However, with regards to my username, you have taken my name out of context . So I feel the need to set another record straight and address this to you crystal clear so that you`ll understand because quite frankly, you assertions if grossly inaccurate.

I chose my name out of my own free will to coicide with the downsizing of the current Neo-Nazi movement in the U.S. Anyone who is watching the movement will know that their numbers continue to decline significantly due to their ongoing conflicts between one another. They are not well organized as a legitimate organization whether they’re the NSM, Creativity Movement, or any other small group which is only a significant few. Their fallacy is what inspired my username because they no longer have the influence/power to impact society.

“Who do you wish to Kill”?

If you had a focused reading comprehensional skills, which seems to be lacking, then you would very well know I never said anything about killing or killing of cultures. The neo-nazi movement in the U.S. is in a self-destruct mode and you know it.

“What are your handle? Or handles?”

I have no idea what you are talking about there so I won’t respond to that question.

Furthermore, with you bringing up the “jewish” in you posts, you seemed to have some kind have beef with them and it explains why your anti-semetic. Lets face it, you’re not Hispanic, you’re a closet racists impostering as such. You’re a hyprocite.

Well you know who you are.

Again, you’re nitpicking over a figure of speech in an attempt to dodge anything of value. It’s called distraction and it’s fallacious.

“You mean you can’t see the illogical aspect of your supposed rebuttal? Claiming that support for your points can be found by studying the history of countries you listed by putting the onus on your opponent to research your rebuttal is the suggestion of a child, and wouldn’t one learn of Hannibal when he references Carthage? He was the most important figure in that country’s history. He almost conquered Rome.”

Actually, if you were not someone who had studied history pointing out that Hannibal might be of particular interest was perfectly logical. Sorry for assuming you would be able to make that logical leap.

“Why not? Can you give me a SENSIBLE example? I would be glad to exchange views with you on any aspect of world history you choose. You seem to naively believe that all you have to do is levy some kind of accusation against someone and that’s sufficient to prove your point. It’s probably an extension of your mindless incantations of charging people with racism and hate, as if just the accusation itself is sufficient to prove your point.”

There is NO WAY I can sit down and write a small snippet of history to satisfy your nitpicky idea of what has and has not happened. In educated circles, the mention of a thing is sufficient to get everyone on the same page because everyone is educated and knows what the speaker is talking about. Again, I won’t make that assumption about you again.

“You claimed I was a coward for not listing a name. I offerred you my email address, so if you’re wanting to really test my knowledge of world history you could do that.”

No thanks. I don’t give my email address to anyone and everyone.

As for the rest of your post, it’s simply a red herring. Just because we are talking about hatred and racism here does not mean we are also not concerned with depleted resources or any other world threat. The fact remains, the focus of this blog is hate groups; naturally, we’re discussing hate and racism. It’s not that hard to understand, really. If you want to talk about over population or anything else there are other places to do just that.

You remind me of the character Edward Norton plays in American History X. I find some of the scenes in that movie so incredibly disturbing because the character is able to employ what look like, on face value, reasonable arguments. However, the conclusions will always be hateful and therefore fallacious. But the fact is, people who are able to argue seemingly well are more frightening than the jack booted thugs on the streets. Your arguments do not possess substance to someone who knows better, but what of the people who do not? I find your type of subtle racism the most lethal. Yes, you can call racism and its inherent trajectories overdone, but that does not change what it is or what it applies to. Either way, I won’t support your attempts any further.

A “figure of speech” in an effort to employ logic to disprove a point? Heh, heh, heh. It’s strictly high school rhetoric. Sorry. And I’m not interested in your blog.

“Also? never claimed Hannibal was a country, but again, I suspect you are simply being obtuse on purpose.”

You mean you can’t see the illogical aspect of your supposed rebuttal? Claiming that support for your points can be found by studying the history of countries you listed by putting the onus on your opponent to research your rebuttal is the suggestion of a child, and wouldn’t one learn of Hannibal when he references Carthage? He was the most important figure in that country’s history. He almost conquered Rome.

“Wow, apparently you aren’t as familiar with those countries, histories or people as you think you are. ”

Why not? Can you give me a SENSIBLE example? I would be glad to exchange views with you on any aspect of world history you choose. You seem to naively believe that all you have to do is levy some kind of accusation against someone and that’s sufficient to prove your point. It’s probably an extension of your mindless incantations of charging people with racism and hate, as if just the accusation itself is sufficient to prove your point.

You claimed I was a coward for not listing a name. I offerred you my email address, so if you’re wanting to really test my knowledge of world history you could do that.

“I suspect you are someone who accepts only hate group approved history and are therefore denying history as we understand it. ”

Can you tell me what “hate group history” is? And is history really to be understood or learned? Do you place your own “interpretation” on history rather than study the facts? Nobody does that unless he’s an ideologue that intends to employ revisionism to somehow support his ideology.

