February 21, 2009

Barack Obama: President of the "nation of cowards"

Attorney General Eric Holder has accused Americans of being a "nation of cowards" for not talking about race. Wouldn't that accusation apply most of all to his boss, President Barack Obama, who spent 2007-2008 dodging discussing his own obsession with race, as manifested in his 1995 book Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance?

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

54 comments:

eh said...

Until either of them initiates a discussion about stupefying statistics such as that black males are less than 10% of the population but commit over 50% of all murders I don't plan on paying too much attention.

Frank said...

Cowards about Race? What would Eric Holder say about this? Straight from his own DOJ: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

Can we have a discussion on this?

Anonymous said...

ronald 82:

i wonder if this means holder will not prosecute sailer for disseminating hatefacts.

Anonymous said...

Yeah ... I wanna know why Obama wanted to sock a guy for observing that it might have made Obama feel out of place to be on of only two black guys on a sports team. I mean, I might feel out of place in that sort of situation. I wonder if Obama did. Woops, now I deserve a punch in the chops.

Anonymous said...

I guess if Obama had really agreed with Jerry Wright’s racist rants he listened to for all those years and then sort of kinda lied about it so he could win an election, that might be kinda sorta like being a coward.

But I don’t think we will ever get a chance to ask either Holder or Obama about that, and if one did ask that question, I’m not sure they’d look too kindly on it.

Anonymous said...

I wonder how long that page will stay up on Holder's watch.

Mark said...

This is off on sort of a tangent, but the post-vice/presidency of Msrs. Clinton and Gore saw an enormous rise in each's net worth: around 2006 it was estimated at $50 million for Clinton and $100 million for Gore - a rise made all the more impressive by the fact that both are lifelong pols with no business experience.

I'm just guessing, but I'll bet that within a few years of leaving office in 2012 or 2016 Obama will have made them both look like pikers. Obama may be president of a nation of cowards, but he could also very well become our first billionaire ex-president.

Mark said...

Perhaps what ObamaHolder really wants is a game of Whack-a-Mole. A race realist sticks his/her head up and BAM! - gets crushed. It's the Obama Era, and we have a black AG to serve as The Enforcer.

Alternately, and more reasonably, the perpetual invitations to "a dialogue on race" are a way of pretending they're inviting conservative whites to participate when they really aren't, either to make themselves feel good or else to make society feel like it's an open conversation that really isn't.

none of the above said...

Frank:

The irony is, the main beneficiaries of addressing that would likely be blacks. Black crime is mostly done to other blacks, and the crime rates (like illegitimacy rates) got much worse during the 60s and 70s. Fixing whatever part of this difference that's fixable (perhaps blacks will always be disproportionately likely to be criminals, but ghetto culture is like a thug factory, and that can damned well be changed.) Also, young black males who aren't criminals get a huge additional load of shit dumped on them because people fear them.

Anonymous said...

Pseudo-libertarian Larry Elder wrote something similar about a decade ago in "The Ten Things You Can't Say in America". Number one was that blacks are more racist than whites; but number two was that "white condescension is worse than black racism".

Whites "condescend" to blacks because they don't want to be harrassed and intimidated by thugs. And there is little for individual whites to gain by not ignoring blacks.

Anonymous said...

Gee, I can't imagine why whitey doesn't want to have a "frank discussion" about race. Takes a brave man to be "frank" about blacks when the consequences could easily include being fired and sued and publicly excoriated as a racist swine, among other things.

LomaAlta said...

How can there be a frank discussion of race in America?
If a man of one color berates and argues with a man of another color, it’s cool.

But if the second man happens to be white and answers back it is a racist hate crime.

This is just like the old Communist negotiating position: "What's mine is mine, what's yours is negotiable".

Sure, we can have a frank discussion if we want to hear some racist like Rev. Wright or Jesse Jackson damn us and threaten us and we must answer Yes sir! Otherwise, its another hate crime.

Anonymous said...

Yeah I've been having a good time with this one by saying I always want to talk about the black violent crime rate but people are too cowardly to discuss.

Anonymous said...

All you white cowards/hate criminals need to shut up, now. You were not given permission to speak.

Mark said...

At the end of the day nothing will change because of this: no matter how much of the blame blacks are willing to accept for their own misery, there will always be the "first cause." That first cause is white racism, period.

It's like many fundamentalist Christians and evolution - they're willing to tinker at the very edges with the story of the creation, but ultimately God was always controlling its direction.

In the same manner, whites are the first cause; the first movers; God, in effect. Blacks were in an idyllic Eden before the white man came and viciously tore them from it, and in the sweat of their faces shall they eat bread.

In the Eden before the white man came, time did not exist. Evil did not exist. Misery did not exist. Whites then came and tore them from Eden, and the world is a fallen place. And it's all because of whites. And whites, unless we do exactly what blacks say, will frustrate every attempt to restore blacks to their Eden.

The truth is all the opposite of course. Black misery? Whites are certainly responsible - but only at the very margins; it is effect, not cause. Discrimination certainly happens - but discrimination is a result of black misbehavior. It is a minor contributor to overall disparity. It comes after, not before, the high school delinquency, the crime, the single parenthood, and the on-the-job misbehavior.

Aside from that, you cannot have a conversation with these people not because they're uncomfortable with the facts but because even accepted facts pop into and out of existence like some hypthetical particle. Higher crime rates? Prove it. Lower educational attainment? Prove it. Even race only exists until it doesn't - at which point you want to ask what the hell is even being argued about. Race of course cannot exist because it implies that people inherit not only skin color from their parents but a vast suite of genes that can effect behavior, intelligence, economic performance and everything else. But if race doesn't exist, then what's the point of diversity, you're forced to ask. If the only difference between the different "races" is skin color then bringing in people of different skin colors contributes almost nothing to diversity.

We can have this conversation, maybe. But I would not do so until a set of givens were agreed upon - not causes, just facts. Are higher crime rates real and deserved? Is lower educational attainment real? Is African misery on the table, too - that is, can we point to nations where blacks run the show but are far worse off than they are in America? And, perhaos most importantly, is race even real?

Anonymous said...

Judging by the reaction to Holder's comments in the MSM and elsewhere, I think he may have gone too far. Americans have just made a Black man President, for goodness' sake. He himself has just been made AG. Surely this is evidence enough of the "discussion about race" that has been going on for decades.

As a Brit, it seems to me that many Americans have with seriousness and generosity sought to find the best ways of helping Blacks integrate and achieve more in society. Surely the whole apparatus of AA, quotas and other projects persist because of the faith white Americans have that performance barriers can be overcome.

They have even accepted some of the glaring social distortions and dishonesties that political correctness and the pursuit of "diversity and multiculturalism" have foisted upon them - particularly in academia.

