How many stormfront.org members here?

[Sir Evil]

^ If I've ever seen anything that approximates a daisy chain of meth heads with cranial trauma, that be her.

[Jeff]

No I have not posted at stormfront, but I did go there and look around, I only looked threw quick but I didn't see lynchings or any other kind of serious hate, my question is why are we attacking a group of whites that are proud of there race and not attacking say the black panthers? I read on one site about hate groups where the blacks are the most dangerous cause the media will actually give them time



Like I said earlier, racial hatred isn’t a white thing. It would be absolutely absurd (and racist too) to assume that only white males can be bigots. Racism is not limited to one group. The SPLC, even as liberal as they are, also lists black racist groups that advocate the same hatred against whites that the white supremacists advocate against blacks. These black racist groups advocate separatism and use white people (and Jews) as a scapegoat for frustrated African Americans. Most of these black hate groups were created in response to the discrimination, Jim Crow laws, and other forms of bigotry that blacks had put up with in America for hundreds of years. Although there is no excuse for being a racist, that is the reason for their racism, nonetheless.

There are few black hate groups, however, they are somewhat more dangerous than the white hate groups listed above simply because they are allowed media time and given chances to speak at college campuses. My complaint with the tolerance here is that they don’t have the same hate watch for black bigots that they do for the white supremacist groups. There are many cases where blacks attack whites simply because they are white. Black separatists typically oppose integration and racial intermarriage, and they want separate institutions -- or even a separate nation -- for blacks, just as the white hate groups do.


a. Black Panther Party: This was probably one of the most violently racist black groups. It was founded in 1966 and they sold their organization as one that promoted self-help and keeping drugs out of the black communities, but they developed the ‘don’t need whitey’s help’ attitude. On the one hand, they advocated personal responsibility, while at the same time; they espouse racial hatred and separatism. Like white hate groups, such as the KKK, they try to mainstream their racial agenda. The original Panthers combined militant Black Nationalism with Marxism and advocated black empowerment and self-defense, often through confrontation. The only difference between them and the Nation of Islam is they don’t really have a religious element to it.

http://www.epinions.com/content_3736576132



That being said all I am trying to say is why attack one group when there are so many, could it be PC ?

[Kathianne]

No I have not posted at stormfront, but I did go there and look around, I only looked threw quick but I didn't see lynchings or any other kind of serious hate, my question is why are we attacking a group of whites that are proud of there race and not attacking say the black panthers? I read on one site about hate groups where the blacks are the most dangerous cause the media will actually give them time



Like I said earlier, racial hatred isn’t a white thing. It would be absolutely absurd (and racist too) to assume that only white males can be bigots. Racism is not limited to one group. The SPLC, even as liberal as they are, also lists black racist groups that advocate the same hatred against whites that the white supremacists advocate against blacks. These black racist groups advocate separatism and use white people (and Jews) as a scapegoat for frustrated African Americans. Most of these black hate groups were created in response to the discrimination, Jim Crow laws, and other forms of bigotry that blacks had put up with in America for hundreds of years. Although there is no excuse for being a racist, that is the reason for their racism, nonetheless.

There are few black hate groups, however, they are somewhat more dangerous than the white hate groups listed above simply because they are allowed media time and given chances to speak at college campuses. My complaint with the tolerance here is that they don’t have the same hate watch for black bigots that they do for the white supremacist groups. There are many cases where blacks attack whites simply because they are white. Black separatists typically oppose integration and racial intermarriage, and they want separate institutions -- or even a separate nation -- for blacks, just as the white hate groups do.


a. Black Panther Party: This was probably one of the most violently racist black groups. It was founded in 1966 and they sold their organization as one that promoted self-help and keeping drugs out of the black communities, but they developed the ‘don’t need whitey’s help’ attitude. On the one hand, they advocated personal responsibility, while at the same time; they espouse racial hatred and separatism. Like white hate groups, such as the KKK, they try to mainstream their racial agenda. The original Panthers combined militant Black Nationalism with Marxism and advocated black empowerment and self-defense, often through confrontation. The only difference between them and the Nation of Islam is they don’t really have a religious element to it.

http://www.epinions.com/content_3736576132



That being said all I am trying to say is why attack one group when there are so many, could it be PC ?

I thought and still think that the Black panthers should have been prosecuted for interfering with voting. Gangs are and should be targeted for arrests.

Doesn't matter the race, crime is crime; hate is hate. For the record I'd say there are more minority racists than whites, but the new victimology of the whites will probably change that around fairly quickly. I mean all the excuses for hating are that 'the other guy' is being favored by law and in deeds.

[Agnapostate]

No I have not posted at stormfront, but I did go there and look around, I only looked threw quick but I didn't see lynchings or any other kind of serious hate, my question is why are we attacking a group of whites that are proud of there race and not attacking say the black panthers? I read on one site about hate groups where the blacks are the most dangerous cause the media will actually give them time

It's an overlap with your white populism; the underlying moral conceptual framework is the same. I've quoted the cognitive scientist George Lakoff before on this matter:

Many of the clauses in the Moral Order correspond to forms of bigotry:

The racist clause: Since the dominant culture has been white, whites rank above nonwhites.