Racism and hate are hurled so much by certain people the words have no meaning anymore, and the tactic is resorted to when no accurate information or logic can be rebutted. You won’t intimidate me, as you would like, by calling me a hater or a racist, because it’s nonsense and childish. Every racial group on earth are racists, under the true interpretation of the word.

Don’t you ever concern yourself with other matters of the world, instead of focusing in only on the narrowmindedness of looking for things you perceive to be some kind of social pathology?

I mean there are other things to be concerned about: Overpopulation and depleting water tables, which will mean less food, is a far greater threat to the future existence of this country and the world. You constantly speak of hate, yet you seem not the least concerned about jihadists who are terrorizing the world with bombs and other methods of killings. Instead you concentrate on calling some small vagabond group of individuals haters, as if they represent the most severe threat to humanity ever known. It’s nonsense.

People who are so caught up in a fanatical concentration on this nonsense of racism and hate are no more than Pavlovian subjects that have been conditioned to salivate politically correct drivel when the politically correct bell is rung. They can no more think objectively than a rabid Marxist or a fascist or a Nazi, to a point of fanaticism.

Oh yeah, stopping mid-paragraph because I realized that my effort would be wasteful equals immaturity. Um… how does that work? Admitting that you do not have the time or energy to engage in something that is likely fruitless is far from immature or uneducated. You’d know that if you were engaging in a “cause” that was producing results.

“What is your job? Do you have a “job” on here? Do you do nothing unless it is your “job?””

I suspect you could figure out my job pretty easily if you clicked on my linked blog. Of course I do not have a job with the SPLC. It’s a figure of speech, but I suspect you knew that and are merely being obtuse.

“I’m very familiar with all those countries mentioned, plus Hannibal, and I must point out none have anything to do with the Spanish/Amerindian population in the Americas, and you must understand that Hannibal was a Carthagenian. He was not a city like Rome or a country like Spain or Carthage.”

Wow, apparently you aren’t as familiar with those countries, histories or people as you think you are. I suspect you are someone who accepts only hate group approved history and are therefore denying history as we understand it. Also? never claimed Hannibal was a country, but again, I suspect you are simply being obtuse on purpose.

Incorrect. I only use “Playboy” and “Jose Cuervo” on here, not any others. You can call me Jose Cuervo the Hispanic Playboy if you’d like.

What is your other handle? Or handles? “daemonesslisa?” Of course. “Crossbow” I don’t know. “Militiaman” is a co-worker and will be back tomorrow.

Would you like me to post my email address so you can contact me direct? I’m willing to do that.

“Mexican by taking up a name of an alcoholic beverage company.”

Sorry, I’m not Mexican. I’m Hispanic. My grandparents country of origin is unimportant.

Incidentally, is taking the name of an alcoholic beverage any worse than calling one’s self “88`s Jeno-Side?” I mean, genocide is the mass killing of people isn’t it? Or more correctly, “the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group. ”

Who is it you wish to kill? What culture? What race? Are you one of these Harris and Klebold types? Klebold was Jewish too you know.

“Like the Jews who came up with the term “White Supremacists” during the KKK hey-days. The Natavists is now the new term that many of us use to describe the hate-mongers of today.”

You have a handle like genocide and you have the gall to write of “the hate-mongers of today?”

Your posts are very entertaining.

” If you look at the current membership of “You Don’t Speak For Me”, which is operated by Al Rodriquez. There you will find the numbers for their current members stats and the number of hits that webiste has which tells me they’re virtually a small band of self-loathing Hispanics with no pride.”

Because they believe a country’s laws should be respected they are self loathing Hispanics with no pride? Do they believe in Genocide? And does it please you that they are a small number?

Do you understand that because many Hispanics in this country do not wish to become active in ANYTHING, yet hold anti-immigrant opinions, they will not appear in Senor Rodriquez’s stats?

Saying that information was started for the purpose of teaching, then claiming the decision not to do so is based on the other’s lack of desire to be educated, is an admission of immaturity, childishness and a lack of intelligence, because in the last analysis the person claiming to be the instructor is revealing his/her laziness or lack of knowledge. But, most importantly, the ploy reveals a decided lack of intelligence.

And regarding the statement that, ” it’s not my job to educate people who probably don’t want to be educated in the first place. ”

What is your job? Do you have a “job” on here? Do you do nothing unless it is your “job?”

“Here’s a tip: read up on Carthage, Rome, Spain, and Hannibal. Have fun, now!”

I’m very familiar with all those countries mentioned, plus Hannibal, and I must point out none have anything to do with the Spanish/Amerindian population in the Americas, and you must understand that Hannibal was a Carthagenian. He was not a city like Rome or a country like Spain or Carthage.

