Civil Rights

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6269
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Civil Rights

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Walker wrote: Thu Jun 15, 2017 1:59 am It looks like they’re arranging a portrait of some bridal party. I did see some work by a wedding photographer who takes the photo-journalist approach. He shoots black and white and the only thing he arranges is his location to change what he sees in the viewfinder, rather than attempting to physically change the situation into a traditional pretty picture by moving people into poses. His work is pretty good. He captures the truth without posing the elements, by remaining a witness and not a participant, and that makes the work unique to the moment and the people. It’s the same ethical principle behind why a golfer calls a penalty on himself, or herself, for changing the ball position when removing fallen obstructions. You play the ball where it lies, and photo-journalists report reality as it appears. The alternative is propaganda.
Even by your standards that is some of the dumbest shit ever.
You started with evil CNN faking the whole thing, but ended trying to find a rationale to accuse them of evilly moving some people a few feet to the right so they can get a better frame for their shot.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Civil Rights

Post by Walker »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Jun 15, 2017 9:33 pm
Walker wrote: Thu Jun 15, 2017 1:59 am It looks like they’re arranging a portrait of some bridal party. I did see some work by a wedding photographer who takes the photo-journalist approach. He shoots black and white and the only thing he arranges is his location to change what he sees in the viewfinder, rather than attempting to physically change the situation into a traditional pretty picture by moving people into poses. His work is pretty good. He captures the truth without posing the elements, by remaining a witness and not a participant, and that makes the work unique to the moment and the people. It’s the same ethical principle behind why a golfer calls a penalty on himself, or herself, for changing the ball position when removing fallen obstructions. You play the ball where it lies, and photo-journalists report reality as it appears. The alternative is propaganda.
Even by your standards that is some of the dumbest shit ever.
You started with evil CNN faking the whole thing, but ended trying to find a rationale to accuse them of evilly moving some people a few feet to the right so they can get a better frame for their shot.
What's shocking is how readily the lack of journalistic ethics is embraced.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Civil Rights

Post by Walker »

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote: Thu Jun 15, 2017 5:30 pm That is a curious comment, Walker. 'Arrogant' implies a critique of attitude or bearing or manner of conduct. 'Assumptive' means one assumes what one shouldn't? (Therefor what you say is 'Don't assume anything'). And 'plantation mentality' implies that you associate good breeding (which is what it boils down to) with slave-cultivation?

I do understand of course what you are getting at, but I also notice that you have avoided the content of the propositions involved --- which are quite real --- for what seems to me to be a superficial reaction.
I considered the content and came up with pretty much the same answer.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Civil Rights

Post by Walker »

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2017 2:36 pm
M. Sanger wrote:“Birth Control propaganda is thus the entering wedge for the Eugenic educator. In answering the needs of these thousands upon thousands of submerged mothers, it is possible to use this interest as the foundation for education in prophylaxis, sexual hygiene, and infant welfare. The potential mother is to be shown that maternity need not be slavery but the most effective avenue toward self-development and self-realization. Upon this basis only may we improve the quality of the race.

“As an advocate of Birth Control, I wish to take advantage of the present opportunity to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the "unfit" and the "fit", admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation to the mentally and physically fit though less fertile parents of the educated and well-to-do classes. On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.”
Top
Hello there Walker. The reason I posted that video --- and Lana is a White Nationalist and is working to confront and undermine many levels of argument that hinder Europeans from having and holding to strong identity-positions (just FYI) --- was only with the intention of dispelling one small calumny. What I notice, and perhaps you notice it too, is that it often happens that someone who opposes some aspect of another's position or ideas will deliberately distort what they have said or written and make it appear in the worst light. It is an underhanded tactic and very destructive to discourse.

Because I have read Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard (Harvard-associated researchers from just after the turn of the 20th century whose ideas on culture, race and eugenics were indeed very popular) I understand sufficiently well the ideology that stands behind the desire to protect a given population (a white European population in the main) from racial and cultural contamination from (as they would say) 'the brown world', and today, at this point in my research, these arguments make abstract sense to me. That is, when examined abstractly they have a great deal of sense in them. Therefor, I am of the opinion that the deliberate 'browning' of America, especially as a result of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act, was a national and cultural mistake. I am also of the opinion, and I share this with the White Nationalists, that every ideological construct that undermines White Identity as a valid and moral object must be confronted and challenged and reversed. To define what it is that has come to form an anti-White ideology in our present is, the more that I look into it, a complex and difficult topic. One could refer to the undermining influence of 'cultural Marxism'; one could refer to the guilt-complex within the European mind and soul as a result of meditation on the destruction of Europe as a result of 2 devastating wars, and then especially the guilt and unease about the meaning of the ethnic cleansing project that occurred in Europe (the Shoa). Many factors flowed together to influence the self-destructive turn against 'identity' as I would define it.

