73 Responses to
'Amazon Often Rejects Porn But Helps White Racists Publish Books'

Subscribe to comments with RSS

1. Jordan said,
   
   

   on March 21st, 2011 at 9:19 pm

   Wow, Amazon, wow. I’m not really offended by Amazon’s actions, just confused. How do they decide which hate mongering, crime inspiring books to sell or not sell? I totally understand not selling books lauding pedophilia and rape, but I don’t understand selling books lauding murder while not selling the other books (either sell offensive, violence inspiring novels or don’t, I would prefer don’t).

2. Rollingforest said,
   
   

   on March 21st, 2011 at 9:30 pm

   This is a hard issue for me. On the one hand, I believe that people have the right to boycott stores if they support positions that they don’t like. If a book is promoting hate or child abuse, I certainly wouldn’t want to be financially supporting that. On the other hand, all of society’s advancements, whether we are talking abolition of the slaves or women’s suffrage, started as highly unpopular and I would hate to see a good idea be blocked from the bookshelves because of boycotts from people who aren’t ready for it yet. I’m not sure how to resolve this type of dilemma.

3. Aron said,
   
   

   on March 21st, 2011 at 10:25 pm

   Errr… I must take exception to the vilification of ‘The 21st Century Sniper.’

   Snipers are highly respected soldiers and police officers. They operate mostly as scouts, sending back information, but they still maintain the ability to cause chaos on the battlefield/stand-off.

   Just because Amazon sells an aid book covering modern sniping techniques does not mean they wish for Mr Potok to be assassinated. That one seemed like a bit of a stretch.

   Cheers,

   Aron

4. Linnea said,
   
   

   on March 21st, 2011 at 10:48 pm

   So, pornography and pedophilia-enabling are bad in Amazon’s mind, yet overt, violent racism is just peachy? Bleeping hypocrites.

   It’s sad, because Amazon is very useful, especially to students like me… I can find a lot of my textbooks on Amazon for a lot less than at the school bookstore. But from now on, I’m only going to buy them from Amazon if I can’t find them on B&N. And I won’t ever buy anything else from Amazon.

5. Patrick said,
   
   

   on March 22nd, 2011 at 3:12 am

   Well, the SPLC is anti-White. Does anti-White racism qualify as “racist” in your eyes? What about the Confederate Memorial that was desecrated in Augusta recently with bigoted anti-white slurs (no doubt you’ve heard of it, but simply ignored it since it suits your anti-white agenda). Here’s a link in case you didn’t hear about it…http://chronicle.augusta.com/s.....3168.shtml

   I have no doubt in my mind that you won’t post my comment as, once again, it doesn’t suit your agenda. I wonder how many comments you would have right now if you actually posted ALL OF THEM and not just the ones you agreed with (in a lame attempt to deceive the public into thinking most people think like you..)

6. Ruslan Amirkhanov said,
   
   

   on March 22nd, 2011 at 3:41 am

   Honestly these people are going to sell their books somehow, and if Amazon bans those books they could later begin banning all kinds of other political books simply for being out of the political mainstream. The truth is that normal people should actually read some of these novels to understand how deranged these racialist authors can be. The plots are bad, the political messages as subtle as blue whale flopping down the street, they are often loaded with exposition when the author can’t shoehorn his message into the action, and there is always a very obvious obsession with sex, particularly black-male/white-female interracial sex.

   Some important titles are The Turner Diares(AKA Very Freudian Interracial Sex Bonanza), Hunter(also by Pierce, with so much exposition and speeches about racialist politics it might as well have been a pamphlet), and the rare, online-only “novel” of the late David Lane, KD Rebel. In this “story”, Lane reveals his fantasies about rape and pedophilia, as well as his obsession with sex. What makes it hilarious is that he tries to hide these obviously personal rants about sex within the most ridiculous “story” you will ever read.

   Here’s one example: One of the younger main characters(I think he’s 19 or something), has been stalking this high school girl, watching her for some time. Yes, that’s the plot of the book- these White Nationalist rebels hole up in a secret compound in the Rocky Mountains, and although the US has suffered a major economic downturn, things still pretty much seem to run normally throughout the country. What do the WN rebels do? Well they are obsessed with breeding so they ride into town from time to time and kidnap women to be their wives(yes, plural). Yes that’s right, they steal wives. So….back to our hero.

   He’s been stalking this high school girl and somehow manages to find out that she is planning to lose her virginity to a non-white, after the high school prom IIRC. Yes, he stalks her so well he somehow manages to pick up these secrets that girls would usually only share with their closest friends. This idea that she will have sex with a non-white is treated as if she is going to commit suicide. But don’t worry, our hero “rescues” her, informs her that she will be wedded to him(whether she wants to or not), and claims he has the right to take her whenever he wants, saying that this is not rape(apparently it’s rape only when a non-white person does this).

   By now you’re probably on the edge of your seat, wondering how this roller-coaster ride of action and creepy sex talk ends. Well, SPOILER ALERT: Russia invades the US and saves TEH WHITE RACE!!!!1ONE Yes, Russia, the country which has a corruption rating on par with several African countries, and is expected to lose something like 40 million people(i.e. more than the USSR lost in WWII) by the middle of the 20th century. The save the day, somehow. Oh yes, KD Rebel is a diamond in the rough amongst WN literature. In addition to awkward descriptions of Viking sexual values, David Lane saw it fit to refer to non-whites as Skraelings(what the Vikings who reached America called the natives), and Jews as Sons of Muspelheim(I have no idea). Yes, apparently the WN movement of the future becomes far more successful when they start referring to their enemies by Viking names.

   Speaking of names, the main hero is named Trebor. Yeah, that’s Robert backwards, as in Robert Matthews. Why they couldn’t just name him ROBERT in homage to Robert Matthews, I will never understand. Incidentally, it is not this character who stalks and kidnaps the high school girl for his bride. No, this class act kidnaps two strippers for the purpose of group sex(thankfully this is not described in detail, but were that the case I’m guessing Lane would have made the description of these girls suspiciously close to Lynx and Lamb of Prussian Blue fame). Yes, when you think class, think, David Lane.

7. Concerned Citizen said,
   
   

   on March 22nd, 2011 at 6:19 am

   I found it incredible that a company like Amazon.com would allow racist materials to be sold rather than letting porn being sold on its website. Why? Perhaps. Amazon has a more conservative view of the world. It would seem that many in the porn industry tends to be liberal, but I could be wrong.

8. Jack Donovan said,
   
   

   on March 22nd, 2011 at 9:28 am

   Amazon also sells the SCUM Manifesto by Valerie Solanas, which calls women to find ways to “destroy the male sex.”

   SPLC has never taken an interest in this kind of sexism.

9. Ruslan Amirkhanov said,
   
   

   on March 22nd, 2011 at 9:35 am

   Patrick, please define what “anti-white” means, and who “white people” are. Show your work.

10. Ruslan Amirkhanov said,
    
    

    on March 22nd, 2011 at 10:39 am

    “Amazon also sells the SCUM Manifesto by Valerie Solanas, which calls women to find ways to “destroy the male sex.”

    SPLC has never taken an interest in this kind of sexism.”

    Probably because aside from the authors of that “manifesto”, and sexually-frustrated conservative chicken littles, nobody else takes much of an interest in that work.

11. Mitch Beales said,
    
    

    on March 22nd, 2011 at 10:51 am

    I can certainly understand how SPLC staffers find it frightening that Amazon sells books that appear to target them. Personally I would find it more frightening if I believed that Amazon actually had “content guidelines.” Amazon is in business to make money. They are not, nor should they be, in the business of banning books. It appears that they only “banned” certain “pornography” when public outcry threatened their profits. If you hate the fact that Amazon is selling certain books let them know. Personally I think it is unlikely that folks who support SPLC would also support book-banning or book-burning.

    Patrick this blog is called Hatewatch. Perhaps you were looking for Graffitiwatch.

    Jack Donovan Amazon also sells Mein Kampf so what’s your point exactly?

12. Difluoroethene said,
    
    

    on March 22nd, 2011 at 11:11 am

    Is the Jack Donovan who commented above the same person who writes for AlternativeRight.com?