Blacks should at least be honest about their role in the failures of the system: the school drop-out rates, the illegitimacy rates, the crime rates, etc. In doing so, they might begin to address some of the fundamental problems of their own cultural attitudes.

But when Obama touched on this, Jesse Jackson threatened to cut his balls off. Instead of offering solutions, the likes of Rev Wright and Messrs Jackson, Sharpton, Holder, etc, have encouraged an aggressive sense of entitlement and grievance. All too often it appears that some of these people have acted in their own self-interest. They have not acted bravely.

For Holder to call Americans "cowards" is completely unacceptable.

none of the above said...

Mark:

Also, black misery and hardship in, say, 1840 really was largely because of whites, because whites were enslaving most of them. This was genuinely wrong and evil. But it's been gone for a very long time, and everyone directly involved on either side is long dead. Similarly, Jim Crow laws, busting the heads of blacks trying to vote, stealing their property and throwing them out of town, those were all ways that whites as a large group were making life harder on blacks as a large group.

But I think it's almost impossible to make the case for that now. The blacks in the worst circumstances are largely subject to be victimized by black criminals, misruled by black politicians in black-dominated city governments and school systems, brought into the world by irresponsible black single parents, etc.

Now, it's important to keep individual responsibility separate from these collective discussions. The black lady who just got beaten up by some thug looking for crack money didn't deserve it, just because her attacker was black. The black kid whose irresponsible mom neglected him till his grandparents finally took him in, and who attends a horrible school in Baltimore or DC, deserves a hell of a lot better than he got. But the problem here is almost certainly not white maltreatment of blacks.

Honestly assessing the causes of these problems will be painful, but might actually lead to improvements. No amount of white guilt will fix the problems that have little or nothing to do with whites' behavior, though. To the extent that DC's public school system is systematized child abuse, its continued misbehavior is supported by white guilt. To the extent that black criminals are not locked up due to white guilt, they remain on the streets to prey on, mostly, black little old ladies who did nothing at all to deserve that.

Lloyd G. said...

Holder's being smart. White guilt got the first black president elected (and gave the first black AG his job). White guilt will make the Obama administration criticism proof. Gotta keep white guilt going.

Roger Chaillet said...

It's an invitation to a monologue, and not a dialogue.

As for these two mulatto "elites," had it not been for racial preferences, where would they be?

But "profiling" is not racist as long as it for redressing past wrongs.

Glaivester said...

It's like many fundamentalist Christians and evolution - they're willing to tinker at the very edges with the story of the creation, but ultimately God was always controlling its direction.

Sorry to go off on a tangent here - but saying that they believe that "ultimately God was always controlling its direction" seems to be setting an awful low bar for fundamentalism, and an awful high bar for what constitutes more than "tinkering around the very edges."

There is quite a large continuum between young-earth creationism/old-earth creationism/intelligent design/theistic evolution (i.e. God determining the direction of evolution)/evolution with no divine direction whatsoever. You sem to be suggesting that anything other than the very last one is still essentially creationism, and that the only way to do more than "tinker around the edges" is to have God completely non-involved in the universe, at least after the Big Bang.

It seems to me that anyone who is truly a Christian would believe that God was always controlling the direction of the universe and the development of life at some level, whether through creation or evolution.

Truth said...

"As a Brit, it seems to me that many Americans have with seriousness and generosity sought to find the best ways of helping Blacks integrate and achieve more in society."

I wouldn't use "generosity" in this sentence. Affirmative action was a policy instituted to overcome "negative" action, period. There were laws in place for the first roughly 200 years in this country's history which were designed specifically for blacks to fail. No matter how you feel about whether it has worked or not, this is impossible to dispute. Therefor it has nothing to do with "generosity" and everything to do with "meritocracy."

testing99 said...

It's a bridge too far.

In a recession, with White males first fired and never hired (according to Robert Reich, who said in public testimony his #1 goal was to make sure White males do not get any benefit from the stimulus bill) ...

That sort of thing is bunk.

It was all well and good when good times were rolling, and people were afraid of getting fired like Watson.

Now? They want to hang onto whatever, they see the decks stacked against them, and it is a bitter spoils battle.

Judging by the reaction, this trial balloon for reparations went over like a lead one.

headache said...

Steve,
I admire you but this statement by Holder just proves you're a loser. You slog away for years unearthing all the nonsense, lies, intellectual incoherence and straight hypocrisy around race. What you get for it?

- You have to panhandle
- MSM ignores you or calls you a racist
- Lazy MSM journalists secretly steal your ideas
- You drive a rusted car

Enter Holder. The guy spent his life tweaking the AA grievance machine, with great results. OK, he did not become prez, but close. I'm sure he never once thought objectively about race. It's always been about how it can help him along.

Now he stands up and tells you that you should talk about race, i.e. do what you have been doing under duress. But of course he is not satisfied with what you came up with. He is telling you to redo your work so that the results are acceptable to him. Can anyone be more insulting?

Your only comfort is that we normal mortals with a boss basically go through this crap on a daily basis.

obrien said...

i think it is a waste of time to trash blacks. this is not to say that there are not real differences (on average) in things like iq, executive function, personality, etc between all groups.

the real issue is immigration: the black population is not rising that quickly; the hispanic population is exploding. close the borders to unskilled immigrants and race/iq etc becomes largely unnecessary other than in genomic and pharmacological research (ie, how we can fix traits that are deleterious to both the individual and society as a whole).

of course there will be a race debate regardless because humans are a tribal species. cognitive elites who claim they have no tribe are lying to themselves and others--the worldwide cognitive elite is their new and improved tribe.

Jim Bowery said...

Here's a reasonable way to answer "blacks" like Obama and Holder about "cowardice" about "race":

Present them with a petition including this graph showing evidence of discrimination against whites in high IQ positions and demand a moratorium on the enforcement of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 until a thorough study of the reasons for this phenomenon is conducted under the supervision of a panel including James Watson.

Anonymous said...

Prestigious colleges were desegregated about when the military was. The average of IQ of college students was the same for blacks and whites in the 1950s. Herrnstein & Murray showed that. Quotas were only brought into usage because "liberals" weren't satisfied until the average IQ of black college students was much lower than white college students. Then they had grounds to attack IQ itself as being racist.

Nowadays, people use "leadership" as a way around the need to use quotas. "Leadership" is of course what members of every ethnic group has in close negative correlation to their standardized test scores. (Conveniently, leadership itself can't be assessed by standardized test.) It just so happens - fancy that! - that Latinos and blacks make excellent leaders, while Asians and whites make crummy ones. Or so sayeth university admissions departments. They're not anti-white so much as anti-intellectual.

I agree that generosity isn't the word for affirmative action, but meritocracy isn't either. If Jim Crow is still causing blacks to fail, why aren't the internment camps still causing Japanese Americans to fail? Why aren't the Zebra killings still causing whites to fail? Can't be a matter of self-esteem ... black have higher self-esteem than whites.

