from Islamic immigrants. We support a policy of deporting Muslims who espouse jihadist views, and limiting Islamic immigration generally as much as possible.
Islam is rotten to the core, but so is Christianity. Yes, Islam (and most specifically Islamism) is a prime example of how self-righteous, pugnacious and plain dangerous religion can be, but religion in general is inimical to progress in contemporary society. The world's least religious societies are its most progressive ones, and the problem in Islamic societies might partly be the specific religion itself, but to a great extent it's the degree of religiousness in that society. If you compare Turkey to the Lebanon, you should get the picture. And I'll have to go with I TO DA GEEZY in asking how you can attribute all the wrong done in the Muslim world to Islam and don't do the same for western culture. That's a double standard and a loophole for people like you to support religious conservatism. If you were consequent, you'd be a strict atheist.

Secondly, apparently you don't know the first thing about immigration politics (and policies) in Europe. What you're right about is that, sadly, a lot of European Muslims have trouble coping with Western beliefs and that's a very serious problem which undoubtedly is related to Islam itself. However, the statement that European countries are "inviting hoards of Muslims into their cities" is way more off than the statement that you are a Nazi.

Quote
(5.) White supremacy - It is the position of NCF/AmRen that there is no scale on which racial differences can all be ranked so as to draw across-the-board conclusions about racial ‘superiority’ or ‘inferiority’. t is certainly true that in some important traits—intelligence, law-abidingness, sexual restraint, academic performance, resistance to disease—whites can be considered ‘superior’ to blacks. At the same time, in exactly these same traits, North Asians appear to be ‘superior’ to whites.
Intelligence? What are you basing that one on, ACT scores? If there is any evidence that there is any biological aspect to the Asian > White > Black issue in the IQ department, I'd like to see it. The resistance-to-disease-thing seems kinda new to me as well. And since, from what I know, about 90% or something of genetic diversity among our species are exclusive to Africa, this seems to make little sense from a biological perspective, unless it was the 10% best genes that made it out of Africa. If so, show me. 

Quote
(6.) Religion - Although most of NCF/AmRen's members are white Protestants, our religion does not figure in any way in our arguments. Our views are not based upon a perceived "Christian identity"; they are based upon scientific research and statistics. Our white nationalism is a secular, scientific nationalism. It is not like 1940s European fascism (linked closely with Christianity in many countries) in this sense. Theological explanations do not figure in our views of blacks, Muslims, Latinos, or other minorities.
I see that, but they should, negatively. If you don't condemn the Bible as much as you condemn the Qu'Ran, you got a credibility problem. The fact that the Qu'Ran is even slightly more belligerent and that at this very point in history, "Christian" countries are culturally ahead of Islamic ones doesn't take away from the fact that general intolerance and a pretty repetitive ongoing clash with science is as fundamental a problem for white Protestants as it is for your run-of-the-mill Al-Qaida basket case.
Title: Re: The new white nationalism - WHAT we stand for
Post by: Jared Taylor on February 04, 2009, 07:29:35 PM
So Muslim hatred toward the west has nothing to do with what the west has been doing in the middle east for the last couple of decades?A US sponsored coup in Iran to install a brutal dictator? The support for dictatorships like Saudi Arabia that make sure the money from oil goes to the west-not to the people of the region-has nothing to do with it? British occupation? U.S support for Israeli occupation and aggression ? US support for monsters like Sadam?.  None of this matters? you wanna tell me Muslims don't mind the robbery and destruction and all they care about is religion? It takes a leap of faith. Even if we grant that there is intolerance in the Muslim religion (as there is in virtually any religion), the west did nothing to contribute to Muslim intolerance with its destructive actions?. I guess Bush was right then, they DO hate you for your freedom.Come on man.

First of all, I am not a Bush supporter.