    _That_ Jack Donovan has a rather unusual personal history, as mentioned here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Donovan

13. jgt2598 said,
    
    

    on March 22nd, 2011 at 11:47 am

    Patrick,
    Yes, I read your article, the monument (itself a racist monument to the celebration slavery) was indeed defamed by racists. No one noticed for the same reason no one would notice if the New Black Panthers burned Neo-Nazi Swastikas, it’s one hate group attacking another. How is the SPLC “anti-white”? Because it criticizes Neo-Nazis, slave supporting Neo-Confeds, and Klansmen? Than it must also be “anti-black” because it criticizes the black supremecist Nation of Islam and the New Black Panthers.

14. Alex said,
    
    

    on March 22nd, 2011 at 2:13 pm

    Ruslan Amirkhanov:

    White people: European-descended Caucasoid peoples who identify themselves as such.

    Anti-white: working to undermine the identity or advancement of European-descended Caucasoid peoples.

    Feel free to overcomplicate as you so desire.

15. Mr. Nationalist said,
    
    

    on March 22nd, 2011 at 2:36 pm

    *sigh*
    [note to self]Don’t even bother commenting. “Racism,” “Hate” and their brethren are straw man arguments. They yet speak as paper tigers; the purveyors of such fallacious logic thrash about while all falls to ruin.

    These fantasies I do not know. Racists, haters, neo-this, neo-that, anti-(fill in your favorite cause here). I only know my family, my blood since the 1600′s. I know my tradition and my culture. I know my stories and my strengths. Life and hope and tears and death. Thomas Szasa once remarked on the manufacture of madness; I know what he means.

    Time to gather the straw together. To clear the land for planting.

    Good thing I didn’t take time to comment. /[note to self]

16. Rollingforest said,
    
    

    on March 22nd, 2011 at 3:01 pm

    @Patrick:

    Racial equality isn’t anti-white. I say that as a white person. SPLA is just as pro-white as it is pro-black or pro-Hispanic. It’s pro-everybody.

    You are assuming that it was black racists who sprayed those messages. But there is also the possibility that white racists sprayed them in an effort to turn the community against the black residents. I’m not saying that blacks couldn’t have done it. They certainly could have. But we need to let the investigation reach a conclusion before we point fingers.

    I agree that all types of racism should be criticized. But just because the SPLA didn’t publish one incident (especially when the culprits haven’t been caught) doesn’t mean there is an anti-white conspiracy. If you search the website, you can see that the SPLA actually tracks both black racists and Jewish racists as well as white racists. Racism by whites shows up more because it is more common with whites being the majority.

17. Mitch Beales said,
    
    

    on March 22nd, 2011 at 3:07 pm

    “best avoided” is perhaps the key phrase in the definition below. Isn’t it awful when science “overcomplicates” things by striving for the truth?

    World English Dictionary
    Caucasoid (?k??k??z??d) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

    — adj
    1. denoting, relating to, or belonging to the lighter-complexioned supposed racial group of mankind, which includes the peoples indigenous to Europe, N Africa, SW Asia, and the Indian subcontinent and their descendants in other parts of the world

    — n
    2. a member of this racial group

    usage The word Caucasoid and other words ending in -oid and relating to racial group are controversial scientifically and best avoided

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Caucasoid

18. Ruslan Amirkhanov said,
    
    

    on March 22nd, 2011 at 3:12 pm

    “White people: European-descended Caucasoid peoples who identify themselves as such.”

    Oh so if I identify myself as a Zorplakian, then Zorplakians exist? Here’s a piece of advice. You’re not European(unless you are actually from European). Immigrants who have been in Europe for at least a generation are far more “European” than you. Europeans typically do not, nor have they ever, identified themselves as “white.”

    Furthermore, there are many Caucasoid people who are not European-descended, and some of these groups have lived in Europe for hundreds of years nonetheless. Europid-looking Turks lived on the borders of China hundreds of years ago, for example. European-looking Tatars(also Turks), have been living in Poland among other European locations for centuries. They are far more European than you.

    “Anti-white: working to undermine the identity or advancement of European-descended Caucasoid peoples.”

    Oh yeah, those European-descended Caucasoid people are so challenged!!!

    “Feel free to overcomplicate as you so desire.”

    I’m sorry for overcomplicating things, for example by demanding some concrete definitions.

19. Ruslan Amirkhanov said,
    
    

    on March 22nd, 2011 at 3:21 pm

    “[note to self]Don’t even bother commenting. “Racism,” “Hate” and their brethren are straw man arguments. They yet speak as paper tigers; the purveyors of such fallacious logic thrash about while all falls to ruin. ”

    Note to you: Stop trying to sound intellectual and deep. It’s not working.

    “These fantasies I do not know. Racists, haters, neo-this, neo-that, anti-(fill in your favorite cause here).”

    Errrrr….what fantasies? You mean racialist fantasies like the Turner Diaries? Or are you claiming that racists don’t exist?

    ” I only know my family, my blood since the 1600’s. I know my tradition and my culture. I know my stories and my strengths. Life and hope and tears and death. Thomas Szasa once remarked on the manufacture of madness; I know what he means.”"

    If you actually know your “blood” since the 17th century, that would be pretty impressive, but there is a big difference between your family and some kind of “race” with some kind of continuity throughout history. For example, depending on your ancestors’ nationality, the way they identified themselves would have changed several times between the present and 1600.

    Also, the idea of being proud of coming from a particular family, or especially being proud of your nationality or even worse, race, is at best trivial, and at worst idiotic. You didn’t DO anything to be born of this or that nationality. Even if you had some great ancestor back in the 18th century let’s say- you are not him. More importantly, you share nothing in coming with great individuals who might have looked similar to you.

    My many years of experience with racialists has shown me that many of them seem to cling to this idea of great ancestry because they have little they can show for themselves as an individual, and of course we live in a cutthroat society which revolves around the individual and individual accomplishments. I believe that many of those individuals do not have anything seriously wrong with them, but rather they are just expressing a particular form of alienation which has been heavily influenced by decades of conservative memes.

20. R Lavigueur said,
    
    

    on March 22nd, 2011 at 3:22 pm

    Mitch Beales said:

    “If you hate the fact that Amazon is selling certain books let them know.”

    What exactly do you think the point of this article is? They specifically mentioned that they requested a comment from Amazon and didn’t get one, which means that they did let Amazon know, and here they’re simply sharing their observations on the way Amazon chooses which books to market and which books to ban.

    Personally, I don’t support the banning of books regardless of their content, at least as far as fictional works are concerned; but hypocrisy does concern me.

    If Amazon worries about being associated with pornographic fiction but not about being associated with racist fiction, that interesting position is something their shoppers might be interested in knowing. I agree with you that it’s likely all about money, which is probably the exact reason that Amazon weaseled around “The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure” and declines to comment here.

    Alex,

    I suppose that means that your definition of “white” is a cultural one, not a physical one, as anthropologists specializing in human physiology and diversity reject the notion of race, and use the term “Caucasoid” rather differently than you make use of it here. If European descent is important, then how many generations, and does this exclude “darker” skinned Europeans whose history in that continent spans back centuries?

    But then, by challenging your use of the term, I, with my pale skin and blue eyes, have already met your criteria of “Anti-White” by “undermining” your identity. We could debate whether in doing so I’m also undermining my advancement, whatever you mean by such a vague term.

    The problem with race is that the more closely you define the boundaries, the more people who consider themselves within a specific race find themselves outside the definition, which is why racists continually change the definition, and the more ridiculous the entire concept seems. No, while your definition of “white” would certainly resonate with a large portion of the population and seems fine in those words, I have a feeling you’d have a more difficult time narrowing down exactly where the line between white and non-white is drawn.

21. Jack Donovan said,
    
    

    on March 22nd, 2011 at 4:08 pm

    Yup, that’s me.

    Love that the obvious hypocrisy of SPLC was dismissed with a string of insults and “gotcha” gossip. The SPLC is like TMZ for race hysterics.

22. Ruslan Amirkhanov said,
    
    

    on March 22nd, 2011 at 4:16 pm

    Jack, stop whining. Nobody cares about “the SCUM manifesto.” Do you know where I first heard about that piece of work? From Rush Limbaugh’s book, back around 1994(I Told You So). Do you know the second time I heard about it? On this blog, today, when you brought it up. That’s the cultural impact it has had. That is why nobody gets upset about “that kind of sexism”. Because that kind of “sexism” largely doesn’t even exist outside of some obscure groups on college campuses. Sexism against women is far more prevalent, and has a far greater impact.