Mr. Anon said...

Don't just expect a new emphasis on putative race discrimination, but also on supposed sex discrimination. Check out this article (reprinted from Physics Today), which highlights a one-woman campaign to bring Title IX to university science departments:

http://womeninastronomy.blogspot.com/2009/01/applying-title-ix-to-university-science.html

And it's working too! (That is to say, discrimination is sure enough being sniffed out by our ever-vigilant federal witch-finders). Federal funding agencies have already begun conducting audits. Expect Holder's justice department to start a comprehensive campaign of legal shakedowns.

Truth said...

"Present them with a petition including this graph showing evidence of discrimination against whites in high IQ positions"

How exactly is this income of discrimination? The smartest man in America is a bouncer in a Wyoming bar, so apparently IQ does not make a direct correlation with income. Then of course there are those "other factors" as Jared Taylor likes to describe them vis-a-vis IQ not being the total story with high black crime rates.

For example, you could make a strong case that:

Oprah Winfrey is the worlds most famous woman (and richest self-made woman).

Barack Obama is the world's most and well-loved man.

The world's most popular athlete is either Jordan or Woods.

The world's richest athlete is Woods or Hamilton.

Muhammad Ali is the most famous man in the world.

Will Smith is the biggest movie star under 50.

Denzell Washington is the biggest movie star over 50.

Samuel L. Jackson is the actor who gets hired for the most movies. (in the 90's Whoopie Goldberg was the most hired actress.)

I could go on and on, but the point is this:

Unless you believe in that secret underground synagogue / military base deep below the streets of Manhattan that secretly runs every aspect of the media...everywhere, then the above would point out that the world has a great desire to see black people doing exceptional things; and that "we" may comprise the lowest of the low, but also the inverse.

Ron Guhname said...

"I wouldn't use 'generosity' in this sentence. Affirmative action was a policy instituted to overcome 'negative' action, period."

AA has been a policy of moving my kids aside so blacks could fill the slots. My children have never done anything to black folks. My kids are paying for the sins of whites long since dead. We didn't have to institute these policies. AA is a white creation. It is generosity, and nothing but generosity. Meritocracy would be color blindness.

If you ever want someone resent you and fail to see your generosity, be generous to them.

Svigor said...

Therefor it has nothing to do with "generosity" and everything to do with "meritocracy."
LOL. Yep, quotas=meritocracy.

Jim Bowery said...

Falsehood says: "How exactly is this income of discrimination? The smartest man in America is a bouncer in a Wyoming bar, so apparently IQ does not make a direct correlation with income."

That's not what the graph is talking about. It is talking about the median income within a given IQ range, broken down by race.

Saying that "the world" wants to see (insert "disadvantaged" minority) succeed so much that there is a a clear discrimination in favor of them and against the majority is merely confirming that the discrimination is real and damaging. The mere fact that it is a majority that is damaged most is no reason to discount it. I mean we are, after all, talking about large amounts by the very definition of "majority" so it would seem to deserve at least equal consideration to harm committed against a minority.

DidTheHomework said...

"The smartest man in America is a bouncer in a Wyoming bar, so apparently IQ does not make a direct correlation with income."

Ack ... "direct correlation"...? I think you mean IQ does not have a perfect correlation with income. Fine. It does have a strong, positive correlation with income. (The correlation would probably be stronger without the Supreme Court's nerd-bashing Duke Power decision, butwhatcanyado?)

"Unless you believe in that secret underground synagogue / military base deep below the streets of Manhattan that secretly runs every aspect of the media...everywhere ..."

It's not secret, it's not underground, and it's not a synagogue. And the backing for it is more paramilitary than military. (In the runup to the torture-kidnapping that preceded the invention of Kwanzaa, which militias argued over who to appoint to the UCLA faculty? Black Panthers and United Slaves.)

The mass media are run by an ideological monoculture nurtured in our J-schools and English departments, a monoculture that:
- abolished discussion of the 13th Amendment even from conversations whose ostensible topic is the freeing of the slaves in the USA
- erased the connection between Abraham Lincoln and the (secret?) measure that freed the slaves in the USA
- flushed the 350-year trans-Mediterranean slave trade (perpetrated by Muslim Africans and Turks against white Christians) down the memory hole
- thinks the Zebra Killings are some sort of wildlife crisis
- made up the low black self-esteem hoax out of pure imagination and wishful(?) thinking
- believes that when a bone scientist says that measuring bones and creating IQ tests are equally bad ways of measuring cognitive ability, that there is nothing a little odd about that
- would have us believe that rape is not a hate crime
- would have us believe that because interracial rape is not as common as same-race rape, that it is not important
- believes that when the Supreme Court decided to allow lawsuits against business on the basis of no evidence other than the numeric underrepresentation of a particular group, it was somehow not creating a need for de facto quotas.

Anonymous said...

"AA has been a policy of moving my kids aside so blacks could fill the slots. My children have never done anything to black folks. My kids are paying for the sins of whites long since dead. We didn't have to institute these policies. AA is a white creation. It is generosity, and nothing but generosity."

Right as far as you go, but please note: It is "generosity" with other people's lives, livlihoods, neighborhoods, children, etc.

Our elites don't put themselves and their children at risk. Did Chelsea Clinton give up her slot at Stanford and later Oxford to a minority? Did the Bushes move into a neighborhood that had been turned into a 3rd world slum by the minority housing meltdown? Did the Obamas send their two children to the disfunctional DC schools?

As Amy Winehouse would say in "Rehab" No, No, No.

D Flinchum

Anonymous said...

My first question on the race issue would be to ask why Obama is not sending his kids to DC public schools.

BTW, the village atheism on this site is getting a bit much. I don't think less social restraints on our lesser brethen is a solution. Just look at our fellow cousins, the Brits. How's that total repudiation of Christianity and conservative values working for them.

Last, I think this financial meltdown is really a payment for liberalism. I.e. we can not afford it (AA, no morals, welfare, etc.) anymore.

Truth said...

"AA has been a policy of moving my kids aside so blacks could fill the slots."

And the policy for the first 200 years of American history was the opposite, so what?


My children have never done anything to black folks.

Nor did my great-grandmother's kids to white folks, again, so what?

My kids are paying for the sins of whites long since dead.

And whites long since dead benefited from their sins against black people, life is hard.

"We didn't have to institute these policies."

"You" didn't have to buy people, take them halfway across the world in deplorable conditions and make it illegal for the to learn to read and write either, now did you?

"AA is a white creation."

Nor really, in African slavery, it was a couple of years of hard work followed by being gifted some land and given a wife, why was that not the policy here?

"It is generosity, and nothing but generosity."

There is no such thing in this world as "generosity". You give a dollar to a bum because it makes you feel good, not because it makes him feel good.

"Meritocracy would be color blindness."

I agree, but only from day one, not 200 years later.