Anyway, you refuse to answer my main question - is it not true that Islamic civilization is pretty fucked-up? And that most of what they've been through is their own fault? And Muslim hatred for the West certainly does go back way before most of the shit you've listsed (all of which took place in the 20th century). Islamic teachings have stipulated that the goal of Muslims must be to expand Islam and kill infidels. They would hate us regardless of what we did or did not do.

Anyway, the thing is...what about the stuff we did to HELP Muslims? Aside from the fact that I'm of the opinion colonialism probably helped those illiterate savages far more than it hurt them, what about the U.S. aiding the Afghan Mujahideen? Or saving Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from destruction? Aiding Albanian Muslims in Kosovo? It's weird how none of that stuff seems to figure in their world view.

Secondly,western violence is far superior in its "achievements" if only for the tremendous imbalance of power the west enjoys. I don't think anyone would dispute it. As for tallying up total kills throughout history, do you also include inter-European warfare for hundreds of years and the genocide of millions of native Americans?

I meant Muslim killings of Christians, or other non-Muslims. The Armenian Genocide alone makes most European genocides look pretty tame.

But you haven't answered my question. Why don't you attribute western violence to western cultures and religions like you do with Islam?

Because right now, most of the West lives under civilized democracies in which criticism and free speech is tolerated. Whereas most of the Muslim world is in roughly the same place we were 500 years ago, if not farther back.

Answer me this: Is it not true that Western democracies do not go to war with each other? Actually, democracies in general don't go to war with each other.
Title: Re: The new white nationalism - WHAT we stand for
Post by: Jared Taylor on February 04, 2009, 07:40:16 PM
Islam is rotten to the core, but so is Christianity. Yes, Islam (and most specifically Islamism) is a prime example of how self-righteous, pugnacious and plain dangerous religion can be, but religion in general is inimical to progress in contemporary society. The world's least religious societies are its most progressive ones, and the problem in Islamic societies might partly be the specific religion itself, but to a great extent it's the degree of religiousness in that society. If you compare Turkey to the Lebanon, you should get the picture. And I'll have to go with I TO DA GEEZY in asking how you can attribute all the wrong done in the Muslim world to Islam and don't do the same for western culture. That's a double standard and a loophole for people like you to support religious conservatism. If you were consequent, you'd be a strict atheist.

I'm actually not terribly religious, though I respect the power of the good Protestant values that built this country. Also, does it ever interest you that so many atheist socialists and Marxists seem more sympathetic to the religious fascist Islamists than they are to the (mostly) secular West?

Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion about Christianity. But the fact, which you don't seem to acknowledge, is that Islamic societies are overwhelmingly far more tolerant than Christian societies. Islam does not tolerate criticism, as the Muhammad cartoon controversy and the Salman Rushdie affair shows. It takes FAR more bravery to criticize Islam for the simple fact that there is always a threat of Islamic violence in the background. Criticism of the Bible is available everywhere in America, if you choose not to believe in it. Whereas Islamic governments ban any sort of criticism at all. This is well-documented.

Christianity went through a Reformation. Islam needs to do the same, or it needs to be wiped out. And frankly, I'd prefer the latter.

Secondly, apparently you don't know the first thing about immigration politics (and policies) in Europe. What you're right about is that, sadly, a lot of European Muslims have trouble coping with Western beliefs and that's a very serious problem which undoubtedly is related to Islam itself. However, the statement that European countries are "inviting hoards of Muslims into their cities" is way more off than the statement that you are a Nazi.

You mean they aren't inviting lots of Muslims? That's odd. If you ever want to check the BNP web site, you'll find the truth about that. I am aware that some European governments are in the habits of disowning the policies which let these savages in their countries, but that doesn't mean it's not happening.


Intelligence? What are you basing that one on, ACT scores? If there is any evidence that there is any biological aspect to the Asian > White > Black issue in the IQ department, I'd like to see it. The resistance-to-disease-thing seems kinda new to me as well. And since, from what I know, about 90% or something of genetic diversity among our species are exclusive to Africa, this seems to make little sense from a biological perspective, unless it was the 10% best genes that made it out of Africa. If so, show me. 