    This is what people like you can’t seem to understand whether we’re talking about racism, sexism, or whatever. Yes, OF COURSE it’s bad if people are racist against “white people”, but that kind of racism doesn’t have power behind it, causing a myriad of problems throughout society. That is a personal problem, not a social problem.

23. Jack Donovan said,
    
    

    on March 22nd, 2011 at 5:40 pm

    Whining?

    This whole article is whining. It’s a passive-aggressive complaint directed at Amazon for failing to censor according to the SPLC’s delicate ideological sensibilities.

    I don’t care about whether the SCUM manifesto is in print or not. I’d frankly rather female supremacists were open about their aims.

    I was simply pointing out how selective the SPLC’s moral outrage is, and all you can do is rationalize and make excuses for the obvious and consistent hypocrisy from what is essentially a far left smear organization parading itself as some kind of public watchdog group.

    And while your “it doesn’t have power behind it” argument might have been valid 40 years ago, today it just makes you a liar or a fool. Women make up over 50% of the workforce and a significant portion of management. I’ve worked for female managers off and on since I started working 20 years ago.Women wield power over the livelihood of men every day.

    You’re living in a propaganda fantasy world constructed decades ago by the same kinds of obscure academics you say don’t matter.

    Women and people of color have plenty of power in the US, and they wield it in their own self interest–just as white men did when they had more of it and weren’t busy apologizing like slaves. The task of groups like the SPLC is to keep them begging for forgiveness until they can no longer wield ANY power—which is as far as I can tell what passes for “equality” among anti-racist hysterics and whiners like you.

24. Mr. Nationalist said,
    
    

    on March 22nd, 2011 at 6:42 pm

    “Note to you: Stop trying to sound intellectual and deep. It’s not working.”

    I write as I am.

    “Errrr….what fantasies? You mean racialist fantasies like the Turner Diaries? Or are you claiming that racists don’t exist?”

    Objectifying a particular group of people by use of terms like “racist” is a weak argument. I suppose it is easier to quash a salient viewpoint by employing a blanket term than to examine the unique points of the argument. Whites do it as well, you know. Part of what I meant by Szasz and the Manufacture of Madness. The ever popular Racial Slur hurls forth and – presto! – a little bit more of the madness, blinding the ability to see both sides clearly.

    “Racists” is a term for which there is no retort. Why use it? To what end? Instead of “racist” how about we use something a bit more actionable, say “anger” or “angry.” So, do I think angry people exist? Now a discussion can be had regarding the etiology of the anger. A much better – or at least longer – conversation.

    “If you actually know your “blood” since the 17th century, that would be pretty impressive, but there is a big difference between your family and some kind of “race” with some kind of continuity throughout history. For example, depending on your ancestors’ nationality, the way they identified themselves would have changed several times between the present and 1600. ”

    Yes. Twenty plus years of continual research here and abroad. Based upon my research, they identified themselves as American with a common European heritage. Many died in the Revolutionary and Civil War.

    “Also, the idea of being proud of coming from a particular family, or especially being proud of your nationality or even worse, race, is at best trivial, and at worst idiotic.”

    Reallly? How sad. I guess we shouldn’t relay your comments to the Japenese right about now. No. Probably not prudent.

    “Many years of experience with racialists has shown me that many of them seem to cling to this idea of great ancestry because they have little they can show for themselves as an individual…”

    It is always of interest to me that I have never – once – used a term like racialst or racist to describe myself. I find it foist upon me, an unwelcome and puzzling intrusion. When I speak of admiration for my past, I am, of course, speaking directly to simple respect. Respect for the hard work, the saving, the dying, the planting and reaping accomplished so many years ago by my ancestors.

    I speak of respect and I am met with virulent anger. Confusing. Fundamentally, we are speaking of two distinct and perhaps eternally dissonant ideas: utilitarian, rationalist ideas against natural, personality-driven ideas. The rationalist sees people as units/citizens/subjects; the other as flesh and blood, men and women, with unique genetic patterns, strengths, weaknesses. One finds faith in a god above (outside) the world, the other looks within the world.

    Is there ever a resolution? I think not.

25. Christopher Nelson said,
    
    

    on March 22nd, 2011 at 6:45 pm

    SPLC often moans about non issues when concerning white people. There are plenty of racist books by blacks, or anti white books on amazon. So spare me this hypocritical outrage. Besides, who gets to decide what is “racist” anyway? Comparing books on pedophilia to a supposedly “racist” book is silly and illogical. One is a crime, and one is not. I think in America that people still have their freedom of speech and are allowed to speak about racial issues without calls for censorship from a biased organization. Amazon is free to sell what they wish. We are still a semi free country, for now. I know that is shocking to hear, all this silly talk about freedom and all , but it is true.

26. Eric Friel said,
    
    

    on March 22nd, 2011 at 8:08 pm

    I am now looking in doubt that Mr Potok has a life. Perhaps any and all offense should be censored. My question for Mr Potok is this. Did you read Fahrenheit 411 by Ray Bradbury? It is based in the future in which printed literature (books) are banned in general due to there tendency to cause offense. In that mind set for this book, the conclusion was No books=No offense=Happy society.

    All of this brings back another important question I have for you. Are you so poor at countering these peoples literature that you must now target a commercial distribution company? Honestly I expected better from a man who claims to be professional and educated.

    Have a nice day, and Semper Fi. Eric

27. Scott Locklin said,
    
    

    on March 22nd, 2011 at 8:45 pm

    @Ruslan: “Probably because aside from the authors of that “manifesto”, and sexually-frustrated conservative chicken littles, nobody else takes much of an interest in that work.”

    SCUM manifesto is sold and taught in universities all across America. Google shows more than 65,000 hits when you search on it with the author’s name. It is a mainstream book of political hatred which has been implicated in several famous acts of political violence and which targets half the population of America. Let’s try the same comparison on “White Apocalypse.” Google says 865 hits on the entire interwebs. Therefore, the fact of the matter is, nobody cares about obscure white nationalist fantasies, and a LOT of people care about the Society for Cutting Up Men.
    Also, SPLC is very obviously a hate group: as ridiculous as any redneck dressed up in a bedsheet, and thousands of times more powerful as the sum total of all actual racial radicals in the United States. Physician, heal thyself.

28. Tonysoprano said,
    
    

    on March 22nd, 2011 at 9:39 pm

    So, pornography and pedophilia-enabling are bad in Amazon’s mind, yet overt, violent racism is just peachy? Bleeping hypocrites.
    Hypocrites. Why is white people defending themselves worse than porn. Do you not think that when a people defend themselves from an oppressor a bad thing. Black people,hispanic people do it all the time. I bet Amazon has dozens of books by the likes of Maya Angelou for sale chock full of hate for white people.

29. Timothy said,
    
    

    on March 23rd, 2011 at 1:01 am

    Does this SPLC writer not see the difference between rape and pedophilia, which are unlawful acts, and “racism,” which is the holding of a certain set of opinions and therefore not unlawful (although the SPLC would probably like to see it made so)?

30. R Lavigueur said,
    
    

    on March 23rd, 2011 at 8:35 am

    Tonysoprano:

    How about some examples of this great oppression that white people are being held down under, either in the USA or anywhere else for that matter? Aside from having to deal with the fact that they can no longer get all of the jobs, I haven’t actually seen a whole lot of evidence that anti-white racism is spiraling out of control or, for that matter, that white priviliage has really dissappeared in any meaningful way.

    I agree that this is hypocrisy on Amazon’s part, but these attempts to argue white people are being oppressed come across as laughable in the face of the evidence against them and the general silence met with requests for examples of this form of racism. I don’t doubt that there are white victims of racism, who have been targetted purely because of their race, nor am I going to argue that this is somehow better justified or less disgusting than racism in any other form. But one thing that is clear is that it doesn’t happen nearly as often or in such institutionalised fashions.

31. Ruslan Amirkhanov said,
    
    

    on March 23rd, 2011 at 10:35 am

    @Mr. Nationalist;

    “I write as I am.”

    As a pseudo-intellectual?

    “Objectifying a particular group of people by use of terms like “racist” is a weak argument.”

    The argument gains a little strength if they actually are racist though.

    “I suppose it is easier to quash a salient viewpoint by employing a blanket term than to examine the unique points of the argument.”

    White Nationalism is thankfully not a “salient” viewpoint, and probably never will be.