Once again, every whiteman on Isteve.blogspot.com invented electricity, but none owned slaves.You must admit, that is interesting.

"Last, I think this financial meltdown is really a payment for liberalism. I.e. we can not afford it (AA, no morals, welfare, etc.) anymore."

Can we afford wars in desserts overseas and welfare to rich bankers?



My first question on the race issue would be to ask why Obama is not sending his kids to DC public schools."

My first answer would be: For the same reason you don't stand in line for government cheese...because you can afford to buy your own.

Anonymous said...

"Can we afford wars in desserts overseas and welfare to rich bankers?"

Since Truth misspelled deserts as desserts, it caused my brain to misfire and read "bankers" as "bakers." And gave me a mental image of soldiers camouflaged with whipped cream handing money to short fat men in funny white hats.

Eeek, I fear his sloppy thinking is catching.

Anonymous said...

I was watching C-Span last night and saw holder giving a talk in front of a black audiance. His thrust was that black history is American history and went on to point out some various contributions to America made by blacks. He also touched upon the fact that in 50 years there will be no majority race in America. He also tried to explain how the civil rights struggle was first and foremost the black struggle for civil rights.

I only watched about 10 minutes but what I saw, if I can read between the lines, is that blacks will also need to prepare for the time when they will no longer be the pet minority group and that whites will not be responsible for supporting them. Holder must have an inkling, but when there are 100,000,000 Latino's in the US and 50,000,000 Asians that there will be no special victim status infered upon blacks. Since we are all equal and Asian's can do it then why not blacks?

Anonymous said...

"My first question on the race issue would be to ask why Obama is not sending his kids to DC public schools."

My first answer would be: For the same reason you don't stand in line for government cheese...because you can afford to buy your own."

Back during the busing crisis, someone gently took Thurgood Marshall to task for sending his children to private school while all of the turbulence regarding busing was going on. His response was something to the effect that he refused to apologize for looking out for the best interests of his children. OK.

The white people who moved away from an area rather than allow their children to become pawns in the busing "experiment" (aka White Flight) were roundly declared racists when actually they were merely doing what SCJ Marshall was doing: Looking out for the best interests of their children. Why was he given a pass and they called nasty names for the same act?

And face it, there is no way to go back in time and undo slavery. The slaves were slaves, sure enough. But good grief, isn't a couple of generations of preferential treatment enough and do you really know any black people who believe that they themselves would have fared better if their ancestors had been left in, say, Zimbabwe, instead of being brought to the US 300-400 years ago?

As that old joke goes, anybody who has been oppressing you for 400 years whould have to be older than I am.

D Flinchum

ben tillman said...

How exactly is this income of discrimination? The smartest man in America is a bouncer in a Wyoming bar, so apparently IQ does not make a direct correlation with income.

That's Jim's point. Our natural elite are kept out of the positions befitting their talents.

green mamba said...

"There is no such thing in this world as "generosity". You give a dollar to a bum because it makes you feel good, not because it makes him feel good."

This is the silliest thing you've said in a while, Truthahn.

ben tillman said...

AA has been a policy of moving my kids aside so blacks could fill the slots. My children have never done anything to black folks. My kids are paying for the sins of whites long since dead.

No, not the sins of whites. The sins of whites, blacks, and others.

Truth said...

"This is the silliest thing you've said in a while, Truthahn."

Is it really?

Roger Chaillet said...

Nothing is bought until it is sold.

I was reminded of this when Condi Rice, another affirmative action fraud, spoke a few months ago about the "indelible stain of slavery."

Apparently no one told her long since dead tribal members who sold her ancestors into slavery.

Holder's a clown.

Just like his boss.

Truth said...

"saying that "the world" wants to see (insert "disadvantaged" minority) succeed so much that there is a a clear discrimination in favor of them and against the majority is merely confirming that the discrimination is real and damaging."

You know, the last time I went to see a Will Smith movie, that's exactly what I thought: This theatre full of white people packed their kids into the car, hassled with the parking after a twenty minute drive from their house, bought four tickets @ $11 each, in addition to an extra $15 in snacks and hassled with a line on opening night because they "wanted to see a disadvantaged minority succeed.

You people really are magnanimous.

"And face it, there is no way to go back in time and undo slavery."

Strangely enough, there's no way to go back in time and undo OJ either.

"That's Jim's point. Our natural elite are kept out of the positions befitting their talents."

You've got me there Einstein, it must be that all-powerful synagogue a mile under the streets of Manhattan who recognized this young man's 200 IQ, and through a 'Truman Show' type intervention, made him take that bouncer job!

Svigor said...

And the policy for the first 200 years of American history was the opposite, so what?

Nor did my great-grandmother's kids to white folks, again, so what?

Lol.

I reject the premise of your question, but I'll play along for a moment.
The "evil whites" in question are LONG DEAD. You expect "good whites" to pay for their sins. This is collective punishment. Are you responsible for black crime?

The white kids being disenfranchised by AA are living victims. The crimes are ongoing. And you justify it with "two wrongs make a right"?

Now, back to your false premise. You claim that today's blacks have been done wrong by the transatlantic trade, and whites must pay for that sin. Wrong. Blacks today are fantastically wealthy by sub-Saharan African standards. SSA has such low standards that when I tried to find stats, I could only come up with a few kinda-sorta proxies a few years ago. But, the ratio is something like 50:1.

Thank goodness for collective justice; now I can present a bill to blacks for all the good my ancestors did them.

My kids are paying for the sins of whites long since dead.

And whites long since dead benefited from their sins against black people, life is hard.

Wow, you're a real moral paragon. What's next? Go kick a white guy in the teeth and tell the cops his ancestor kicked your ancestor in the teeth?

Newsflash, an ancient crime against one's ancestors isn't a license to steal.

"Life is hard." Now we're approaching honesty, finally, from "Truth." He doesn't have or want any rationale. He just supports AA 'cause it's good for him. Don't like it? "Life is hard."

I guess no good deed (manumission) goes unpunished (AA? "Life is hard"). What a stand up guy. Good thing for you, most of my ancestors didn't resort to "life is hard." If they had, we wouldn't be having this conversation, and there'd certainly be no AA.

"We didn't have to institute these policies."

"You" didn't have to buy people, take them halfway across the world in deplorable conditions and make it illegal for the to learn to read and write either, now did you?

I was just reading recently that most black slaves in America came here by way of the Caribbean markets. Which aren't halfway across the world, in case you didn't know. Dunno how true it is, but food for thought.

You're right though, we didn't have to buy slaves. In fact, WE didn't. I don't know how hard that point will be for you to grasp. Think hard. Think 'til it hurts.

But, the proper restitution would have been to put them back where we got them. Right? I mean, if transporting someone in slavery halfway 'round the world is the sin, isn't returning them halfway 'round the world the proper restitution? Isn't that all blacks in America have a right to demand?