Though I recognize it as problematic, and an extremely hot topic in today's climate of opinion and idea, I am capable of recognizing a superior type of person, within any race or culture, from an inferior one. True indeed that one cannot, today, employ these terms given their history. This much I accept. But in a cold, rational and philosophical discussion, and one for which there will be no consequence to me (i.e. getting branded, fired, hurt financially, etc.) I must insist that I do observe people and I am capable of noting the effect of good breeding. Pretty much it is as simple as that. My eyes are open and they see. It is very clear, and I say this from a 'civilization perspective' (I recognize this needs substantial definition) that if uncontrolled reproduction occurs at the lower levels and there is limited reproduction at the higher (better, 'superior') levels, that in time the lower element will overswamp the higher and with real consequences. I say this cooly and coldly because it appear --- with no doubt at all --- to be true. If it is a crime to see what I see, to understand what I understand, then I will need to accept the responsibility.

Therefor this statement: "...the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation to the mentally and physically fit though less fertile parents of the educated and well-to-do classes. On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective", is not a morally-repugnant statement. It is a problematic statement, that much is certain, and for the obvious reasons.

Having offered this explanation, or this defense of you will, of eugenic principles, can you point out to me what about it is defective from your perspective?
This recent, engaging article addresses the focus you mention.

Planned Parenthood’s Century of Brutality
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... al-century
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 682
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:25 pm

Re: Civil Rights

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

  • "But “America,” as we have already seen, is not a mere geographical expression; it is a nation, whose foundations were laid over three hundred years ago by Anglo-Saxon Nordics, and whose nationhood is due almost exclusively to people of North European stock — not only the old colonists and their descendants but also many millions of North Europeans who have entered the country since colonial times and who have for the most part been thoroughly assimilated. Despite the recent influx of alien elements, therefore, the American people is still predominantly a blend of closely related North European strains, and the fabric of American life is fundamentally their creation."

    --- Lothrop Stoddard
________________________

I read the article quickly but I did read it. If you have read anything I have written you will know that I do not have any problem with a given culture or society desiring to maintain its integrity. You will quickly gather that I define 'integrity' rather widely but I will say directly that it certainly includes the body. If there is one thing or anything that is fundamental to a person's sovereignty it is their own body.

Therefor --- and you will already have noticed that I am moving toward a direct statement --- I have no problem with most of the assertions and perspectives that motivated the assertions of Grant and Stoddard. Immediately, you see, I place myself in, and I will certainly be seen as having entered, a very touchy domain. But instead of recoiling away from accepting responsibility for what I consider to be fair, sovereign and necessary definitions, I would go in the opposite direction. I recognize that the article that you posted is essentially one whose intention is to *expose racism*. Fair enough. I understand those arguments. But what I think about them is that they are usually emotional arguments, sentimental arguments, and pseudo-moralistic arguments. When those emotionalized arguments are brought out they usually work, and because they are effective, they are brought out again and again. They will work as long as people choose to buckle-under to them, as it were.

The post that I composed just previous to this one contains a set of assertions and perspectives which, in my mind, are still valid. Yet I would not merely sweep away all of the problematic aspects of those assertions nor even the dangers which are inevitable in them.

I think that you have avoided discussing the specificities because --- and I understand this --- it is a difficult and troubling set of elements and your instinctive reaction is something akin to abhorance. It is safer that you toss up an article which, I gather, you suppose is an argument against the position I incline to. I understand this. It is simply inconceivable in our American Present, and in any Present I can think of, to have an open concersation about race, the body and the physical aspect, the ramifications of a race-blended culture, the loss of identity, the 'mongerlization' of a given stock, and all the topics related to the subject. It is a thought-exercise (to imagine such a conversation occurring at a national level) which results in the clear understanding that the conversation is absolutely forbidden. It is, I suggest, a radical effort to overcome the queasiness one feels in approaching the topic and in laying it out to be examined.