    “Racists” is a term for which there is no retort. Why use it? To what end? Instead of “racist” how about we use something a bit more actionable, say “anger” or “angry.” So, do I think angry people exist? Now a discussion can be had regarding the etiology of the anger. A much better – or at least longer – conversation.”

    I’m sorry but racism has a definition and even if the label is sometimes overused, it is still relevant.

    “Yes. Twenty plus years of continual research here and abroad. Based upon my research, they identified themselves as American with a common European heritage. Many died in the Revolutionary and Civil War.”

    English? Scottish? “British”? And how did you figure out how they idenfied themselves?

    “Reallly? How sad. I guess we shouldn’t relay your comments to the Japenese right about now. No. Probably not prudent.”

    Oh so radical egotistical nationalism will help Japan now? It didn’t work out too well last time.

    “It is always of interest to me that I have never – once – used a term like racialst or racist to describe myself. I find it foist upon me, an unwelcome and puzzling intrusion. ”

    Racialist is a term that some WN’s identify themselves by.

    “When I speak of admiration for my past, I am, of course, speaking directly to simple respect. Respect for the hard work, the saving, the dying, the planting and reaping accomplished so many years ago by my ancestors. ”

    “Your” past? You are not your ancestors.

    “I speak of respect and I am met with virulent anger. Confusing.”

    Who’s angry? My sides split with the responses I get from racialists who come by here.

32. Ruslan Amirkhanov said,
    
    

    on March 23rd, 2011 at 10:38 am

    @Mr. Donovan and crew.

    First off, no, women don’t have such power as you claim in society, 50% of the workforce notwithstanding. Women have worked in large numbers since the dawn of capitalism, yet it would be stupid to claim they have the power you attribute to them.

    About the SCUM manifesto, that’s wonderful how it’s taught in every university(proof of this?), but what impact does it actually have on the world? I would get far more than 65,000 hits on Google if I entered something like “Star Wars slash fiction”, but how much cultural influence does that have?

33. Linnea said,
    
    

    on March 23rd, 2011 at 10:40 am

    “White people defending themselves?” Don’t make me laugh.

    How is talking about KILLING people of other races “white people defending themselves”?? Hmm??

34. Mitch Beales said,
    
    

    on March 23rd, 2011 at 10:58 am

    R Lavigueur the point of my comment was that anyone who does not care to see Amazon facilitating the publication of this stuff would probably find it more effective to contact Amazon and ask others to do the same than to post comments here criticizing Amazon and/or calling for a boycott. My guess is Amazon doesn’t worry about being associated with racism, pornography, or pedophilia. They do worry about “3,000 negative comments in a single day.”

    All in all it’s probably better that Amazon supplies this as a “print on demand” item rather than a vanity publisher doing a run of several hundred copies which the author ends up distributing for free when no one buys his trash.

35. Mr. Nationalist said,
    
    

    on March 23rd, 2011 at 12:22 pm

    @Ruslan Amirkhanov

    My ancestors kept large numbers of diaries, journals and wriitings. I have read them and learned from them.

    The anger of which I spoke refers the use of straw man terms like “hate” and “racist” and so on. The comment was not directed at your words. And the comedic value of comments – on both sides – is one of the reasons I spend time reading various sites like this one.

    As I said, the essence of the debate appears to be centered around two philosophical views: rationalism (subjectivism) and naturalism.

    The rationalist, utilitarian view casts a net and returns amorphous forms; ethical and moral law worked out and written down in finite sentences. There are no underlying eternal truths in the rationalist world; hence, words like race and ancestor have very little value and are anthema to the very existence of rationalism.

    The naturalist view, while not necessarily objective (and I don’t mean to run into a discussion of Ayn Rand), casts a net and returns flesh and blood; thinking, feeling, men and women with traits and differences. Heine spoke of “eternal paths” a description I’ve always enjoyed. Here, race and ancestor have very great value.

    And never the twain shall meet.

36. Alex said,
    
    

    on March 23rd, 2011 at 2:31 pm

    @Ruslan Amirkhanov

    “You’re not European(unless you are actually from European). Immigrants who have been in Europe for at least a generation are far more “European” than you.

    Not true.
    I said “European DESCENDED”. If I were a negro and called myself “African-American”, you would have no problem with this. You only have a problem when White people self-identify. And your hypocritical double-standard is glaringly obvious.

    Immigrants from Africa who have been in Europe for THREE generations are less European than I am regardless if no one in my ancestry has had a physical presence in Europe since the first O’Berra came over from Ireland in the 19th century.

    Blood is thicker than mere residence.

    “I’m sorry for overcomplicating things, for example by demanding some concrete definitions.”

    Concrete definitions that you wouldn’t “demand” of an American-born Asian, and American-born African, or an American-born Latino.

    You only demand White people give the “proper definition” of who they are – and then proceed to dismiss each claim outright.

    This poster denies you the power to frame the discussion to your best advantage.

    You KNOW what we mean by “White people”.

37. Nikita Vissarionovitch Trotsky said,
    
    

    on March 23rd, 2011 at 4:00 pm

    “You’re not European(unless you are actually from European).”

    And the Muslim Arab inhabitants of North Africa, Egypt, Iraq and Syria must be no longer Arab, since they weren’t born in the Arabian peninsula.itself, right? Right?

    “Immigrants who have been in Europe for at least a generation are far more “European” than you.”

    Of course, just look at these following “Europeans”. They provide a fine example of what Ruslan had in mind.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_.....149030.stm

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2.....ailed-life

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded

    “Blood is thicker than mere residence.”

    See, there’s a good point, Ruslan. After all, the Arabs or Africans who were born in France and have lived there all they lives are still absolutely not anymore French than, say Albert Camus was an Arab just because he was born in Algeria, period. Not unless some sort of “Die Another Die”-style gene replacement therapy or a surgery are invented, that can make Thierry Henry or Médine look like Gerard Depardieu would that be even possible. of Likewise, the British-born Indo-Pakistanis are not anymore British than George Orwell was an Indian, just because he happened to be born and having had lived there. Place of birth, the language or religion means absolutely nothing, if one’s phenotype and genotype does not resemble that of the indigenous population.

38. Nikita Vissarionovitch Trotsky said,
    
    

    on March 23rd, 2011 at 4:43 pm

    **
    the British-born Indo-Pakistanis are not anymore British than George Orwell was an Indian, just because he happened to be born in India and having had lived there for some years.

39. Steven said,
    
    

    on March 23rd, 2011 at 6:33 pm

    A plethora of white nationalists blame Jews for their problems, but as I research and read about history, this past month I noticed a strange pattern of egalitarianism and individualism in whites. Jews are not a problem at all, in fact, anti-Semitism is wrong. This means David Duke’s theories about Jews are wrong too. Yes, ethnocentrism from whites or other groups can and does cause racism and anti-Semitism, but the violent proselytism and egalitarianism of Christianity and Western civilization in general are the biggest factors in anti-Semitism and racism.

    From the days of Greek Hellenism to Roman pagans to modern-day European Christendom….whites have always tried to bring in other tribes and nations into their culture and way of life. The Greeks forced their culture onto other people. The Roman Empire conquered other people and spread Roman traditions often forcibly and violently. Christianity is just an extreme form of egalitarianism.

    The cycle of endless anti-Semitism and racism comes from whites themselves. By naively believing that every person on the planet is interchangeable, a fatal flaw of Communism as well, they cause endless discord and violence. I have deep sympathy for Jews and Israel. Jews are a beautiful people who have survived 2500 years of hardship due to their unwavering sense of ethnic and religious identity.

    Christian proselytizing is abhorrent, and I am horrified that Christianity has spread throughout the world due to European colonialism. I believe that people shouldn’t be forced to convert to another religion, or forced to assimilate, every people who consider themselves a people have a right to exist (this includes whites, Asians, Latinos, Africans, Muslims, redheads, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, etc.). Nevertheless, as Ruslan Amirkhanov said in a previous comment, “no country has a ‘right’ to exist.” I agree to a certain extent. People cannot merely assert a “right,” no one merely asserts that they have a right to exist, and expect everyone to abide by it. A nation only exists if she has the power back up her existence. For example, laws are enforced by the police or military. Without police or military, laws are useless.

    In order to combat racism, we must stamp out hatred and anti-Semitism, and also try to repair the aspects of proselytism within Christianity and Islam; however, I don’t believe atheistic materialism will ever replace Christianity or Islam. There has to be a new religion that gives people spiritual and moral guidance, but the religion must have restrictions on proselytizing.