But you couldn't drag them kicking and screaming back to the fabled motherland. You couldn't pay them to go back.

How about the sub-Saharan Africans who sold the slaves? Do they bear any responsibility? Or does responsibility stand for "has money" in your moral universe?

"AA is a white creation."

Nor really, in African slavery, it was a couple of years of hard work followed by being gifted some land and given a wife, why was that not the policy here?

And you know this how? Ye olde oral tradition? You probably think African slavery is (note the tense) okay because it's Africans doing the enslaving, right? (that's a rhetorical question, you've already provided an answer)

There is no such thing in this world as "generosity". You give a dollar to a bum because it makes you feel good, not because it makes him feel good.

LOL. Which is a nice way of saying "I never have to say thanks."

But it's an illustrative quote. Earlier, "Truth" said:

I wouldn't use "generosity" in this sentence.

First, he debates whether x is generosity, then later he obviates the very word "generosity." So much for intellectual rigor. Why bother debating whether something's generosity, when there's no such thing as generosity? I'll tell you why - when words mean nothing, when you have no character at all, you'll say anything.

"Meritocracy would be color blindness."

I agree, but only from day one, not 200 years later.

Obviously, the context here is that "Truth" thinks whites harmed blacks economically, which is an inversion of the truth. Tens, if not hundreds of millions of sub-Saharan Africans would trade places with a black in America, ANY black in America, in a heartbeat.

Once again, every whiteman on Isteve.blogspot.com invented electricity, but none owned slaves.

Again, I need you to try to think REALLY, REALLY hard: declaring that whites are the golden goose of history is in no way tantamount to declaring group responsibility for good or ill, or advocacy of collective judgment. Eat some fish, take your vitamins, and think REALLY, REALLY HARD. Don't be afraid to think more than .5 seconds. You really can think about things for minutes, or even hours. I promise you, your brain won't melt.

Can we afford wars in desserts overseas and welfare to rich bankers?

No. This is your idea of an argument?

Trust me "Truth," you're doing black men no favors by posting here.

I repeat: "Truth" is a reverse nickname, like a fat guy named "Tiny."

P.S., as a further illustration of "Truth's" allergy to intellectual honesty, observe how I respond to him comprehensively, and how he cherry-picks his responses.

Anonymous said...

"But you couldn't drag them kicking and screaming back to the fabled motherland. You couldn't pay them to go back."

Yea, the ones in Africa are all trying to get to Europe or the US. ALL of them.


"I'll tell you why - when words mean nothing, when you have no character at all, you'll say anything."


LOL, Truth just throws junk on the screen and blabbers about it. I've tested him on this. I'm still trying to figure out whether he is a SLPC/NYT/FBI (same thing) mole acting as a black activist or the real deal.


"So much for intellectual rigor."

So why do you waste your time debating "Truth"?

Truth said...

"You expect "good whites" to pay for their sins."

Most whites are "good whites" in my opinion and I don't expect them to pay for anything. I think A-A policies were absoulutely necessary in 1970 when most whites felt that blacks had tails. I think it's time to move on to something else.

"This is collective punishment. Are you responsible for black crime?"

Of course not! Well, except for that white lady I hacked into a million pieces last night in the liquor store parking lot, but then, she had a really nice watch on.

"The white kids being disenfranchised by AA are living victims."

You own 98% of everything, some disenfranchisement. I can see where there would be frustration to many individual whites, but hey life is unfair. You whine about it, except it or work to change it.

"Now, back to your false premise. You claim that today's blacks have been done wrong by the transatlantic trade, and whites must pay for that sin..."

I never once wrote anything of the sort. Not in this post not in any post, and I challenge you to show me where I have. Steve keeps all of his posts archived at the bottom of page one. Today's blacks have been done wrong by their own choices, yesterday's blacks were done wrong by slavery, racism, etc. Many of the choices of todays blacks are dictated by the the options of their parents...in addition to the intervention of foolish agitators and harmful do-gooders on both sides, it really is as simple as that.

And yes, African-Americans have the highest standard of living here, but guess what- so do whites, all considered because WE have worked hard to make it that way. (emphasis highly intended)

Anywhere you look in this country from the revolutionary war, to old pirate ships, to the conquest of the old west to both sides of the civil war, to the building of Detroit, to Guadalcanal, etc..etc...you will find black faces, that is an unavoidable fact. So whenever I hear some white guy say "well, you are lucky we brought you here", I counter with "and you are lucky we came."

"Newsflash, an ancient crime against one's ancestors isn't a license to steal."

When did I (once again) EVER write anything of the sort?

"Now we're approaching honesty, finally, from "Truth." He doesn't have or want any rationale. He just supports AA 'cause it's good for him. Don't like it? "Life is hard."

Ditto.

"I was just reading recently that most black slaves in America came here by way of the Caribbean markets. Which aren't halfway across the world, in case you didn't know. Dunno how true it is, but food for thought."

And how did they get to the Caribbean, Star-Trek transporter ray?

"You're right though, we didn't have to buy slaves. In fact, WE didn't."

Once again, every white guy in America invented electricity, but none owned slaves.

"But, the proper restitution would have been to put them back where we got them. Right? I mean, if transporting someone in slavery halfway 'round the world is the sin, isn't returning them halfway 'round the world the proper restitution? Isn't that all blacks in America have a right to demand?"

No, because, again, WE have built America (you and I, figuratively. I'm not an African (although my father is an immigrant) I'm an American, I (once again in the metaphoric sense) can trace my heritage back here longer than YOU (you get it by now) can. So why leave?

"But you couldn't drag them kicking and screaming back to the fabled motherland. You couldn't pay them to go back."

And I couldn't pay you to go back to Poland (or Italy or Czech or Portugal, or wherever) where there are very few blacks, no one's stopping you from returning to "the motherland", hey, you must love blacks!

"How about the sub-Saharan Africans who sold the slaves? Do they bear any responsibility?"

Absolutely, and many African chieftains have said as much.

"Meritocracy would be color blindness."

I agree, but only from day one, not 200 years later.

Obviously, the context here is that "Truth" thinks whites harmed blacks economically, which is an inversion of the truth"

No, that's not the context, please read the post again and maybe you'll get it.

"Again, I need you to try to think REALLY, REALLY hard: declaring that whites are the golden goose of history is in no way tantamount to declaring group responsibility for good or ill, or advocacy of collective judgment."

Once again, reading this website I hear repeatedly over and over again; "blacks should be really happy that they got the opportunity to come here and enjoy all of OUR (please refer to above if confused) inventions."

What the fuck did YOU (literal) invent. Feel free, Svigor, to provide your patent numbers if YOU (literal) have invented anything.

On the other hand, when speaking about slavery it's always "I didn't own any slaves!!! My parents are from Bulgaria" (Lots of great inventions from there right?)