Please read my web site and you can see some of the stuff I've posted. And no, ACT scores are not the basis.

I see that, but they should, negatively. If you don't condemn the Bible as much as you condemn the Qu'Ran, you got a credibility problem. The fact that the Qu'Ran is even slightly more belligerent and that at this very point in history, "Christian" countries are culturally ahead of Islamic ones doesn't take away from the fact that general intolerance and a pretty repetitive ongoing clash with science is as fundamental a problem for white Protestants as it is for your run-of-the-mill Al-Qaida basket case.

Yes, but again, very few (read: almost none) Christians kill people who disagree with them. Whereas the Islamic world issues death threats to critics on a regular basis. Muhammad himself was known to criticize those who disagreed with him. I'm not aware of Jesus doing that.
Title: Re: The new white nationalism - WHAT we stand for
Post by: Rugged Monk on February 04, 2009, 07:48:04 PM
If my hand had free reign and the ability to i'd impose a secular UN dictatorship upon Israel and Palestine and forcefully spoon feed their children a liberal secular enlightenment inter-religious education...I'd encourage inter-faith, bi-racial and bi-cultural relationships and families ......Plus I'd rebuild Solomon's Temple...

Right, but here's the thing: The Israelis would go along with it, while the Palestinians wouldn't. Chances are, you'd be forced to slap the Palestinians around the same way that the Izzies have had to do.

No, we would be forced to slap EVERYBODY around. Israel was founded on terrorism. Palestine adopted terrorism.
Title: Re: The new white nationalism - WHAT we stand for
Post by: Jared Taylor on February 04, 2009, 07:54:30 PM
No, we would be forced to slap EVERYBODY around. Israel was founded on terrorism. Palestine adopted terrorism.

No, just the Palestinians. Israel was founded with a need to defend itself against illiterate Islamic savages. The Palestinians, being Muslims, would rather fight than accept a 2-state solution.
Title: Re: The new white nationalism - WHAT we stand for
Post by: Rugged Monk on February 04, 2009, 08:18:39 PM
No, we would be forced to slap EVERYBODY around. Israel was founded on terrorism. Palestine adopted terrorism.

No, just the Palestinians. Israel was founded with a need to defend itself against illiterate Islamic savages. The Palestinians, being Muslims, would rather fight than accept a 2-state solution.

Well...regardless, for their own good my illuminated leviathan would slap them all around and forcefully relocate screaming settlers and Palestinians alike inorder to establish boarders; rather than allow the periodic culling of the Palestinian population and the cycle of violence to continue.


Zionism is good, but Shaolin Illuminati Click is for the babies.
Title: Re: The new white nationalism - WHAT we stand for
Post by: Hey Ma on February 05, 2009, 12:41:16 AM
Shaolin Illuminati Click is for the babies.

It's pretty much necessary for our world to survive without ignorance being the default setting for human beings.
Title: Re: The new white nationalism - WHAT we stand for
Post by: I TO DA GEEZY on February 05, 2009, 12:47:53 AM
You see there's a difference between actual history and parallel universes. You argue they WOULD hate us "regardless of what we did or did not do". This is like saying Muslim hatred for the west is pathological and cannot be explained by real world events and interests, it's a very convenient ideological concoction.But there's a problem, if Muslim hatred for the west is independent of real world concerns(like having national resources and personal freedom stolen) then why do Muslims-some of the most religiously fanatical ones incidentally-cooperate with US strategic interests?(Like the Saudis and once even Osama, as you probably know).Remember you argue real world concerns don't enter their calculus, otherwise what I've listed(or "what WE do") would be very relevant.

Secondly,there certainly existed an amount of antagonism between religions and nations throughout history, Muslims and Arabs were no exception, but does this prove their hatred was, or is now, independent of real world interests?