40. Jonas Rand said,
    
    

    on March 23rd, 2011 at 9:05 pm

    @Nikita Trotsky Yes, most North African people (but not all) are Arabs (ethnicity not location), but, unlike Arabs from the Arabian Peninsula, they cannot call themselves Asian (location not ethnicity).Your argument is flawed.

41. Jonas Rand said,
    
    

    on March 23rd, 2011 at 9:36 pm

    @Nikita Trotsky India, when Orwell was born, was an imperial colony of Great Britain. He was part of a colonial-born, but culturally British, group of people who had British national citizenship (not Indian, because there was no such thing). By contrast, Britain is not a colony of India or Pakistan, so yes, the “British-born Indo-Pakistanis” (i.e. British Asians) are more British than George Orwell was Indian. Particularly if they have lived there for multiple generations.

42. R Lavigueur said,
    
    

    on March 23rd, 2011 at 9:52 pm

    “Blood is thicker than mere residence.”

    Except that it isn’t, which is why so many Europeans and North Americans who by your definition are “white” don’t consider themselves such and why so many people these days are rejecting the idea of race. You can argue that people are or are not white, but you’ll never agree on a definition, since groups of humans with specific physical traits vary amid themselves and, more importantly, there is no place between Europe and the Middle East where everyone’s skin tone on one side of the line is suddenly several shades lighter. If you want to bring in genetics, it gets even more fun, with far more differences between individuals in any regional population than exist between populations. Feel free to ask for specific sources, especially if, as I doubt, you are prepared to present your own scientific sources, anthropological or sociological, on the stability of “race” as a concept.

    There are no genetically distinct populations of human beings, only regional variations which shift gradually across regions and are constantly being transformed as populations breed with one another. This has been happening for the entire history of the human species. As far as identities like British, European, and Arab are concerned, it becomes impossible to trace these back beyond the point when they were first written down, and peoples’ conceptions of nationality and ethnicity are extremely transitory, changing depending on the politics of the time.

    “British-born Indo-Pakistanis are not anymore British than George Orwell was an Indian”

    Orwell wasn’t an Indian because he and his family didn’t consider him as such, it has nothing to do with his blood and everything to do with his upbringing. To claim otherwise is ridiculous when taken to its logical conclusion. Should we begin debating whether or not Orwell is British based on whether or not his ancestors who first came to Britain were Norman, Saxon, Celtic, etc? Or would, by your definition, these once important and now meaningless bloodlines define his identity even though he likely never considered the question?

    If, as it seems, you believe that genes matter so much, then how did your genotype manage to become “European” some time after your more distant ancestors stepped out of Africa? It makes no sense to claim that time, culture, religion and society do not alter bloodlines and then claim moments later that at some indeterminate point in prehistory your bloodline did indeed diverge. There are undeniably physical and genetic differences between regional populations of humans, but the only lines that exist between them are cultural ones, continuously redefined, altered, debated and transformed.

    On a more semantic note, blood has nothing to do with inheritance of genes, but does quite nicely evoke discourses of miscegenation and, before we were worried about the blood of skin colours, a time when it was believed that people’s blood differed by social station.

43. Ruslan Amirkhanov said,
    
    

    on March 23rd, 2011 at 11:27 pm

    Time to kill two birds with one stone:

    “Alex said,
    @Ruslan Amirkhanov

    Not true.
    I said “European DESCENDED”. If I were a negro and called myself “African-American”, you would have no problem with this. ”

    Perhaps, but to be sure, “African Americans” aren’t really African either. The thing is though, black Americans lost their heritage by force, whereas many European immigrant groups willingly gave it away for some crumbs from master’s table. See the Irish or Italians for example. Even in the 90′s one could find right-wing leaders who didn’t consider Italians to be “white.”

    “You only have a problem when White people self-identify. And your hypocritical double-standard is glaringly obvious.”

    Wrong, as usual. There is nothing wrong with identifying oneself realistically, as part of an existing ethnicity or culture. There is such a thing as Irish, German, Italian, etc. There is no such thing as “White”. White is historically bound up with domination.

    “Immigrants from Africa who have been in Europe for THREE generations are less European than I am regardless if no one in my ancestry has had a physical presence in Europe since the first O’Berra came over from Ireland in the 19th century.”

    I hate to break your heart but no, you are not European. Sure, physically, genetically, you are. But culturally you are not, especially if an immigrant has lived there for three generations as you have suggested. And culture is the practical thing here. In fact, did you ever wonder why Irish and English people have often expressed such hatred towards Polish and Eastern European immigrants? Because they have a different language and culture.

    But please, don’t believe me. Get on a plane to Ireland and run around telling people you’re Irish. The results will be hilarious.

    “Concrete definitions that you wouldn’t “demand” of an American-born Asian, and American-born African, or an American-born Latino.”

    Well that depends on the motives of said African-American, Latino, etc. The motives of people who want to preserve “whiteness” are domination of society. I have in fact been in debates condemning the radical ideology of some Latino groups, reminding them that identifiers like Mexican are inherently European and not necessarily indigenous.

    “You only demand White people give the “proper definition” of who they are – and then proceed to dismiss each claim outright.”

    See above.

    “This poster denies you the power to frame the discussion to your best advantage.

    You KNOW what we mean by “White people”.”

    No, I don’t. Neither do Europeans.

    Nikita Vissarionovitch Trotsky said,

    on March 23rd, 2011 at 4:00 pm

    “And the Muslim Arab inhabitants of North Africa, Egypt, Iraq and Syria must be no longer Arab, since they weren’t born in the Arabian peninsula.itself, right? Right? ”

    Genius, I am talking about cultural identity here. Yes, we are all aware that “white” Americans descend from Europeans. However, in a practical sense, this is meaningless. Take America’s Polish, Italian, and German descended people. Dump them in their respective ancestral homelands. How do you think they will do? The vast majority of them would be completely lost, as they don’t speak the language. Even those hailing from the British isles would get a series of unexpected shocks.

    And that is only linguistically speaking. Culturally the values of Europe and America are..well. an ocean apart.

    “Of course, just look at these following “Europeans”. They provide a fine example of what Ruslan had in mind.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_…..149030.stm

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2…..ailed-life

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..r_embedded”

    No stories about the life of Polish immigrants in Britain?

    “See, there’s a good point, Ruslan. After all, the Arabs or Africans who were born in France and have lived there all they lives are still absolutely not anymore French than, say Albert Camus was an Arab just because he was born in Algeria, period. Not unless some sort of “Die Another Die”-style gene replacement therapy or a surgery are invented, that can make Thierry Henry or Médine look like Gerard Depardieu would that be even possible. of Likewise, the British-born Indo-Pakistanis are not anymore British than George Orwell was an Indian, just because he happened to be born and having had lived there. Place of birth, the language or religion means absolutely nothing, if one’s phenotype and genotype does not resemble that of the indigenous population.”

    Obviously this concept is too difficult for you, so please go back to the land of your ancestry and run around telling them you are Irish, German, or whatever. Nothing will help you learn better than that.

44. Ruslan Amirkhanov said,
    
    

    on March 23rd, 2011 at 11:33 pm

    Summing up my previous points…what you(Alex and Nikolai) fail to realize is that by advancing this very American identity of “white” you are in fact paving over the diverse variety of European cultures. This is why people like you will never understand, or fit into Europe. You are effectively suggesting that all European culture is somehow monolithic when in fact it is not only not so, but it is also heavily influenced from non-European sources. Of course petty European nationalism has serious problems as well, but trying to pave all this over with a false, American idea of “white” certainly wouldn’t solve that problem.

45. Ruslan Amirkhanov said,
    
    

    on March 24th, 2011 at 9:26 am

    One more thing Mr. Nationalist, I’m sure that pseudo-philosophical waxing easily puts you in the top ranks of the Stormfront intelligentsia, but in the real world outside of Don Black’s realm, it just reads as though Tom Bombadil has been listening to Michael Savage. And never should those twain meet!!!

46. Paul said,
    
    

    on March 24th, 2011 at 11:40 am

    Oh, please! “Patrick” and “Alex” say they are supporters of some “white race”?
    Well, all my ancestors came from northern Europe. I can trace my family tree back to the 1600s myself. Which is kind of interesting, but does NOT make me any better, or any worse, than anyone else.
    I do NOT want to be associated in any way, shape or form with “Patrick” or “Alex” or “Mr. Nationalist” or any group to which they belong. So allow me to state publicly that I am NOT a member of the “white race.” I am a proud member of the HUMAN race.