"Can we afford wars in desserts overseas and welfare to rich bankers?

No. This is your idea of an argument?"

The point is that there is hand-wringing about taxes increasing because loan money went to lower income blacks (although lower income whites received most of the benefit)to buy houses. Maybe you get ecstatic about your tax money going to rich white bankers with no oversight for lavish parties and multi-million dollar bonuses, I don't agree with you. If I have a choice, I'd rather my tax money trickle down than up to those who already print it...but maybe that's just me.

"Trust me "Truth," you're doing black men no favors by posting here."

Why would I be concerned about doing black men favors? I post here for two reasons:

1) Steve does very little commie style editing, unlike your other pantywaist website, Amren.com

2)Without me, this chatboard is a circlejerk for weenies.

It's quite humorous if you think about it.

"P.S., as a further illustration of "Truth's" allergy to intellectual honesty, observe how I respond to him comprehensively, and how he cherry-picks his responses."

I think that I responded to each and every point. Feel free to write me back.

Without a trace of irony my friend, I will tell you your problem in life:

You don't know how to read. Certainly you can process the consonants and vowels to get the general meaning, but you have a very hard time reading (or thinking) objectively. The little voice in your head makes you process things that just are not on the page (or spoken, as the case may be), and insist that they are.

There's a great book I read in J-school called "How to Read a Book" that would be of great help to you; please by it, and I say this as a friend.

DidTheHomework said...

Obviously Svigor figured you supported affirmative action, since you voted for a Presidential candidate that supports it (and since you throw a hissy fit whenever anyone criticizes it). Whites do pay the price for affirmative action, and having implied all along that you love it, simple exegesis implies that you must believe there is a reason for this.

You constantly talk about the first two hundred years as having been unfair, and that that matters (although the fact that the present is unfair to whites doesn't matter). If you don't like people putting words in your mouth, stop with the "every white guy in America invented electricity, but none owned slaves" riff. You have no god-given right to put words in people's mouths.

If you're against affirmative action, you had us fooled. I hope that you choose to do something to end it in the future, like voting for an anti-affirmative action Presidential candidate, or at least refraining from voting for a pro-AA candidate. Hurting poor whites because whites own 98% of everything seems pretty nasty. I'm glad you don't support that like Ralph Nader does.

Svigor is probably a pseudonym. Providing patent numbers would allow SPLC and the rest of the Stasi to trace who has been posting all of Svigor's thoughtcrimes. I don't guess he has pantented anything - statistically unlikely. If his experience is like mine, very few of the people he has met respect him intellectually.

Sound like I'm backing you up? I'm not. White males get their contributions crapped on all the time by people like you, and the Uncle Tims from their own demographic. I'll bet that, like me, everyone who respects Svigor intellectually is someone he knows online, who can see what he writes without seeing the undesirable race and the undesirable gender he belongs to. (If he's straight and gentile, well, forget it.)

Affirmative action is everywhere, not just in the form of hidden racial quotas, or op-eds in the Harvard Crimson that assert tacitly that Asians and whites make bad leaders. Doesn't matter what IQ is correlated with (dropout rates, crime, etc.), people are going to find reasons for believing that white males are worthless.

Don't worry, I'm sure you'll find another reason to say I'm worthless. Don't care. At this point you're an inch from being a troll. Sayonara.

Truth said...

"Obviously Svigor figured you supported affirmative action, since you voted for a Presidential candidate that supports it (and since you throw a hissy fit whenever anyone criticizes it)."

I voted for Nader. Was he pro affirmative-action?

"Whites do pay the price for affirmative action,"

Everyone pays the price, and everyone shares in the benefit.

"and having implied all along that you love it,"

Where? My feelings on A-A are decidedly mixed?

"You constantly talk about the first two hundred years as having been unfair,"

Yes, I would say that being owned by another human being and having your kids born into the same situation is unfair, wouldn't you?

"(although the fact that the present is unfair to whites doesn't matter)."

Whites own everything valuable, how is the present unfair?

"If you don't like people putting words in your mouth, stop with the "every white guy in America invented electricity, but none owned slaves" riff. You have no god-given right to put words in people's mouths."

Electricity was invented by ONE white man, as was the diesel engine, the airplane, etc.,

Now, the point is many men on this site (and others) like to pound their chests in the knowledge that "the damn blacks ought to count their lucky stars that we let them live amongst all of the cool stuff we've invented!"

YOU invented nothing (that I'm aware of)

That would be fine, yet when it comes to slavery, the response is almost invariably "I didn't own any slaves!"

Of course not, but you didn't invent the god-damned automobile either, is this complicated?

"Hurting poor whites because whites own 98% of everything seems pretty nasty."

I have no interest in hurting anyone; but life is at times complicated, blacks couldn't join the army and qualify for the GI bill at one point, therefore they had a harder time buying houses...therefore they had less to pass on...voila, old stuff leads to unfairness in new stuff.

"Providing patent numbers would allow SPLC and the rest of the Stasi to trace who has been posting all of Svigor's thoughtcrimes."

Well, that's convenient, I guess Svigor is really Ron Popeil.

"If his experience is like mine, very few of the people he has met respect him intellectually."

Quite honestly, and with all possible respect to your pain my friend, disrespect generally comes from disrespect.

"White males get their contributions crapped on all the time by people like you,"

No, I happen to like electricity, and if I meet Thomas Edison, I will tell him so. It's is just that I don't see a reason to ginuflect to YOU for electricity. Again, no offense.

"Don't worry, I'm sure you'll find another reason to say I'm worthless. Don't care. At this point you're an inch from being a troll. Sayonara."

I don't feel that YOU are worthless, and I don't feel that white men are worthless, you on the other hand are free to believe whatever you like, and I get the feeling that you feel that you are worthless, which is sad.

My worthless advice, get a hobby and do something that makes you feel good about yourself.

Ronduck said...

I'm not an African (although my father is an immigrant) I'm an American...

If you are the child of an immigrant , then your father thought that life here was better than it was wherever he came from. Also, it means you are not entirely part of America's native Black population, and therefore have no cause for grievance. Was your mother White?

Absolutely, and many African chieftains have said as much.

Must the whole world apologize to you?

There's a great book I read in J-school called "How to Read a Book" that would be of great help to you; please by it, and I say this as a friend.

I ran across that on Wikipedia, but I never thought that reading a book about reading a book would actually help.

Svigor said...

(Steve, I started to rewrite this post, but I couldn't do it without gutting the central premise, which is that "Truth" is a complete weenie. So, in the hope that the post fell victim to technical difficulties, and not censorship, I'm reposting it. If it doesn't go through this time, I'll bowdlerize it; if there's only a passage or two that offend, maybe you could just excise them with a "comment redacted" note? That way I don't have to guess where I went wrong)

"You expect "good whites" to pay for their sins."