As for fault. It's interesting how you measure faults. So the 1000 something Palestinians killed by my government lately, using U.S weapons, brought it on themselves?...Yeah I know my government uses arguments like this, but serious people know exactly to whom those bombs and planes belong. Normal people usually attribute fault to those who pull the trigger and kill 300 children, in what has become an Israeli controlled prison.

As for Muslim violence. If you limit history to those cases which support the thesis that Muslims are more violent then naturally you won't have a problem. Since, under these constraints, you don't need to face hundreds of years of Western violence.

And my question still remains unanswered. The fact Western countries are democracies has little to do with the argument.Also,the fact most western countries share strategic interests-and hence don't fight wars with each other-doesn't prove anything. Your argument was this: Muslims commit acts of violence, thus the Muslim religion is evil. Why don't Western acts of violence prove the evil of Western culture and the religions of which it consists?
Title: Re: The new white nationalism - WHAT we stand for
Post by: virtuoso on February 05, 2009, 03:25:33 AM
You see there's a difference between actual history and parallel universes. You argue they WOULD hate us "regardless of what we did or did not do". This is like saying Muslim hatred for the west is pathological and cannot be explained by real world events and interests, it's a very convenient ideological concoction.But there's a problem, if Muslim hatred for the west is independent of real world concerns(like having national resources and personal freedom stolen) then why do Muslims-some of the most religiously fanatical ones incidentally-cooperate with US strategic interests?(Like the Saudis and once even Osama, as you probably know).Remember you argue real world concerns don't enter their calculus, otherwise what I've listed(or "what WE do") would be very relevant.

Secondly,there certainly existed an amount of antagonism between religions and nations throughout history, Muslims and Arabs were no exception, but does this prove their hatred was, or is now, independent of real world interests?

As for fault. It's interesting how you measure faults. So the 1000 something Palestinians killed by my government lately, using U.S weapons, brought it on themselves?...Yeah I know my government uses arguments like this, but serious people know exactly to whom those bombs and planes belong. Normal people usually attribute fault to those who pull the trigger and kill 300 children, in what has become an Israeli controlled prison.

As for Muslim violence. If you limit history to those cases which support the thesis that Muslims are more violent then naturally you won't have a problem. Since, under these constraints, you don't need to face hundreds of years of Western violence.

And my question still remains unanswered. The fact Western countries are democracies has little to do with the argument.Also,the fact most western countries share strategic interests-and hence don't fight wars with each other-doesn't prove anything. Your argument was this: Muslims commit acts of violence, thus the Muslim religion is evil. Why don't Western acts of violence prove the evil of Western culture and the religions of which it consists?

But but it's not like they actually targeted the palestinians, they were targeting Hamas, it's just the palestinians got in the way. However back to the real world,you see, the fact is, they all do it, all target civilian infrastructure sometimes, terrorism is needed to turn the populous against one another in many cases. and indeed it's what NATO were doing all across Yugoslavia. Seperate to that. the americans were using white phosphorous, the israelis were to, there were many reports of israeli soliders locking palestinians inside schools and then bombing the schools.  Also god only knows what the british and americans and others were and have been doing in Iraq, we will NEVER get the full truth of that.  The west have pulverised Irsq into a state in which the very core of it has been ripped apart, the israeli ruling elite through a methodology of terrorism prior to the inception of the state of israel and since then have turned Gaza into a giant concentration camp.

It's also a warped mindset that would justify hatred towards muslims by using the excuse of muslim savagery, when even ignoring the savagery outlined above. Modern day muslim savagery has largely been led by hardcore dictators installed by western intelligence. However if we are to look at savagery further back in time, what about the savagery of europeans wiping out the aborigines, the indians, heck, savagery....the burning at the stake of anyone deemed to be a witch, the list is endless. 