47. Jordan said,
    
    

    on March 24th, 2011 at 12:05 pm

    Wow…so that’s how racists can get away saying “I’m not racist BUT… [angry racist comment here]“. They just forget the definition of racism. Here, I’ll remind you:
    1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
    2: racial prejudice or discrimination
    -Merriam-Websters’ Online
    So when is someone a racist? When someone holds “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race” or a “racial prejudice” or when they practice “discrimination” based on race they are racist. It really is that simple. Words and their appropriate usage are defined in dictionaries, the largest dictionaries (Merriam-Webster and Oxford) are available online, if you need to know what a word means look it up.
    “Place of birth, the language or religion means absolutely nothing, if one’s phenotype and genotype does not resemble that of the indigenous population.”
    “The nucleotide diversity between humans is about 0.1%” So, everyone is very, very similar, and the only “indiginous population” that anyone resembles is the human polulation. “In general, however, an average of 85% [of that 0.1% variation that is] of genetic variation exists within local populations, ~7% is between local populations within the same continent, and ~8% of variation occurs between large groups living on different continents,. (Lewontin 1972; Jorde et al. 2000a; Hinds et al. 2005).” People you would likely consider ‘white’ are more genetically different from one another than all Europeans are from all Africans.

48. Julie said,
    
    

    on March 24th, 2011 at 1:02 pm

    I’m aware that Amazon has the right to sell this book and I don’t believe in censorship no matter how offensive the subject matter may be to many people. However, the fact that they are promoting it along with other white supremacy material is enough for me to never throw my money their way again. Never. I cannot believe their irresponsibility in promoting material which encourages others – especially teenagers and those who are searching to find “who they are” – to carry on the bigotry and hate that has caused so much grief and pain in this world.
    Bye, Amazon. It’s been nice, especially over the holidays. I think greed, perhaps, has morally bankrupted you.

49. A Z Well said,
    
    

    on March 24th, 2011 at 1:33 pm

    Once again the comment section is far more interesting and informative than the fluff piece that passes for an article.
    America = Free Speech. End of Story.

50. Ruslan Amirkhanov said,
    
    

    on March 24th, 2011 at 2:03 pm

    Incidentally many Europeans, as well as European-descended Americans, display their pride in their heritage all the time without anybody getting upset over it. But for some reason this isn’t enough for White Nationalists. If you aren’t upholding the American-born concept of some “white race”, and blaming all your problems on Jews, non-whites, or whatever, then this isn’t “proud” enough for WNs.

    This is why the “we’re just being proud of our heritage” line doesn’t fly with anyone who has had enough contact and experience with WN communities. For one thing, most WNs, especially the American variety, have never set foot in Europe and thus know nothing about “European culture.” But more important than this, check out any given WN forum and you will find not a celebration of heritage and history but mostly a non-stop whine fest about everything from the undocumented construction workers to subtle “anti-white messages” in the latest Snickers commercial.

51. Aron said,
    
    

    on March 24th, 2011 at 2:13 pm

    A Z

    As Ruslan has put so eloquently on so many occasions, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from critique.

    Aron

52. Sharon said,
    
    

    on March 24th, 2011 at 3:02 pm

    I recall Amazon getting flak a while ago over publishing work that promoted pedophilia.

    http://tinyurl.com/26zymuu

53. Sharon said,
    
    

    on March 24th, 2011 at 3:07 pm

    As Ruslan has put so eloquently on so many occasions, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from critique.<<

    That's true. But the hysterics that Dr. Laura (of the on-air n-word tirade) and others of such ilk would have you believe otherwise. In their world, they can rant and rave as is their right under the 1st Amendment, but you are to be silent if you don't agree with them.

54. Aron said,
    
    

    on March 24th, 2011 at 4:17 pm

    Sharon,

    That is sadly the case. And I truly wish it wasn’t.

    Aron

55. Scott said,
    
    

    on March 24th, 2011 at 5:25 pm

    I really love seeing good folks like Ruslan, R Lavigueur and others mop up the floor intellectually with those others who like to proclaim “there is no racism” or “we’re just ‘white’ people defending ourselves” (hah!) Or to see those like Patrick who post messages believing that they won’t make it onto this forum so that they can explain “(in a lame attempt to deceive the public into thinking most people think like you..)” (Patrick, MOST people DO believe as we do, they just can’t be bothered with “debating” people like you!) And didn’t your message, like so many others who don’t like the SPLC and what it stands UP for, make it onto the board? Yep.

    As far as the article that spawned this thread, I too am a firm believer in free speech, and believe that to combat bad speech one must use more speech, not less. But, I am also free in where to spend my money, and I stopped using Amazon during the Michael Vick debacle when they refused to stop promoting books that defended and showed people how to fight dogs. I wrote them, to which they answered with the standard free speech form email, and I now buy my books and other media elsewhere.

    Real freedom rocks.

56. KaffirFalcon said,
    
    

    on March 24th, 2011 at 5:57 pm

    “Britain is not a colony of India or Pakistan”

    Hahaha, you wouldn’t know that if you were to walk though much of London or Birmingham.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gR3FwTtBVjk

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1b9J8D3tOg

    Likewise, I must point out that even during the height of British rule of India, there wasn’t a single part of that place where the white British or other European residents were a majority, or even slightly outnumbered the Indians. That is all in a jarring contrast to entire boroughs of English cities where the native English people have been thoroughly driven out and ethnically cleansed by the unlimited flood of colonists from Indian subcontinent.

    “Norman, Saxon, Celtic?”

    Being white Europeans they were, they are certainly considered to be founding stock of the British nation.

57. skinnyminny said,
    
    

    on March 24th, 2011 at 6:31 pm

    This is just too funny! The funny part is the arguments that blood is thicker than residence! Really? Then why the fuss over Obama’s birth certificate? Please, do enlighten me!

58. skinnyminny said,
    
    

    on March 24th, 2011 at 7:03 pm

    May I add, I agree with Ruslan 150%.

    But here’s another wildcard, if some of you say you are proud of YOUR history, then why the outcry when we had the day without an immigrant protests? Why the outcry of, “if they love their country so much to fly their flags, they should go back.”

    This is something that needs to be discussed, because immigrants from non-European countries are told to declare their loyalty to this country, meanwhile, people that trace their ancestors to European countries tend to declare their loyalty to European countries instead of the U.S. Wassup?

59. Mr. Nationalist said,
    
    

    on March 24th, 2011 at 7:39 pm

    @Ruslan Amirkhanov

    I have never belonged or posted to Stormfront. No interest. Further, I do not know the works of Don Black or Tom Bombadil.

    I have always held my views, expressed my opinions. Gradually, quite imperceptibly at first, things changed. Despite never uttering a racial slur, despite never believing one race superior over another, despite keeping to myself, I suddenly found myself labeled.

    Amused at first, then, when the attacks – that is the way they felt – expanded I tried to fight back. But, like all straw man contests, one cannot win. In a very real sense, I became involved because of the attacks. That was some 18 years ago. Prior to that – say, ’83 or ’84 – I worked or participated in a variety of left/liberal causes including the Jesse Jackson campaign believing, at the time (though certainly not anymore), in the legitimacy of the man and his message.

    And while I have certainly heard of some of the larger WN sites (like Stormfront) I have never taken an active part. Too many Americans become the caricature drawn up for them by minority groups. I have zero interest in the ego-based competitions mascarading as many American (i.e., WN) programs.

    By the way, supremacy is a fallacy, an erroneous twisitng of intentions. My way, my life, my values and ideals are better for me and my family, my culture. Period. I’ve never understood if the slur “white supremacist” is intentional or just the result of lazy thinking. As someone else noted above, there is no “white race.” White is a convenient term, something many understand, but like the word “black” it paints over the true issues.

    As long as my racial brothers and sisters hang onto ideas like supremacy, our cause will always be lost. Our goal is to focus our unique talents, skills and ideas on maintaining our past history and expanding our future plans. We have only to take care of ourselves and the rest will take care of itself.