Most whites are "good whites" in my opinion

51% of all Europids just breathed a collective sigh of relief, I'm sure.

and I don't expect them to pay for anything. I think A-A policies were absoulutely necessary in 1970 when most whites felt that blacks had tails. I think it's time to move on to something else.

Necessary for whom? In what sense?

How about a hint as to what "something else" might be? Or can you only play the gadfly?

"This is collective punishment. Are you responsible for black crime?"

Of course not!

Then why were whites responsible for uplifting the black man?

Well, except for that white lady I hacked into a million pieces last night in the liquor store parking lot, but then, she had a really nice watch on.

Again, you fail to respond to the point, like a weenie. We get more of your lame sense of humor. How is collectively judging and punishing whites okay, but collectively judging and punishing blacks not okay?

"The white kids being disenfranchised by AA are living victims."

You own 98% of everything, some disenfranchisement. I can see where there would be frustration to many individual whites, but hey life is unfair. You whine about it, except it or work to change it.

What does a group's collective wealth have to do with whether or not members of it are being disenfranchised by statute? "Life is unfair"? That's really the best you've got? How about be a man, rather than a weenie, and admit whites are being wronged by statute vis-a-vis AA and the rest?

"Now, back to your false premise. You claim that today's blacks have been done wrong by the transatlantic trade, and whites must pay for that sin..."

I never once wrote anything of the sort.

No, you just implied it - waited for someone to challenge your nonsense; if no one points out the turd in the punch bowl, you win! Just like a weenie.

Many of the choices of todays blacks are dictated by the the options of their parents...in addition to the intervention of foolish agitators and harmful do-gooders on both sides, it really is as simple as that.

"Options," not actions. "Intervention," "agitators," "do-gooders," and "options," but no actions.

This all SCREAMS weenie to me.

And yes, African-Americans have the highest standard of living here, but guess what- so do whites, all considered because WE have worked hard to make it that way. (emphasis highly intended)

You missed the point. Descendents of slaves (40 million from 600k slaves if Buchanan has his facts right) have the highest standard of living of any large black population in the world, precisely because of slavery. Without slavery, they'd be living like sub-Saharan Africans today. Actually, many would not be living at all, since it's almost certain that the aforementioned 600k would not have had that level of reproductive success.

C'mon, man up. Don't be a weenie. Admit that American slavery was the best thing to ever happen to blacks. Live up to your name for once. Admit that if anyone owes anyone compensation, it's blacks owing whites, not the other way around. Sometimes the truth hurts, right? But only weenies run from a bit of psychic pain.

Anywhere you look in this country from the revolutionary war, to old pirate ships, to the conquest of the old west to both sides of the civil war, to the building of Detroit, to Guadalcanal, etc..etc...you will find black faces, that is an unavoidable fact. So whenever I hear some white guy say "well, you are lucky we brought you here", I counter with "and you are lucky we came."

You've countered by reversing the words, but the argument isn't following along with you.

Which is illustrated perfectly by the fact that I put my cards right on the table: I want freedom of association back, and the right for people to determine the character of their own communities. In other words, I want whites and anyone else who wants it, to have the freedom to live away from the other, whoever that may be.

Have you ever acknowledged this argument, responded to it, or made your position regarding it known? C'mon, don't be a weenie. Be a MAN. Step up and deliver.

As of now, I'm assuming you don't support this right for whites. Am I wrong?

I ask because, to get back to the illustration I mentioned above, like most blacks who "whine" about whites (not saying you are one, but saying you have something in common), you probably oppose the right of whites to live apart from blacks, unlike whites who "whine" about blacks, who usually do so in an effort to live apart from blacks.

See where I'm going with this? If I'm lucky "you" came, then why am I fleeing "your" presence?

"Newsflash, an ancient crime against one's ancestors isn't a license to steal."

When did I (once again) EVER write anything of the sort?

I don't know, you tell me. See? Anyone can play the weenie, weasel game.

"Now we're approaching honesty, finally, from "Truth." He doesn't have or want any rationale. He just supports AA 'cause it's good for him. Don't like it? "Life is hard."

Ditto.

No, stop being a weenie. I don't respond with facile crap like "life is hard," you do, and I have rationales for everything I support. Own your position - be a man.

"I was just reading recently that most black slaves in America came here by way of the Caribbean markets. Which aren't halfway across the world, in case you didn't know. Dunno how true it is, but food for thought."

And how did they get to the Caribbean, Star-Trek transporter ray?

Hmm, here's another one of those moments you warned me about (below). Shouldn't I read this as a total non-sequitur and move on? I mean, what does how they got there have to do with anything? They got there by way of black Africans selling them (which means they're partly responsibe, according to Lies, but not liable, I guess), and foreigners buying them.

"You're right though, we didn't have to buy slaves. In fact, WE didn't."

Once again, every white guy in America invented electricity, but none owned slaves.

Yes, again, and it's still a lame, weenie response. (The argument goes that white men invented 95% of everything, that white men come from white people, and that the ability to invent 95% of everything is probably largely genetic; to flip this around as he does, is Lies arguing that slaveholders were whites, that whites come from white people, and that the act of owning slaves is probably largely genetic? Hmm, since whites, not blacks (they still haven't gotten the memo), yellows, browns, sepias, etc., ended slavery, and whites come from whites, does this mean that the act of ending slavery is genetic? Who knows, we're dealing with the "Truth" here. Lots of weenie behavior but little stand-up behavior)

"But, the proper restitution would have been to put them back where we got them. Right? I mean, if transporting someone in slavery halfway 'round the world is the sin, isn't returning them halfway 'round the world the proper restitution? Isn't that all blacks in America have a right to demand?"

No, because, again, WE have built America (you and I, figuratively. I'm not an African (although my father is an immigrant) I'm an American, I (once again in the metaphoric sense) can trace my heritage back here longer than YOU (you get it by now) can. So why leave?

I don't understand how you know who can trace his lineage further back in America than I. My male line goes back in America to the early 18th century (if memory serves it's actually back to the late 17th, but I'd rather err on the side of caution).

Like a weenie, you dodged my point. I wasn't suggesting that blacks would, or should want to leave (LOL! Yeah right!), I was suggesting that this is the only restitution they have a claim to. If they decline, they should STFU because they don't want what they are owed. Who built what (I'd be interested in any rigorous examination of how much of the "building" was black, and how much was white, btw) is immaterial.

"But you couldn't drag them kicking and screaming back to the fabled motherland. You couldn't pay them to go back."

And I couldn't pay you to go back to Poland (or Italy or Czech or Portugal, or wherever)

Southeast England. And you most certainly wouldn't need to pay me to return, if it weren't being overrun as well. I'd have left already. Hell, if any European nation of stock similar to mine (Germanic) made it clear they were going to remain European, you wouldn't have to pay me anything. I'd learn a new language, if necessary, and move.