 
Title: Re: The new white nationalism - WHAT we stand for
Post by: Kill on February 05, 2009, 11:09:13 AM
Islam is rotten to the core, but so is Christianity. Yes, Islam (and most specifically Islamism) is a prime example of how self-righteous, pugnacious and plain dangerous religion can be, but religion in general is inimical to progress in contemporary society. The world's least religious societies are its most progressive ones, and the problem in Islamic societies might partly be the specific religion itself, but to a great extent it's the degree of religiousness in that society. If you compare Turkey to the Lebanon, you should get the picture. And I'll have to go with I TO DA GEEZY in asking how you can attribute all the wrong done in the Muslim world to Islam and don't do the same for western culture. That's a double standard and a loophole for people like you to support religious conservatism. If you were consequent, you'd be a strict atheist.

I'm actually not terribly religious, though I respect the power of the good Protestant values that built this country. Also, does it ever interest you that so many atheist socialists and Marxists seem more sympathetic to the religious fascist Islamists than they are to the (mostly) secular West?

Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion about Christianity. But the fact, which you don't seem to acknowledge, is that Islamic societies are overwhelmingly far more tolerant than Christian societies. Islam does not tolerate criticism, as the Muhammad cartoon controversy and the Salman Rushdie affair shows. It takes FAR more bravery to criticize Islam for the simple fact that there is always a threat of Islamic violence in the background. Criticism of the Bible is available everywhere in America, if you choose not to believe in it. Whereas Islamic governments ban any sort of criticism at all. This is well-documented.

Christianity went through a Reformation. Islam needs to do the same, or it needs to be wiped out. And frankly, I'd prefer the latter.
erm, as for the part highlighted in red, i'll just assume you wanted to say the opposite. I do acknowledge that, it's too obvious for any sane person to deny. i don't see where marxism comes in in this discussion, i'm not a marxist in case you thought so. and the thing about atheists being overly tolerant when it comes to backwards-ass islamic countries where you get a good old stoning for insulting allah and women are treated like cattle...yes, that unfortunately happens to be true. it's by far not all atheists (read Sam Harris' chapter about Islam in "The End of Faith", you'd kinda like it), but some of them do have that problem. i won't go into why i think that is now.

however, none of that makes protestantism or any version of christianity good. the bible is only slightly less stupid than the qu'ran (new testament) or pretty much equal (old testament), as far as i can tell. of course you will find some universal words of wisdom in both of these books, but at the same time, both are full of shit. but what i mean is this: islamic countries are less tolerant because of religion, (predominately) christian countries are more tolerant despite religion. the more christian a certain place is, the more tolerance issues it generally has, not only related to people critisizing christianity, but also when it comes to other things bible freaks consider "wrong" for some reason, be that sex before marriage, Darwinian science or homosexuality (yeah, interestingly, religiousness usually goes with the idea of being in the position to judge other people's sexual preferences).

the more we stepped away from traditional christian values in the west, the more we advanced towards modern society.

Quote
Secondly, apparently you don't know the first thing about immigration politics (and policies) in Europe. What you're right about is that, sadly, a lot of European Muslims have trouble coping with Western beliefs and that's a very serious problem which undoubtedly is related to Islam itself. However, the statement that European countries are "inviting hoards of Muslims into their cities" is way more off than the statement that you are a Nazi.

You mean they aren't inviting lots of Muslims? That's odd. If you ever want to check the BNP web site, you'll find the truth about that. I am aware that some European governments are in the habits of disowning the policies which let these savages in their countries, but that doesn't mean it's not happening.
I'll see what your website says when i get round to it. of course, european countries take up refugees when there's a good reason which i'm sure you wouldn't critisize. but you're suggesting that we're a bunch of self-destructive lunatics euphorically flooding our own gates with hoards of barbarian warriors trying to take down our societies cause we're suicidal like that. i live right in the middle of europe and i see what's going on.

Quote
Intelligence? What are you basing that one on, ACT scores? If there is any evidence that there is any biological aspect to the Asian > White > Black issue in the IQ department, I'd like to see it. The resistance-to-disease-thing seems kinda new to me as well. And since, from what I know, about 90% or something of genetic diversity among our species are exclusive to Africa, this seems to make little sense from a biological perspective, unless it was the 10% best genes that made it out of Africa. If so, show me. 