60. Poindexter said,
    
    

    on March 24th, 2011 at 8:32 pm

    Among other fallacies, Ruslan Amirkhanov commits a fallacy in suggesting ‘that which has fuzzy edges cannot exist’. That there are mixed races around the edges of the white world, whether it be Europe, the Near East, North Africa, or North America, does not mean that it does not have a very real, extant core. Whether or not Sicilians or various Central Asian peoples are white may be debatable, but those with an overwhelming majority of DNA going back some 40,000 years to the Indo-European ‘Urheimat’ are not subject to Mr Amirkhanov’s efforts at muddying deep waters. For those, generally European, people, ‘whiteness’ is a identity whose latest common ancestor(s) lived only a few thousand years ago in the history of the Indo-European migrations. Mr Amirkhanov’s suggestion that these common cultural and genetic bonds simply do not exist because of the existence of Uighars in China, or because he can vent his spleen in ridiculous, adolescent sarcasm (“Zorplakian”?), holds no sway over non-dogmatic, clear-thinking people everywhere. The reality of the existence of white people is so easily understood that children can perceive it instantly. But Mr Amirkhanov has read many books, and considers himself among a self-appointed priesthood, a sublimely elite and intelligent cadre of true-believers, whose mission it is to proselytize the unenlightened into his cult of postmodern con-artists.

61. LaAmericana said,
    
    

    on March 25th, 2011 at 12:58 am

    Ruslan Amirkhonov

    As much as you seem to be highly informed and intelligent, and I respect your writing style, let me with all due respect, correct you.

    It appears you may be of Turkish or Caucasian ancestry (as in from the Caucasus) given your name and the knowledge that you display of that region in the world.

    However, as a Mexican American, please do not speak for my history or my culture, especially when you do not know what you are speaking of. It merely demonstrates ignorance on your part.

    If you want to speak about radical ideology, I suggest you being with another racists supremacist ideology similar to white supremacy, it’s called Turanism.

    The noun Mexican is NOT a European identifier. It is a word that originates from the Nauhtl (Aztec) word Mexihca. Always has been. It’s similar to the noun Coptic as used by Eygptian Arabs, the word Coptic meaning Egyptian, which is commonly used by Christian Arabs whose ancestory is historically tied to the ancient Eygpitans before Arab invasions, but who speak Arabic culturally and linguistically. Similarly, we Mexicans linguistically speak the Spanish language and adopt certain Spanish cultural customs, and we also identify ourselves as Mexican means Mexihca or Aztec, which is an extension of our historical ancestry.

    Ruslan said:

    “Well that depends on the motives of said African-American, Latino, etc. The motives of people who want to preserve “whiteness” are domination of society. I have in fact been in debates condemning the radical ideology of some Latino groups, reminding them that identifiers like Mexican are inherently European and not necessarily indigenous.”

62. Ruslan Amirkhanov said,
    
    

    on March 25th, 2011 at 2:01 am

    I will support free speech and strike a blow at Amazon at the same time. Most of the racialist novels such as The Turner Diaries and Hunter have been made into PDFs and are posted on some WN sites. Anyone curious about the idiocy contained within such books would be well advised to download those books for free, thus denying Amazon and the respective publishers any money.

    And just as the best things in life are free, so are the worst sometimes- I am of course referring to KD Rebel(which I reviewed above), the Viking Kidnapping-Rape-Polygamy-Exposition-loaded adventure by David Lane.

63. Ruslan Amirkhanov said,
    
    

    on March 25th, 2011 at 7:48 am

    LaAmericana, despite the etymology of the word “Mexico”, it does not change the fact that Mexico’s population has endured considerable European influence in its history, as is evident from the population, much less the language. And let’s also not forget that a large part of what was Mexico has existed as part of the United States, with its very different ethnic make up, since the mid-19th century.

    @Pointdexter. Yes we are all aware of DNA connections between populations. That being said, how many societies in history have been based on the percentage of such-and-such DNA one has? HINT: ZERO. Moreover, European culture is not tied to European DNA; plenty of European cultures have taken much from non-European traditions wherever they meet.

64. Vincent said,
    
    

    on March 25th, 2011 at 9:39 am

    We need to firmly introduce the concept of “political pornography” into the debate. In film we are starting to see the term “gore porn” and some reviewers are refusing to sit through films like the Saw series. We need to have Amazon and others treat political porn the same as they treat other porn.

65. Sam Molloy said,
    
    

    on March 25th, 2011 at 10:27 am

    It’s Farenheit 451, Eric, supposedly the temperature at which books burn. Did you read about the early church burning the Library of Alexandria? Did you hear about Tennessee recently forbidding schools to speak of gay people until, oh, I don’t know, what’s their usual dropout age? Did you hear about Arizona recently outlawing teaching Hispanic Studies in their schools? Like Eugenics, censorship always gets twisted around to benefit those in power.

66. R Lavigueur said,
    
    

    on March 25th, 2011 at 12:41 pm

    Poindexter,

    The more you and other supporters of the idea of a white race attempt to bring up thousands of years of history, the more laughable the argument seems in light of anthropological, sociological and historical fact.

    “That there are mixed races around the edges of the white world, whether it be Europe, the Near East, North Africa, or North America, does not mean that it does not have a very real, extant core.”

    What it means is that you have chosen to define a core based around a specific and arbitrary set of criteria. Many in the United States consider “Hispanic” to be a racial category; while if you went to Europe, you would be hard pressed (in this period of history) to find people who would agree with you that those from the Southern part of the continent are not European. Go back in time and the definitions get blurrier. 40,000 years ago, there was no conception of Europe, and no evidence of a conception of whiteness, because the cultural traditions and history associated with these concepts did not yet exist.

    If you insist on using genetics, the entire nation of America would count as one of your mixed areas, with studies suggesting that at least 1/3rd of “white” Americans have physical and genetic markers which are not associated with European populations. Are these people actually not “white”, even though they believe that they are and even though they are culturally identical to those “whites” around them? If race is genetic, how could these people fail to realize their background?
    .
    Herein lies the problem with race. These people “know” that they are white, even though their DNA demonstrates unambiguously that they are not of pure European ancestry. They characterize themselves as white, instead, because in our culture having a European sounding name, a roughly European family tree, at least down the male branches of the family, and more or less pale skin is sufficient to mark an individual as belonging to the white “race”.

    In practice, it resembles the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy, with those positing a racial identity listing off a number of traits, physical or genetic, and then drawing a line around them, declaring that those are the traits that mark white people. Today, we aren’t nearly as ridiculous about this as in the era of craniometry and phrenology, but as has been mentioned above, genetic similarity between groups is large enough to make attempts at dividing lines pointless.

    “The reality of the existence of white people is so easily understood that children can perceive it instantly.”

    The existence of variation in skin colour, hair colour, hair length, hair texture, eye colour, gender, height, and weight are all readily apparent to children. It is socialization that teaches them that difference in some of these areas is insignificant, while difference in others matters a great deal. This is why children in different areas of the world conceive of these ideas very differently.

    It takes very little effort to convince children in classrooms that people’s eye colour determines personal worth. It does not follow that this reveals how simple and obvious a system of discrimination and distinction on eye colour should be to adult society.

67. Sam Molloy said,
    
    

    on March 26th, 2011 at 9:09 am

    I was raised to be colorblind, and there are good and bad people of all hues. It always galls me when a form I’m filling out asks for my race.

68. Nikita Vissarionovitch Trotsky said,
    
    

    on March 30th, 2011 at 12:42 pm

    “What do the WN rebels do? Well they are obsessed with breeding so they ride into town from time to time and kidnap women to be their wives(yes, plural). Yes that’s right, they steal wives.”

    So, kidnapping white women for the purposes of breeding and multiplying? Why, this basically might as well been a tale of Moors, Tatars or Ottoman Turks who just happened to be trapped in white European men’s bodies!

    “The nucleotide diversity between humans is about 0.1%” So, everyone is very, very similar, and the only “indiginous population” that anyone resembles is the human polulation. “In general, however, an average of 85% [of that 0.1% variation that is] of genetic variation exists within local populations, ~7%….”

    I’m willing to believe this whole “all humans are same” B.S about as much as I do Ted Kennedy’s claims about the 1965 immigration reform that he helped shove through the senate floor not changing America’s ethnic balance, unleashing Third Worlders upon U.S nor will it making entire parts of U.S resemble Third World. And yet, here we are, with America poised to resemble Guyana or Brazil by 2040. Lies and agitprop that are meant to soothe the worries and reassure the whites into embracing their own annihilation, and especially so since 1960s, are as much part of Left’s and Marxists’ agenda and strategy as eggs are to omelettes. The “scientists” like Lewontin, Montagu and others have been well known for their leftist politics and their “one world” and “pro-multiculti” activities.