But, you're being a weenie again (I see a pattern developing here). Organized black America frames their presence here as a tale of woe, which is belied by the fact that you couldn't drag them away. Whites do not.

"How about the sub-Saharan Africans who sold the slaves? Do they bear any responsibility?"

Absolutely, and many African chieftains have said as much.

Were they being generous? Or were they just trying to make themselves feel good? Are you okay with the fact that whites and blacks share the responsibility for American slavery, but whites do all the reparatin'? Would it be okay if we took it out of those SSAs'descendants' ass, say, tomorrow (back payments from 1970)?

"Meritocracy would be color blindness."

I agree, but only from day one, not 200 years later.

Obviously, the context here is that "Truth" thinks whites harmed blacks economically, which is an inversion of the truth"

No, that's not the context, please read the post again and maybe you'll get it.

That was the context. You play weenie games, then, like a weenie, pretend to you had nothing to do with the misunderstandings you foment. I note you've made no attempt to clarify. What was your point? That AA was justified in the 70s? It was not, for the same reasons it isn't justified today. But how hard would it have been to add this information in the first place? Was anyone arguing about going back in a time machine to 1970 and ending AA? Was the topic AA in the goddamn 70s? If not, why would you respond to a discussion of AA now with a point about AA in the 1970s, and not clarify that your response had exactly jack shit to do with the conversation? Just to be a schmuck?

"Again, I need you to try to think REALLY, REALLY hard: declaring that whites are the golden goose of history is in no way tantamount to declaring group responsibility for good or ill, or advocacy of collective judgment."

Once again, reading this website I hear repeatedly over and over again; "blacks should be really happy that they got the opportunity to come here and enjoy all of OUR (please refer to above if confused) inventions."

What the fuck did YOU (literal) invent. Feel free, Svigor, to provide your patent numbers if YOU (literal) have invented anything.

Like the weenie you are, you focus in on a single word ("OUR," which I don't know to be actually present "repeatedly over and over again), when it isn't necessary to make the point. Watch:

Blacks should thank their lucky stars that their ancestors were brought here, because they now enjoy the highest standard of living of any large black population in the world (in most of SSA, the comparison isn't even close, but ridiculously disparate), rather than whine like they do.

Do you get that I'm objecting to the fact that blacks take the best thing to ever happen to them in their history, and twist it into something bad?

On the other hand, when speaking about slavery it's always "I didn't own any slaves!!! My parents are from Bulgaria" (Lots of great inventions from there right?)

I've addressed this above.

"Can we afford wars in desserts overseas and welfare to rich bankers?

"No. This is your idea of an argument?"

The point is that there is hand-wringing about taxes increasing because loan money went to lower income blacks (although lower income whites received most of the benefit)to buy houses. Maybe you get ecstatic about your tax money going to rich white bankers

No. This is your idea of an argument?

"Trust me "Truth," you're doing black men no favors by posting here."

Why would I be concerned about doing black men favors? I post here for two reasons:

1) Steve does very little commie style editing, unlike your other pantywaist website, Amren.com

That explains why you post here, but it doesn't explain your particulars (serially dishonest, obtuse black ethnocentric gadfly).

2)Without me, this chatboard is a circlejerk for weenies.

It's quite humorous if you think about it.

Au contraire, it's instantly funny. We're all lucky to have you here to point out the manly arts of low grade semantic games, non-sequiturs, intellectual dishonesty, evasion, and (deliberate?) obtuseness.

"P.S., as a further illustration of "Truth's" allergy to intellectual honesty, observe how I respond to him comprehensively, and how he cherry-picks his responses."

I think that I responded to each and every point. Feel free to write me back.

I give you an A for effort, because you did reply comprehensively. But, an F for content, because you weenied out the entire time. Pathetic, really. And your report card won't reflect that A, because it's a drop in the bucket. Your selective responses litter this blog. They're the rule, and your previous post the exception.

Without a trace of irony my friend, I will tell you your problem in life:

You don't know how to read. Certainly you can process the consonants and vowels to get the general meaning, but you have a very hard time reading (or thinking) objectively. The little voice in your head makes you process things that just are not on the page (or spoken, as the case may be), and insist that they are.

No, I only have this communication problem with you. You have this communication problem with half the commenters here. Ergo, the problem is your writing, not my reading.

There's a great book I read in J-school called "How to Read a Book" that would be of great help to you; please by it, and I say this as a friend.

I don't think it's possible to read your comments the way you suggest. It would make more sense for you to correct your writing style, rather than for me to do the impossible and learn to read your posts the way you claim they should be read (telepathy?); it would save everyone else from having to figure out the inane mysteries of your writing style (which I posit is an impossibility), too.

Truth said...

"We're all lucky to have you here to point out the manly arts of low grade semantic games, non-sequiturs, intellectual dishonesty, evasion, and (deliberate?) obtuseness."

Now, FINALLY you're starting to get it! That wasn't so hard, was it?

Seriously SVIG, I could respond to every post but I just wanted to let you know that I read every word of your response; all sixteen uses of the word "weenie", as well as two "weasels" and one "schmuck." You made some good points, sport, I love the passion and I think that you should be able to live anywhere you want to. I'll give you a little secret, if you don't want to be around blacks, move to rural North Dakota, and you wont see any.

Better yet, why don't you start a movement, get every white person who is the beneficiary of a 400 year old Grand Theft (South African, American, Canadian, New Zelander, Australian, etc.) and convince them to move back to the European motherland, then kick out the blacks and browns, with your mature and pervasive writing style, I think you can do it!

Be careful for what you ask for though sport, even in New Europa, someone's going to have to pick lettuce.

PS: Does it not seem strange to you, just a little, that on a pro white website, you seem less popular than me? I mean, you do attract a lot of ridicule here.

Svigor said...

Thanks for putting up with me in this thread Steve. I don't intend to make a habit of it, but once in a while I've got to call this guy on his BS.

In fact, if he's willing, I'd be willing to keep all of it in this thread, and decamp to it whenever I feel the aforementioned urge to call.

Oh, to answer the guy who asked why "debate" "Truth," I'm not debating him, I'm exposing him.

Oh, and to answer the guy who asked if "Truth" has a white parent, I dunno, but I suspect he has high white admixture; he's given many hints over time, e.g., his insistence that "we" regard "blacks" like B.O. as black until they become celebrities, when we start "claiming them as white." This is absurd, of course, since most race-realists and ethno-nationalists are familiar with terms like "mulatto" and "quadroon," and only apply the one-drop rule (an exaggeration in my case - one-drop isn't enough to disqualify IMO) in terms of defining whiteness.

Ronduck said...

svigor said...

Oh, and to answer the guy who asked if "Truth" has a white parent, I dunno...

Truth does have an immigrant parent. He just suggested that all of us Europeans go back to Europe, but he is not suggesting that his father go back to wherever he immigrated from.