Please read my web site and you can see some of the stuff I've posted. And no, ACT scores are not the basis.
again, i'll see about it when i got some time on my hands.

Quote
I see that, but they should, negatively. If you don't condemn the Bible as much as you condemn the Qu'Ran, you got a credibility problem. The fact that the Qu'Ran is even slightly more belligerent and that at this very point in history, "Christian" countries are culturally ahead of Islamic ones doesn't take away from the fact that general intolerance and a pretty repetitive ongoing clash with science is as fundamental a problem for white Protestants as it is for your run-of-the-mill Al-Qaida basket case.

Yes, but again, very few (read: almost none) Christians kill people who disagree with them. Whereas the Islamic world issues death threats to critics on a regular basis. Muhammad himself was known to criticize those who disagreed with him. I'm not aware of Jesus doing that.
i'm just saying the bible won't be more helpful than the qu'ran to somebody trying to stomach evolution 'n shit. that's what i mean: the west is (fortunately) way ahead of the islamic world, but that doesn't make christianity an intelligent thing cause it's still inimical to progress.
Title: Re: The new white nationalism - WHAT we stand for
Post by: .:DaYg0sTyLz:. on February 05, 2009, 11:23:17 AM
Its always funny how obvious racists back-track in order to not appear racist. This is only a tactic to make their racist view points seem logical lol.
Title: Re: The new white nationalism - WHAT we stand for
Post by: Jared Taylor on February 09, 2009, 11:54:24 AM
This is like saying Muslim hatred for the west is pathological and cannot be explained by real world events and interests, it's a very convenient ideological concoction.

It's not concocted. You are deluding yourself if you don't think Islam thrives upon the need to hate and have an "enemy" to blame. Islam as a religion is based upon conquest of non-believers.

The real-world events for which Muslims hate us may have happened, but they're mostly an excuse, not the cause.

then why do Muslims-some of the most religiously fanatical ones incidentally-cooperate with US strategic interests?(Like the Saudis and once even Osama, as you probably know).Remember you argue real world concerns don't enter their calculus, otherwise what I've listed(or "what WE do") would be very relevant. 

First of all, I don't group all Muslim extremists in the same group. Just because I think Islam is a violent, intolerant religion doesn't mean I think all Muslims are as fanatical as others. I do think most Muslims can't be trusted to stand up for what is right, just as most Catholics can't be.

Muslims cooperate with the U.S. when it sees fit, but that doesn't mean they aren't looking to screw us in other ways. The Saudis are funding Wahabist extremism (often, against us) even as they work with us. Part of the problem is that people like Bush used to try and convince themselves that Muslims don't want to destroy us. The Saudis are being strategic (their pussy army couldn't stop us if it tried, anyway, seeing as it relies on our funding), but that doesn't mean they like us.

Secondly,there certainly existed an amount of antagonism between religions and nations throughout history, Muslims and Arabs were no exception, but does this prove their hatred was, or is now, independent of real world interests? 

Go to the scripture, then.

So the 1000 something Palestinians killed by my government lately, using U.S weapons, brought it on themselves?...Yeah I know my government uses arguments like this, but serious people know exactly to whom those bombs and planes belong. Normal people usually attribute fault to those who pull the trigger and kill 300 children, in what has become an Israeli controlled prison.

The Palestinians elected Hamas. It's a "prison" because they support terrorism and don't want to live in peace with the Israelis. In guerrilla warfare, the line between insurgents and civilians is sketchy. But the Palestinians are a useless people, anyway. Why should I feel sympathy?

As for Muslim violence. If you limit history to those cases which support the thesis that Muslims are more violent then naturally you won't have a problem. Since, under these constraints, you don't need to face hundreds of years of Western violence.