In my view this should clue you and everyone in to what is hidden and submerged in it.

What I will say additionally cannot be of much help to coming to any decisions here. I have mentioned a couple of times recently having been influenced by the work of E. Michael Jones. He is a hard-to categorize Catholic-oriented philosopher and commentator who dedicates his efforts to looking into the collusion between elite factions and business in the creation of the 'America' of the postwar. It is startling material. I was quite impressed by this interview in which Jones develops many of his basic ideas: The Slaughter of Cities.

I noticed that in the article Sanger presents the WASP perspective, then developing, of 'slavery through motherhood'. And I contrast that to the Catholic value-assertion that family and motherhood is the basis of Christian community. Jones talsk a good deal about the progressive WASP elite who internalized the 'motherhood is slavery' ideology and opened the doors to family planning, widespread access to birthcontrol, and indeed they practiced it on themselves and thereofr reduced their own demographic fertility. At that point, of course, the Catholic restrictions on birth control, and large Catholic families, obviously became a threat. And so (again, according to Jones) there developed an anti-Catholic posture and, also according to Jones, an effort to break up the strong ethnic Catholic neighborhoods.

These are all elements of *social engineering* which are part of America's postwar history and yet are not well-understood nor publicised. And what is implied, directly, is the collusion between intelligence agencies, elite groups, and business interests in the 'construction of the American present'.

At first blush I saw Jones (a sort of self-conditioning kicked in) as another conspiricist of which there are so many. But the more that I looked into him, the more that I began to see his points are cogent and his research valid and grounded. Naturally, I am interested in the issue of 'social and cultural degeneration', and I have to be focused on the moral implications of many of the choices made by the American policy planners as a result of their astounding success after winning WW2 and dominating, substantially, the planet. What I like about Jones is his critical position but yet one grounded in Catholic-Christian principles.

It has to be stated that he denies race-categories as very important and does not stress them. He rather sees the 3 principle antagoisms as between Protestants, Catholics and Jews. Yet Jones is circulated among the Alternative Right. Here is a video which quotes Jones in places, it is by Granville Thorndyke who always comes up with interesting video-montages. Thorndyke focuses in on a certain perspective and then 'illustrates' it, as it were, with visual and other material. Sometimes his presentations abort (no pun intended) but other times they succeed nicely.
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Civil Rights

Post by Science Fan »

If Gustav is telling the truth, that one of his parents was Jewish, then according to the white-supremacists he adores, he himself is not white, and should be expelled from their nation. So, either he is even more idiotic than initial appearances suggest, as he is dedicated to a political viewpoint that states he is scum incarnate, or else he lied about being Jewish.

Now, even if one were to lie, distort and twist the truth, and claim that white-supremacists would still accept Gustav, which is not the case for the vast majority of white-supremacists, we would still have Gustav, condemning one of his parents as inferior, based upon his so-called white-supremacy. If his Jewish parent is still alive, will Gustav soon round him up in the name of white-supremacy?

Gustav is solid evidence for the proposition that white-supremacists are simply nuts.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 682
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:25 pm

Re: Civil Rights

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

You are confusing Nazi race-distinctions with European Identitarianism.

The Nazis desired to expel the Jews from Germany. This expulsion was just one more in a long historical line of expulsions. There have been at least 10 major ones and 50 minor ones. If you read 'The Destruction of the European Jews' by Raul Hilberg (said to be the authority), Vol 1 documents exactly how this was carried out.

It is true that even if you had a Jewish grandparent that this could have gotten you expelled.

I am interested in and capable of talking about the 'JQ' as it is referred to in the Alt-Right, and I try not to shy away from it. If you really do want to hear all my thoughts and ideas about it, please let me know!

And the same goes if you wish to talk about what the Alt-Right or the Nouvelle Droite thinks about Jews, Israel and many issues of the day that touch on those questions but also the construction of the postwar world. It is intense material though.
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Civil Rights

Post by Science Fan »

Nope. There you go lying again about history. The Nazis wanted the death of all Jews, and most of the killing was done towards the later years of Nazi Germany. In the later years of the Third Reich, the Third Reich, which you endorse, specifically called for the death of anyone with 2 Jewish grandparents, which I believe, most likely would have applied to you.