The anti-Semitic clause: Since the dominant culture is Christian, Christians rank above Jews.

The jingoist clause: Since this is an American culture where people born here have more power and status than immigrants, those born Americans rank above immigrants.

The homophobe clause: Since heterosexuality is dominant in our culture and homosexuals are stereotyped as weak, heterosexuals rank above homosexuals.

The superpatriot clause: Since America is the dominant country (the only superpower), America ranks above other countries.

[...]

It is important to bear in minds that these define a "moral order." Those higher in the moral order are "better" and have a moral authority over those lower in the hierarchy. So, for instance, if all these clauses are in your hierarchy and if you happen to be a heterosexual white Christian American man, you are "better" than most people in the world.

According to the Moral Order metaphor, a just situation obtains when the Moral Order hierarchy is met in the world, that is, when men do have moral authority and power over women, when parents do have moral authority and power over their children, when human beings do have moral authority and power over nature, and so on. The bigoted clauses include whites having moral authority and power over nonwhites, and so on. In short, the Moral Order is the conceptual mechanism by which assumptions of superiority - and the moral standing of that superiority - are expressed.

So, the traditional rightist conceptualizes social welfare programs as subsidization of the unproductive, stealing from Peter to give to Paul, which is morally objectionable because Paul's laziness and lack of personal responsibility landed him in poverty in the first place. Violations of the law are also ethical failings, and ascription of the causes of crime to environmental conditions such as poverty are considered attempts to protect criminals and blame victims, and again, the lack of personal responsibility entailed is morally objectionable. Since blacks are especially prone to usage of various social welfare programs and higher crime rates, the natural consequence of this mindset is that they lack personal responsibility and moral guidelines to a greater extent than whites, with this either being caused explicitly by their genetic predisposition (the Stormfront position), or their perverse and criminal culture of rap and glorification of the illicit (the social rightist position, and probably yours).

We also see from you the fallacy of equivalence, the belief that white and black populism are two sides of the same coin, despite the fact that it has been whiteness that has been the basis for the exertion of actual hierarchical authority over blackness. Some degree of emotionally passionate backlash is to be expected from that pattern, as with Jewish or Romani dislike of Germans and the intensification of Jewish nationalism (Zionism) immediately after the end of the Second World War. Despite this, the outgrowth of the Black Panthers was never based on the establishment of a racial hierarchy with blacks dominant; it's simply that complaints about equality being "supremacy" were the natural phase of white populism to take after segregation and the like were abolished. There is no poster on Stormfront that complains of being equal to blacks, but of the social inferiority that they claim has been created. Their claim is that they are oppressed.

[Sir Evil]

Damn achingprostate, you're a nigga?

[Jeff]

Damn achingprostate, you're a nigga?

he isn't a nigga, he is Chief sitting Bull

[Agnapostate]

Damn achingprostate, you're a nigga?

What the fuck does an image of your fellow dumb-ass hick have to do with that? Do you just blurt out the most random, retarded shit?

he isn't a nigga, he is Chief sitting Bull

What's all the talk about "chiefs" anyway? I'm certainly not of any ethnic group that had "chiefs," much less a Sioux. I'd say it's related to your little stereotypical misconceptions, but it seems more likely that you downed some bad moonshine that you brewed in your outhouse and took some blunt force trauma to the head from the confederate militia.

[Sir Evil]

What the fuck does an image of your fellow dumb-ass hick have to do with that? Do you just blurt out the most random, retarded shit?

Seriously, that's an image of a hick?

And yeah, when dealing with morons like yourself I do tend to blurt our random and retarded shit, it seems to get a reply. See how that works there achingprostate?

[Jeff]

What the fuck does an image of your fellow dumb-ass hick have to do with that? Do you just blurt out the most random, retarded shit?



What's all the talk about "chiefs" anyway? I'm certainly not of any ethnic group that had "chiefs," much less a Sioux. I'd say it's related to your little stereotypical misconceptions, but it seems more likely that you downed some bad moonshine that you brewed in your outhouse and took some blunt force trauma to the head from the confederate militia.

it was a joke stupid we all now if anything you would of been a squaw

[Sir Evil]

it was a joke stupid

Umm, no it wasn't! I think he really is a nigga....

[Jeff]

Umm, no it wasn't! I think he really is a nigga....

He may very well be, he cries enough to be one

[Agnapostate]

Seriously, that's an image of a hick?

And yeah, when dealing with morons like yourself I do tend to blurt our random and retarded shit, it seems to get a reply. See how that works there achingprostate?

Nah, I think you blurt that out constantly. Your posts remind me of an autistic kindergartener who's consumed a case of malt liquor.

it was a joke

Oh. That'll explain why I wasn't able to distinguish it from all your other posts, then.

[Sir Evil]

Nah, I think you blurt that out constantly. Your posts remind me of an autistic kindergartener who's consumed a case of malt liquor.

Malt liquor? You are indeed a nigga.....

suck a weenie fruit cake.....

[Agnapostate]

Malt liquor? You are indeed a nigga.....

suck a weenie fruit cake.....

Better than being just a fruit, I think. You have some odd subjects on your mind there, son.

[Mr. P]

... See how that works there achingprostate?

Perfect! Much better than Chief which I doubt his tribe would allow anyway.