I am not ignoring Western violence. But the scale on which Muslim violence took place outweighs it. You just aren't aware.


And my question still remains unanswered. The fact Western countries are democracies has little to do with the argument.Also,the fact most western countries share strategic interests-and hence don't fight wars with each other-doesn't prove anything. Your argument was this: Muslims commit acts of violence, thus the Muslim religion is evil. Why don't Western acts of violence prove the evil of Western culture and the religions of which it consists?

The fact that Western countries don't fight each other proves why their societies are morally superior to Islamic societies. If you can't see that, then you are deluded.

As far as acts of violence goes, Westerners use violence when provoked. If Muslims would not attack us, we'd leave them alone. Whereas Muslims kill civilians and LAUGH about it. How hard is that to figure out?
Title: Re: The new white nationalism - WHAT we stand for
Post by: I TO DA GEEZY on February 09, 2009, 01:35:04 PM
Let's get it straight. You argue Muslim hatred is pathological, you say this argument is " not concocted". If so, if their hatred is pathological, how can Muslims-being the pathological haters of the west that they are-how can they be "strategic"? If they hate the west independently of real-world events they would hate it in all circumstances, regardless of more worldly concerns like timing and fear of destruction at the hands of US power. As you concede, they do not fight the west in all circumstances. How do you reconcile  your argument with the fact that crazed Islamic radicals like the Saudis and Osama can be pragmatic and strategic. There is no evidence for pathological Muslim hatred for the west. You wouldn't get pragmatism from the most radical Islamists, if it had been the case.

I don't see how the scriptures prove that Muslim hatred is unrelated to real world interests. Is the old testament any less violent? well, why don't you argue Jews and Christians are pathological haters of infidels then? - You don't argue this cause it's ridiculous to cite scriptures to prove an argument like pathological hatred toward others. Forget the scriptures, how can we even begin to prove something like this? Do you have some special electrodes you attach to Muslims? Seriously, this is the type of argument that is meant not to inform but to confuse and create prejudice.

I find no indication in the historical record that Muslim violence is somehow more lethal than western violence. And the argument about Hamas being elected, thus justifying Israeli crimes against palestinians is equivalent to the following: Israelis electing governments which systematically kill Palestinians and Lebanese (in much larger amounts) justify violence against Israelis. It's ridiculous.

The fact Western countries don't fight each other tells us nothing about their moral superiority, especially in circumstances when the preponderance of violence in the world is perpetrated by the west (specifically by the US) using its overwhelming power. Now, you still are evading the question of why this western violence doesn't prove that the west is evil, if Muslim violence proves that Islam is evil.

As for Westerners using violence only when provoked, I'd like to see the evidence for that. Does provoking include not following the kind of economic policies the US wants? Well if so you have an interesting definition of provocation.If this is your definition then I guess Iranians wanting their national resources DID provoke the US to install a brutal dictator. And you know, Nazi Germany was also a western country, did the Jews provoke the Nazi Holocaust?
Title: Re: The new white nationalism - WHAT we stand for
Post by: *Z* - The Queen of Dubcc on February 10, 2009, 09:39:25 AM
But the Palestinians are a useless people, anyway. Why should I feel sympathy?

At this very point the discussion should be over, because racists are useless people if it comes to rational discussions.
Who the fucking heck gives you the right to judge whether a nation is useless or not? If you were born palestinian, would you want to die then, becuz according to your own words youd be useless? I guess you have never heard of Kant.
Title: Re: The new white nationalism - WHAT we stand for
Post by: John Grotty on March 08, 2009, 03:03:06 PM
pro white nationalism on a site dedicated to west coast hip hop? whoever the white nationalist is should fuck off you dumb ass hypocrit
Title: Re: The new white nationalism - WHAT we stand for
Post by: virtuoso on March 08, 2009, 04:08:13 PM
I prefer not to use words like this to describe what just happened but even though ideologically myself and geezy differ at times....Geezy OWNED him  ;D