This is how self-refuting your position is, Gustav: If you are right about the Nazis, then you are scum that should be taken out and either sterilized or murdered. Your position could not be more irrational.
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Civil Rights

Post by Science Fan »

The alt-right is not "intense material," it is childishness and immaturity on steroids. That's the thing about you alt-right people, you fantasize that people are impressed and scared of you, when actually, most people are immensely bored with you. Your cartoon frog? You think that impresses people, do you? Your slang, calling anyone you disagree with a "cuck," you think that impresses anyone? It doesn't. The alt-right is simply a bunch of half-wits who are racists and anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists, who are terrified of reality.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 682
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:25 pm

Re: Civil Rights

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Again if you have any questions please do let me know. Happy to take a crack at answering them.
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Civil Rights

Post by Science Fan »

Gustav, you have no answers. You have lies and delusions, but no answers. You reject the most basic findings of science, the most researched aspects of history, and you shove them aside to endorse made-up delusional claims of uneducated people who prance around social media 24/7 spreading hate.

I would no more rely on information from you than I would rely on information from David Icke.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Civil Rights

Post by Walker »

Science Fan wrote: Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:49 pm Gustav, you have no answers. You have lies and delusions, but no answers. You reject the most basic findings of science, the most researched aspects of history, and you shove them aside to endorse made-up delusional claims of uneducated people who prance around social media 24/7 spreading hate.

I would no more rely on information from you than I would rely on information from David Icke.
The point is to make a cogent, intelligent, and convincing argument that is so persuasive that even a highly intelligent, critical mind such as Gustav’s can see the world in a wholly new way. This is the point of the discussion. Personal regard for the current position of the purported principle, whether that regard is negative or affirmative, is irrelevant other than as a clue of doorways to persuade, chinks in the wall. But that is a highly limited approach, especially when appealing to a greater intelligence, for it assumes much that has already been considered in the construction of the held and fortified position. Better to come sailing in from left field, the dada way, and if you have a great arm you can throw from right field to third base on a fairly tight parabola, right on the money, no relays. Personal insults and opinions? Unless you are someone of fame, authority, or wealth they are so many stones tossed at the ankles of castle walls.
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Civil Rights

Post by Science Fan »

Walker: I have already provided numerous valid and sound arguments against Gustav. He rejects them all because he has zero interest in the truth. He denies the Holocaust, which is a position rejected by every single major western university. If he can't accept mountains of evidence from top-ranking historians, then what argument is he going to accept then? He denies basic biology when it comes to such things as race and evolution. If he cannot handle the mountain of evidence by major universities on these topics, then what argument will he accept? He claims that the Jews are responsible for all the hate towards them. This is like saying a woman who was raped deserved it. A man who believes such nonsense is far from brilliant. The fact you think so says a hell of a lot about your character.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 682
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:25 pm

Re: Civil Rights

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

This is underhanded grandstanding argumentation for a number of reasons. You should yourself be able to discern why and to notice the corruption of argument-method. What you do is to spread an issue of contention from post to post and from thread to thread and it is always within this peculiar category which is a very 'hot' one. You want to convince the one you are declaiming to on the basis of an obviously skewed representation of the contended issue. Even those who, for example, accept the textbook narrative about all elements of the Shoa, or have no opinions and ideas about Jews in history or in our present, will (I think) notice what you are doing. It is a form of slander. I have told you, and I mean it, that if you want to know anything about my own background in Judaism, or any other element of my understanding of this or any other topic, all you need to do is to ask. What you are doing is fundamentally underhanded. Not dishonest necessarily, but very underhanded. No one will stop you, and I will not stop you. What I will do though is to point out what you do and try to understand why. And suggest that my views have much more nuance than you allow.
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Civil Rights

Post by Science Fan »

Now, now, Gustav, stop whining. Here are the facts: 1. I specifically informed you I had you blocked, as far as I could on this forum, and that I wanted nothing to do with you. 2. After being notified of my position, you followed me from post to post and continued to comment, and everywhere you go you spread hate and lies against minorities. 3. That's when I finally decided, screw it, if you are so offensive to not respect my request, then I'm going to confront you, and your delusional hate in denying such things as the Holocaust.

If you can't stand it, then never bother me again.
Post Reply