I can give anyone here my email address if they would like to exchange information directly.

Gracias por tu tiempo.

Umm.
Playboy, where exactly is your 2nd “post” you are referring to?
It seems to me that you are using different pseudonyms. First you went by “Crossbow”, “militiaman”, “playboy” and now you wanted to be a Mexican by taking up a name of an alcoholic beverage company. Please stick to one name so that we can address you properly. Thanks.

Speaking of Natavists is a term used by many Freedom Loving Americans such as myself and those posting on here, who are trying to talk some sense into you.
The term Natavist is a degratory term describing the current Anti-Illegal AND LEGAL Immigration groups who oppose our Hispanic comrades battling your injustices and bigotry aimed at criminalizing them and their peoples. Even if they are in the country legally. The term Natavist is synonmous with the term “Racist”

Natavists is the new political term that befits the criteria of a modern-day Neo-Nazis, Racists, Bigots, and Vigilantes all lumped into the same boat.

I agree that the word “Racists” is getting old school that many of those minorities and old timers still use today.

Like the Jews who came up with the term “White Supremacists” during the KKK hey-days. The Natavists is now the new term that many of us use to describe the hate-mongers of today.

When I met the Anti-Hispanic Hispanic crew, I was merely referring to the small crowd who support the Natavists Movement. If you look at the current membership of “You Don’t Speak For Me”, which is operated by Al Rodriquez. There you will find the numbers for their current members stats and the number of hits that webiste has which tells me they’re virtually a small band of self-loathing Hispanics with no pride.

The May Day marches in the past was enormous which was said to be in the Millions, compared to that small gaggle of Anti-Hispanic Hispanics which is no more than 1,000 members. Many continue to walk away from them. Because they realized they’re traitorous to their Heritage as a Hispanic.

Um, no. I started to type up the history for you, but then remembered that it’s not my job to educate people who probably don’t want to be educated in the first place. Here’s a tip: read up on Carthage, Rome, Spain, and Hannibal. Have fun, now!

It’s important not to begin rebuttal until a thorough understanding of what a person wrote or said is obtained.

‘A Cuban is not a true Latino because they’re “mostly black”?’

Please read my post again. There seems to be a problem with comprehension, and afterwards look up the meaning of, “indigenous people of the Americas.”

“Then I suppose Colombians, Ecuadorians, Puerto Ricans and Panamanians aren’t true Latinos either.”

Supposing the above are not an Amerindian mix is incorrect, except for Peurto Ricans who are a mix of black/Spanish, or black/white, with varyng degrees of each race within their genes. The rest are Spanish/Amerindian. Please read my post again and try to understand this time.

“How about giving me a non-neocon link, son?”

What for? And what is the interpretation of a “neo-con? Is that a Jew in the Bush administration? Here is what some of my people think of ONE aspect of that. http://www.aztlan.net/koshernostra.htm

“And I suggest that you do it fast before the more intelligent readers on here shoot you down.”

Referring to “more intelligent readers” indicates that a writer doesn’t consider himself in that group.

Here’s a link from a neo-con site that will help in understanding for those who get easily confused about what has been written.
http://estudosjudaicos.blogspo.....itism.html

Excerpt only:http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASUS_12/4109_12.htm

“One of the most important findings of ADL’s 2002 Survey of Anti-Semitism in America concerns Hispanic Americans, one of the most significant and fastest growing segments of the American population, in which the poll found an extraordinary gap between those born in the United States and those born abroad. The survey revealed that while 44% of foreign-born Hispanics hold hardcore anti-Semitic beliefs, 20% of Hispanic Americans born in the U.S. fall into the same category.

“The anti-Semitic propensities of foreign-born Hispanics were significantly above the national average. Meanwhile, the number of African-Americans with strong anti-Semitic beliefs continued to hold steady at 35%.”

Can’t mention racism? If there’s a site to talk about racism, this would be it. Any attempts on here to deflect from discussions on racism are what shut down the arguments. I think the moderators would agree (if they’d speak up every once in a while!)

A Cuban is not a true Latino because they’re “mostly black”? Then I suppose Colombians, Ecuadorians, Puerto Ricans and Panamanians aren’t true Latinos either. I don’t know what bubble you’ve lived in, but Latinos come in ALL colors, man (including a shade of yellow…that would be me!).

98% of Cubans are against illegal immigration? That’s quite the number for someone who doesn’t like risking their credibility by overstating. How about giving me a non-neocon link, son? And I suggest that you do it fast before the more intelligent readers on here shoot you down.

I’m Jewish? Because my opinion differs from yours? I have to say, that insinuation goes a long way toward proving true my “sockpuppet” theory!