    “People you would likely consider ‘white’ are more genetically different from one another than all Europeans are from all Africans”

    That was the most obtuse comment I’ve read in this thread. Recent research shows how Caucasians are in fact a relatively homogenous group, with only some if any variations. Even the non-European Caucasoids such as relatively unmixed Berbers of North Africa are much closer to Europeans, especially Basques and Andalusians, than they are to Bedouin Arabs, Sephardi Jews and especially moreso the sub-Saharan Africans both in terms of physical appearance and genes.

    In the end, let me just say that it’s quite bewildering how you Jordan and others in the left manage to contradict yourselves, with defending and fighting for racial diversity, while simultaneously claiming that there’s no racial diffrences between humans whatsoever. But then again, double standards, one sidedness and hypocrysy are the best friends for the likes of you.

69. Ruslan Amirkhanov said,
    
    

    on March 30th, 2011 at 3:10 pm

    “So, kidnapping white women for the purposes of breeding and multiplying? Why, this basically might as well been a tale of Moors, Tatars or Ottoman Turks who just happened to be trapped in white European men’s bodies! ”

    Oh poor historically challenged WN, you amuse me. First of all, yes, various European populations have been victims of slavery hundreds of years ago(of course people like you love talking about how slavery practiced by whites wasn’t so bad). But here are a few points you need to consider:

    1. In many cases, Europeans sold other Europeans into slavery, especially in early Russia. Incidentally, Moscow actually came to power thanks to the Golden Horde. The Ottoman Empire was just as European as it was non-European, as the peculiarities of their system meant that they tended to use local populations in Anatolia and the Balkans rather than displacing them or replacing them. Many famous “Ottomans” were not Turkish at all, but rather Greek, Armenian, Serbian, Bosnian, Albanian, and so on.

    2. Apparently you miss the hypocrisy of WN authors constantly complaining about rape and mistreatment of white women while fantasizing about doing it themselves.

    “I’m willing to believe this whole “all humans are same”

    Who said “all humans are same”? Oh right, nobody.

    ” B.S about as much as I do Ted Kennedy’s claims about the 1965 immigration reform that he helped shove through the senate floor not changing America’s ethnic balance, unleashing Third Worlders upon U.S nor will it making entire parts of U.S resemble Third World.”

    You need to stop getting your information on immigration from Stormfront. History lesson time again!

    1. The 1924 immigration act which the 1965 act effectively ended excluded mainly Europeans from Southern and Eastern Europe. Latin Americans were not covered, nor were Africans(who usually didn’t have resources to immigrate anyway).

    2. The reason why the 1965 immigration act seems to have shifted immigration habits is simple. Prior to 1924, major waves of immigrants came from Europe. Now what happened between WWII and 1965? Let’s see, Ireland’s standard of living improves, Poland, USSR, and other Eastern European countries are behind the Iron Curtain. Money is being dumped into countries like West Germany and Italy.

    In other words, there were good reasons why the trends changed against European immigration. Of course with the exception of the Irish, the 1924 act excluded most Eastern and Southern Europeans anyway.

    Also your claim that America has areas that resemble the Third World today is rather hilarious. Try looking at what life was like in the 1920s or 30s before you start complaining about today.

    “And yet, here we are, with America poised to resemble Guyana or Brazil by 2040.”

    Unlikely.

    “Lies and agitprop that are meant to soothe the worries and reassure the whites into embracing their own annihilation, and especially so since 1960s, are as much part of Left’s and Marxists’ agenda and strategy as eggs are to omelettes. ”

    Blargh MARXIST!! BLARGH!! LEFT!!! 1960S!! ARGH!!!

    “The “scientists” like Lewontin, Montagu and others have been well known for their leftist politics and their “one world” and “pro-multiculti” activities. ”

    You believe in a “white race”. You’re a multi-culturalist.

    “That was the most obtuse comment I’ve read in this thread. Recent research shows how Caucasians are in fact a relatively homogenous group, with only some if any variations. Even the non-European Caucasoids such as relatively unmixed Berbers of North Africa are much closer to Europeans, especially Basques and Andalusians, than they are to Bedouin Arabs, Sephardi Jews and especially moreso the sub-Saharan Africans both in terms of physical appearance and genes. ”

    Name a society that was organized based on genetic data like that. Never mind, you can’t. Better question: Can you explain the benefits of organizing a society based on the genetic data you just mentioned.

70. Buz Thompson said,
    
    

    on March 30th, 2011 at 10:51 pm

    you nuts should not care what others write but rather which nuts it read by……. an idiot yelling in the woods is still just an idiot. but that same idiot with three listeners has just made the score 4 to 0 think about it

71. Izzak said,
    
    

    on August 14th, 2011 at 8:15 pm

    Frankly, it does not matter what you anti-white extremists say. The United States is imploding economically and their will be a regime change by the European American population. Like it or not. You can stick your fingers in your ear, and hold your breath until you pass out, but the boomerang is swinging in the direction of pro-white advocacy. Its done. Well know agitators who have advocated the genocide of whites through massive ethnic cleansing and demographic displacement have violated article II of the Geneva Conventions and will likely be subjected to trial by tribunal. Thats right boys and girls – no jury. Execution for treason and attempts at genocide. You freaks will be punished in the next 5-10 years.

72. David K. Meller said,
    
    

    on December 1st, 2011 at 7:05 pm

    Free speech and the I Amendment have been under attack far more vigorously in the years since 9/11/2001 than liberalism, gender or race egalitarianism, or socialism.

    If ever kudos were deserved for carrying a book, which may be “offensive” to some, but which discusses needed ideas and challenges, it is today! I’m not saying that I necessarily agree with White racial nationalism, but their right to sell their books, publish their newsletters, and even broadcast on radio and Television must be sacrosanct. If their rights to free speech, assembly, and press are restricted today, SPLC and ADL will be on the Government’s verboten list tomorrow!

    Their right of expression and advocacy MUST be protected, or nobody’s is!

    PEACE AND FREEDOM!
    David K. Meller

73. Roman said,
    
    

    on July 13th, 2013 at 6:26 am

    Is Amazon corrupting Children?

    Decades ago, pornography was isolated to those sleazy grey buildings, with bars on the windows and ID checks at the door. Today you can find hundreds of new porn books on Amazon, absolutely free, each and every day, and easily available to children. No credit card is required, no parental locks, and no tracking. Kids are becoming addicted to sexually explicit material, and Amazon is making access to pornography easier than ever.

    But what is even more disturbing is the activity on the Amazon website, where children are being lured into adults only groups, populated by members who read and review erotica. For example, this reporter found the following conversation on the Amazon Customer Discussions:

    Adult#1 says: “10. through me, you can get to Adult #4 and others you know here, and Adult #4 can get you into the “cool places” ;-)”

    Female child-14yo says: “The only objection I have to goodreads is that I’m not old enough to be in the BBA group. :P Would I be able to find most of you at the Dead Writers’ Society?”

    Adult#2 says: “Oh, Pet, I’ve been wanting you to join us over there. … If it won’t let you join, PM Adult #4 (she is easier to find than I am because my name over there is really common) and we’ll figure out a way to let you in.”

    Adult#1 says: “Lie about your DOB year. (I will disavow any knowledge of this suggestion).”

    Adult#3 says: “You do know that what you just did is a criminal offense?”

    And further research leads us to discussion threads started by Adult #4, like “For the Quirky and Racy Among Us”, and “Spanking in erotica: How much is too much?” where she states “I thought spanking should be something of a sexual turn on…” And what is most shocking of all, Adult #4 claims to be a first-grade school teacher.

    Amazon has been notified repeatedly about this group of adults, and has refused to stop the obvious criminal corruption of a minor. The question is why? Is Amazon so desperate to destroy Barnes & Noble with the dumping of free eBooks, that they will sacrifice the mental health of children? Do the lawyers at Amazon even know what the Sherman Act says, or what criminal negligence means in this country.

    Parents around the world need to demand an explanation from Amazon, and an immediate investigation by the US Justice Department. Our children are not pawns in Amazons perverted games and craving for power. It is time to put an end to this criminal behavior against children, and against Barnes & Noble.

    And that is the opinion of this reporter.

    Sources:

    http://www.amazon.com/forum/ro.....H0RIVM8ZDP

Comment